Matters of Opinion

‘The Sciences for the Arts’ builds yet another bridge. The goals of the conference were to bring the scientific, artistic, and educational communities together, to review recent research results applicable to arts education and to address some of the current misunderstandings in research bridging brain/behavior research and the arts. It also initiated exploration of research possibilities inherent in the network of UC ArtsBridge sites. The overriding goal was “… to build a coalition in support of restoring the arts to our schools in innovative ways that affirm the intrinsic and instrumental values of the arts.” That process is in its early stages.

The subject of this Conference is of special interest to me because I participated in its planning and implementation. But I hope it will also prove to be of special interest to many others. Although originating from the UC Arts Bridge initiative, it drew speakers and participants from across the United States. Its “Proceedings” will be published. In the interim, I’d like to mention a few points now.

First, the current distinction, one might even say cleavage, between the sciences and the arts is a relatively new one across the broad sweep of human history. Dr. Diana Deutsch, of UC San Diego, presented an insightful and illuminating history of relationships between the arts and the sciences. She noted that a distinction between the two areas would have puzzled the most accomplished individuals from Antiquity through the Renaissance up to the Industrial Revolution. Historically, at least since Pythagoras (c. 530 B.C.), music and mathematics were considered to be sibling disciplines. Figures such as Galileo were not only practitioners of both the sciences and the arts, but also saw an extremely close relationship across these now separate domains. Newton linked physics to music as well. And for most of human intellectual history, music and other arts comprised an essential component of education. The advent of the extreme division of labor probably contributed to the split. Perhaps this resulted from a focus on the products of effort rather than on the processes of thinking and problem solving.

In any event, the Columbia University findings seem relevant to relationships between the arts and the sciences because the beneficial approaches to cognition and action that can result from a high arts curriculum, while often born and nurtured in the arts, apply to the subjects of science as well. So a rapprochement between the arts and sciences may begin within the individual brain. It is true that the sciences use methods, such as experimental design, that are special to them. But the methods alone are not sufficient. It is the thinking behind the methods, that is critical for success.

A second lesson of the conference came not from the podium but from the audience. While unanimity of opinion was not present (nor should have been), unanimity of interest could be sensed. Arts educators and representatives of various arts agencies and foundations were deeply involved in the proceedings. Their questions were insightful and incisive and appropriately challenging. As arts educators increasingly come to see the importance of asking research questions in a rigorous manner, so scientists increasingly need to better understand the actual classroom situation. This jointly beneficial dialogue is a ship recently launched. We look forward to the voyage.