Anthony Mueller
Emerson
ENG – 110
March 20th, 2018
Art and Science: An Impossible Mix?
Homeostasis is the biological balance required in nature. It is found throughout our world and even within our whole body. Wouldn’t it only make sense that we should achieve this same balance when developing our brains? To achieve our full potential, and perhaps save humanity, we must find a balance between art and science in our school system. A healthy balance will allow us to achieve optimal innovation, allow kids to have more options, and guide the growth of youth’s brain. If we decide not to achieve this balance, then we could be heading towards a doomed future. Even Yo-Yo Ma, a musician and STEAM advocate, states in his essay “Necessary Edges: Arts, Empathy, and Education” that “Equilibrium is what all life forms are seeking in order to survive”(259). But balancing the two isn’t as easy as forcing the integration of art and science; forceful integration will only lead to kids being turned off from one area or the other. Instead you need to teach some of both in order for students to find their personal golden balance. As a country we need to let kids choose their own balance and learn to respect their choice, only then will we be able to achieve the potential innovation we are capable of.
By using the facts of science and creative views of art, we can come to solutions that neither one can achieve on it’s own. Yo-Yo Ma, an accomplished musician, explains that these two go hand and hand in innovation. Ma clearly states, “The values behind arts integration – collaboration, flexible thinking, and disciplined imagination – lead to the capacity to innovate”(258). Ma is broadly describing the potential our country can obtain if we fix this lack of integration; the creativity of art will lead us to new and fresh ideas. Writer and scientist Jonah Lehrer goes into more of the specifics of integrating art and science in his essay, “The Future of Science…Is Art?.” His article describes the necessity of integrated art with the sciences in order to further advance in science. Lehrer goes on to say that we will reach roadblocks within the scientific world unless we use art to assist in finding the answers. Leher gives an example of the innovation reached when art and science go hand in hand, “For Bohr, the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object”(1). He explains that physicists were stuck on the structure of an atom, that is until Bohr found the answer in abstract art. This is just one example of art and science benefiting each other. Leher and Ma are both right in the fact that by taking the facts of science with the creativity of art we can discover solutions that weren’t at first clear when only looking at it from one side. When we combine the two, we can achieve more than previously thought. These two have already helped us with ideas such as the structure of the atom, but perhaps one day these two will helps us understand the human consciousness or the endless spectrum of the cosmos.
We have evolved to the point of having two major parts of brain: the more empathic art side, and the fact-like scientific side. Therefore it makes sense that when it comes to big issues we should consult both sides of the brain, the artistic/creative side and the science/factual side. Which is exactly why we need to have not only have STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) options for kids in our school system, but art options as well. However, I am not arguing for STEAM (STEM + Art). We are all different people with different brains meaning we have different needs. The education system I’m proposing is more of a sliding scale between art and science classes, with equal opportunity for both. This doesn’t necessarily mean each kid needs to take an exact amount of both kinds of courses. But instead kids should be allowed to build their own schedule to support their choice. This system should start to begin at an early age, with kids allowed to have some choice to introduce them to the system and their other classes being a balance of both science and art. By giving them a balance of both classes, it will introduce children to opportunities in both the sciences and the arts. Then, as they reach High School they should be given complete choice over their classes, a system similar to college. Also similar to college, while you give the student almost complete freedom to choose their classes, they still must take a few classes outside their decided pursuit. This will allow them to fully develop all aspects of their brain. Not only should they be allowed to orient their schedule to their choosing, but they should be supported the whole way. Some may argue that this system is too radical, however I would argue this is the exact system we have in college. Pushing this system to High School would allow people who are art oriented to pursue their career earlier, an advantage that is currently reserved for STEM students. As of now our whole society pushes towards STEM oriented learning. Ma agrees saying, “Because the world economy is so hyper-competitive, much of the focus in education these days from Singapore to Shanghai to American schools is on STEM”(258). As you can tell the push for STEM education isn’t just rooted in our school system, but in the whole structure of our economy. Something must happen to fix the lopsided system.
This change in education will then, hopefully, lead to a science-art balance in society as a whole. This healthy balance of art and science doesn’t mean everyone has to have a personal, equal balance between arts and science. It is more of an overall balance in our society. To explain, there will always be people who are more science inclined and those who are more art inclined; this is partly due to genetics which are out of our control. A healthy balance means not only respecting these differences, but embracing them and listening to those who are different than us. By listening to people with other opinions we can find compromises which offer solutions we might not have seen before. Ma explains it saying, “Only when those meridians or pathways that connect the edges to the middle are open will a life-form survive, and even prosper”(260). For context, we have two sides, an art and science side, and people in between these two sides are on “the edge.”. Ma is quite clear that we need a free flow or respect and ideas from scientists and artists in order to even survive. Ma is completely right. Like any issue, we need to listen to all sides before we make the best decision.
Overall, we not only need change in school systems, but in society as well. As a first step we need to inform our students of these artistic jobs. Then we also need to offer more reasonable salaries for the average “art job”. One may argue that there is a ton of money going into the film industry and some paintings, however, only few select people can obtain these jobs. I would argue that there are more jobs with sustainable salaries in the science field, leaving people pursuing an art degree at a huge disadvantage. It’s a huge step to take, with a lot of change needed, but it is absolutely necessary in order to achieve the homeostasis our society needs.
