Monday, August 25
This is dry ice, though obviously in a much fancier cup than we would ever use here; however I've been seeking out art in relation to science. Mostly because the most common question I've received is, "You majored in art history? Why are you working in science?" Wow...really? Though I have begun to turn that around and challenge preconceived ideas of art in relation to science. How can science be removed from art? Where would ceramics be without chemistry, or geology for that matter? How are paints created? If it weren't for complex chemical formulas we wouldn't have some of the amazing paintings in existence today. We wouldn't have photography, which works because of complex chemical reactions. Or what about artists whose scientific methods failed? The Last Supper was done in an experimental fresco method that has been disintegrating from the moment Leonardo laid it on the wall. Understanding the medium, in many cases, requires math/perspective, chemical formulas, and a strong knowledge of the periodic elements. Today we studied "Lights and Lasers" which is a class that focuses largely on the visible light spectrum and perspective. I know this stuff, and it relates so strongly to the arts (a visual discipline) that it shouldn't be surprising that I have a strong grasp on the material. Mostly I've begun to develop a desire to enforce the idea that science can be applicable to all academic disciplines; those kids who think that it doesn't matter to them need to see how scientific principles can be applied to everything they do, that it isn't scary, and you don't have to feel dumb because you have questions. Maybe it just annoys me that a select few think that my choice of major is below them. I can study Cassatt AND Copernicus, and be better balanced for it. My hope is that I can communicate that same passion and interest to the kids who take my classes.
Posted by Kelly Visel