Hello class, my name is Pietro.
One of the reasons why you'll be reading my blogs in the upcoming weeks, is because, as David Bohm proclaims, I believe that “the creative possibilities of my mind are generally still dormant” (137). So far I have been passive with regards to the discussion of the two cultures. Using my experience at UCLA as a study case, I have not been able to build a bridge to fill the gap between science and arts. To me these disciplines represent endless possibilities I can’t quite grasp yet, and this partially explains my uncertainty in declaring a major.
I do believe, though, in the benefits that could be produced by merging arts and sciences, by merging the “intuitive wild aspect of artistic practice and the rationality of the scientific method” (Vesna, 122). As Charles Percy Snow highlights in his 1959 lecture, the separation of humanities and sciences leads many capable minds to ignore science as a vocation and prevents society from solving the world’s main issue: the wealth gap, caused by industrialization which threatens global stability.
I do believe, though, in the benefits that could be produced by merging arts and sciences, by merging the “intuitive wild aspect of artistic practice and the rationality of the scientific method” (Vesna, 122). As Charles Percy Snow highlights in his 1959 lecture, the separation of humanities and sciences leads many capable minds to ignore science as a vocation and prevents society from solving the world’s main issue: the wealth gap, caused by industrialization which threatens global stability.
Stephen Wilson, came to my rescue and helped me dig deeper into this topic. Mainly I found myself to agree with his thesis that artists’ most powerful response is to become scientists themselves, opening up enormous opportunities for the domain of the arts. Wilson also points out how this is not a 2-way street, meaning that “while there are some notable exceptions of artists influencing technological research, there is much more influence going the other way” (4). Scientists and technologists don’t believe that artists “have much to tell them about their business” (4). This reminded me of John Brockman’s counterpoint to Snow’s optimistic view of the two cultures becoming inextricably connected, according to which there is no need for trying to establish communication between scientists and literary intellectuals, whom he calls middlemen, because “scientists are communicating directly to the general public”, implicitly omitting artists’ contributions (2).
Citations:
Bohm, David. "On Creativity." Leonardo, 1.2 (1968):137-149.
Vesna, Victoria. "Toward a Third Culture: Being in between." Leonardo 34.2 (2001): 121-125.
Wilson, Stephen. "Myths and Confusions in Thinking about Art/Science/Technology." College Art Association Meetings, 2000, New York City.
Snow, Charles Percy. The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution. Vol 960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Graham-Rowe, Duncan. "Matchmaking with science and art." Wired, 2011, UK.
Apple Inc. When sciences and arts meet.
I am coming to understand the patriarchal bias and the pressure to fall in line with it. I do not know why, with the growth of the queer community, this still exists. But to label it and talk about the damages to individuals it causes is important.
ReplyDelete