When we stray to far from the healthy balance of art and science, our society is in danger of facing dire consequences. For an example, our current society is so determined on STEM and making technological advances. This has led to a lack of empathy which is one possible explanation to increase in depression and increase in flaring tempers around the world. As Ma puts it, “Those on the edge are, in effect, the scouts that say ‘there is a waterfall, there is a ledge, there is danger ahead. Stop. Don’t go this way, go that way’”(260). When we achieve the balance of ideas from both art and science, we can avoid certain doom. However, when we veer to far off we are testing fate. On one side we have the path we are arguably heading down now. We are putting too much emphasis on the science, and are disregarding the arts. This has resulted in great advancements in technology, but at a risk. Ma explains we are at risk of losing empathy with loss of art, “Empathetic thinking is something that is severely missing in education today that is only STEM oriented”(259). While I think Ma goes too far to say lack of art in education is to blame for all the lack of empathy, it still certainly plays a role in the lack of emotional connect between people. But lack of empathy isn’t the only problem that happens when we steer to far from art in education, we also lose answers found in art such as the atom model Bohr found.
Lehrer presents a certain issue of our current society, “But before we can unravel these mysteries, our sciences must get past their present limitations. How can we make this happen? My answer is simple: Science needs the arts”(2). As Lehrer points out, sometimes science can’t tell us all the answers; art can give us more insight on these mysteries. Without the empathy or answers provided by art, our society may be taking a turn for the worse. However, the same can be said if we go toward a society that is more art oriented. If we lose the data achieved from science, then we stop solving problems we need to advance as a society. For an example, if we didn’t have farming technology we would not be able to support our current population with enough food, but their is creativity that goes into designing things such as tractors. These are just a few reasons neither art or science alone can support our society, we need to quickly find the balance between the two before it’s to late.
To understand the education we need, we must first know what we currently have. Due to the previously mentioned hyper-competitive society, we mainly have a STEM oriented system in place. In some schools art is required but it is often only one required class and the department as a whole is underfunded. This restricts those who are more art oriented, from pursuing an art career through their high school classes. Alternatively, there are also school that’s are trying to integrate art into science classes. This appears to be what Lehrer is calling for, art blended with science. However Ma explains why this smooth blending is not possible, “Advances in neurobiology now make it clear that we humans have dual neural pathways, one for critical thinking and one for empathetic thinking. Only one pathway can be activated at a time, so when one is on, the other is of”(258). This clear separation between the two explains it is to blend them like Leher suggests. Instead it is easier to offer a wide selection of both art and science classes for students.
So what kind of education do we need? As I proposed earlier, it is completely different than what we have now. First, we need to make sure our art departments can match our STEM departments. This can start with more funding for art classes. How do we do this? We need equal funding for art as we have for science. An argument may be that their is already a lack of funding for science materials, how can we fund art? This question poses a bigger problem, the problem of underfunding in school. However I don’t think this underfunding issue should affect artistic kids more than science kids, it should affect them equally. Second, we need more options for “art” classes. Right now most schools only have the basic art classes which includes drawing and painting. However we need more options like photography, cooking, sculpting, etc. I understand right now it’s challenging to include all these options, but increased education funding would help start; this typically comes from the government. Also allowing students to document “art” type work outside of school and count it as a class will further help expand the art classrooms. Lastly, no matter whether students want to go down an art path or a STEM path, they should be required to take a few classes of the opposite path. In the end these classes will stimulate one half on the brain more than the other, so it is important that as you develop your brain, you develop it in a balanced manner. Without this balance we could risk not achieving our full potential. Overall, these are some huge steps to take in order to achieve this new school system. However it is essential we at least start moving in this new direction before it is too late.
In the end we need to start moving towards a self-decide educational system. While Lehrer’s initial idea of combining art and science doesn’t sound awful, it is difficult to achieve. The stark differences in art and science make Lehrer’s proposal more radical than mine in an education sense. On the other hand, Ma’s idea is on the right track, but I don’t believe it allows individuals to achieve their full potential The idea of instead raising art up as a smart career is still challenging, but possible. We need to make large steps as a school system and a society in order to achieve the homeostasis we need. If no other point is agreeable then at least listen to this. We have a whole side of our brain dedicated towards the type of thinking achieved through art. This didn’t appear out of nowhere, we evolved to produce this whole half of our brain. The least we can do, even if we prefer to use the scientific side, is to stimulate this side of our brain from time to time. Maybe we should even use and listen to it. After all there is a reason we process this creative half of our brain. If we don’t then we could be heading down a dangerous path as a species.
Works Cited
Lehrer, Jonah. “The Future of Science … Is Art?”. Seed Magazine. Published by Seed Media
Group, January 16th, 2008.
Ma, Yo-Yo. “Necessary Edges: Arts, Empathy, and Education”. Emerging, Edited by John
Sullivan, 3rd ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 257-261.
