I think we’re inherently creative beings, and traditional academic institutions too often deny and tear out that creativity, trying to sever it off from us so we believe we aren’t good at art or that only some people are creative or that science as you said is the more noble pursuit.
I think we need to return to a type of learning that weaves it all back together. You certainly are not daft 😊
I, too, have spent most of my life imagining art as something so separate from me and the superior factual knowledge I have . But that’s not true, I don think. Not at all.
Suppression of our creativity is a tool used to control, because it leads to new thinking that challenges, dares us to ask questions. And that scares those in power.
I think about how people spoke to me when I said I wanted to do more creative pursuits for my degree/life: “but you’re so good at science and math!” It’s not an either/or, as you say.
When I was a music major at York University, each of the disciplines had a mandatory science course related to that art. For music and film it was the physics of light and sound, for dance and visual art it was anatomy. I, of course, wanted to take anatomy because it was one of my interests, but because I was a music major I had to take the physics class.
I learned so much about acoustics in that class that it influenced my music and composition practice in an intense way. This was literally science in service to the arts. And I wish there had been more of that in elementary and high school.
That is incredible, Lia. Thank you for sharing! I never even thought that the influence could be that much further upstream. In what way did you write music differently, or play differently, as a result?
Being aware of what sort of sounds worked in different environments was a big one. In my composition career I ended up writing a lot of music for voice and scores for dance performances. Only certain timbres of sound carry well for outdoor performances so when writing for those environments I shifted the music. When I booked performance spaces myself, I chose spaces that would work well for what I wanted to perform. When I taught voice in the drama department at U Sask, I booked time in the anechoic chamber in the engineering department so the students could experience what a truly dead acoustic space was like to attempt to project their voices into.
It was only through working with other musicians and composers that I realized how much my knowledge of the physics of acoustics helped me. Most other people without that training seemed frustrated when performing outdoors or in acoustically dead spaces.
I know that physicists and art historians are working together to recover or reproduce acoustic effects of long lost buildings, mainly churches and cathedrals. There was one I vaguely recalled that attempted to do so for St. Paul's, pre-fire 1666. Part of the inspiration was a sermon by John Donne, who was Dean of the place. Again, here's science and the arts walking in tandem.
I’m going to have to dig into this, Mark. I love this idea and it makes sense, but how many times do we see that kind of interdisciplinary collaboration?
Not many, for sure. I usually take note of the articles I run across, but I can't find my references on this. I think I ran into two articles -- one on Donne and the St. Paul's sonic reconstruction (NPR?) and the other on reconstruction of sounds and acoustic properties in a medieval cathedral (some more science-y publication?). If you find anything, let me know.
Paul Jaskot, one of the seminar guests, has mentioned the St. Paul's thing to me. He's used GIS to digitally reconstruct settings and buildings in the mid-twentieth century, including the ghetto of Krakow, both built and planned.
This is fascinating! Our local symphony worked hard to make sure one of our local churches wasn’t torn down to make room for an apartment building because it has such incredible acoustics.
That’s fascinating, Lia. Were there times that you thought, “If this was being performed in this space instead of that one, I would change my approach?” Whether it constrained your creativity?
Absolutely! Sometimes I would shift the program to suit the space, but when that wasn’t possible sometimes I would shift how I performed. I always preferred to use the acoustics of the space when possible, but sometimes it was necessary to use a microphone.
Great post, Bryn. This touchy subject of science and arts is on my mind a lot, because I, like you, have a foot on both pathways. I think that in some ways modern science has captured much of knowledge, putting us in a box when we want to think about knowledge, truth, meaning. I know this has been a really pressing philosophical concern for a long time. I have my students struggle through a really difficult Heidegger essay "concerning technology" that wrestles with the issue. I'm really suspicious of Heidegger just because of his dark personal history, but the essay lays out some really important points. One of the most intriguing things to me appears at the end of the essay, when he tries to find a way out of the tangle he see in modern technology (and modern science). He cites Hölderlin, and asserts -- not exactly convincingly probably -- that "fine art" can free humankind from the blinding and invisible shackles of modern technology.
I'm prepping for my seminar that starts in August, and this topic hovers over much of what ends up being discussed. I wish you could be part of that seminar. It'd be fun and wonderful to explore with you. I think you have a sense of the stakes and knowledge of the pieces of the issue.
I’d love to hear some of these seminar discussions, Mark. (And I’m going to look up that essay by Heidegger.) I think it’s an important topic to consider, especially when overlaid with the technology/AI piece...this idea of whether AI will free us to “indulge” in more creative, artistic pursuits. I’ve heard that idea in places, that it will allow us to take part in pastimes and leisure, but I don’t buy it. If it wasn’t a priority now, why would it be one with AI doing the drudgery? So to that point, I would initially agree with his assertion that fine art will free us. (Until the fine art is all made by AI, of course 😃)
Being "freed" from drudgery, I think, might just diminish the satisfaction. Art is more than its consumption, of course, and gluttons indulge ... but do they savor?
That feels like such a deep well, Bryn! There is (or can be) beauty or art in simple structure. Yet doing a deep dive into structure or process reveals the beauty of process or function. The structure intrigues, as is a mystery in itself and also the journey of discovery or creation.
The idea of intelligent design, that the deeper you delve, you infer the element of a creator or artist. I am well amateur at both!
Absolutely beauty in (supposed) simplicity - I think it’s what I love most about nature. Once you zone into a blade of grass or a tiny ant scurrying or a piece of rock, you come into layers and structures and processes so complicated. 🌱
Such a thought-provoking post, Bryn. And a gorgeous portrait of Sinead O'Connor - such sad news. The pink outline is a beautiful touch.
Thank you, Rebecca! Reading up on her yesterday made me realize how little I knew of her being such a badass. 💪🏻
An extraordinary woman, and an exceptional musician. 🙌
I think we’re inherently creative beings, and traditional academic institutions too often deny and tear out that creativity, trying to sever it off from us so we believe we aren’t good at art or that only some people are creative or that science as you said is the more noble pursuit.
I think we need to return to a type of learning that weaves it all back together. You certainly are not daft 😊
I, too, have spent most of my life imagining art as something so separate from me and the superior factual knowledge I have . But that’s not true, I don think. Not at all.
Suppression of our creativity is a tool used to control, because it leads to new thinking that challenges, dares us to ask questions. And that scares those in power.
Agreed !
Oh , I also meant to tell you I’m finishing the end of everything right now! Such a mind-blowing , fun book!
Isn’t she a great writer? I’m not a big physics person but thought she dealt with the subject matter really well.
Yes! I loved the way she talked about the topic
I think about how people spoke to me when I said I wanted to do more creative pursuits for my degree/life: “but you’re so good at science and math!” It’s not an either/or, as you say.
Like you were settling for not doing math or science. Or that somehow your profession isn’t “hard” because it isn’t non-stop linear algebra. Ugh.
Or I was “better” than that, I didn’t need to lower myself to be creative. It was extremely gross!
When I was a music major at York University, each of the disciplines had a mandatory science course related to that art. For music and film it was the physics of light and sound, for dance and visual art it was anatomy. I, of course, wanted to take anatomy because it was one of my interests, but because I was a music major I had to take the physics class.
I learned so much about acoustics in that class that it influenced my music and composition practice in an intense way. This was literally science in service to the arts. And I wish there had been more of that in elementary and high school.
That is incredible, Lia. Thank you for sharing! I never even thought that the influence could be that much further upstream. In what way did you write music differently, or play differently, as a result?
Being aware of what sort of sounds worked in different environments was a big one. In my composition career I ended up writing a lot of music for voice and scores for dance performances. Only certain timbres of sound carry well for outdoor performances so when writing for those environments I shifted the music. When I booked performance spaces myself, I chose spaces that would work well for what I wanted to perform. When I taught voice in the drama department at U Sask, I booked time in the anechoic chamber in the engineering department so the students could experience what a truly dead acoustic space was like to attempt to project their voices into.
It was only through working with other musicians and composers that I realized how much my knowledge of the physics of acoustics helped me. Most other people without that training seemed frustrated when performing outdoors or in acoustically dead spaces.
I know that physicists and art historians are working together to recover or reproduce acoustic effects of long lost buildings, mainly churches and cathedrals. There was one I vaguely recalled that attempted to do so for St. Paul's, pre-fire 1666. Part of the inspiration was a sermon by John Donne, who was Dean of the place. Again, here's science and the arts walking in tandem.
I’m going to have to dig into this, Mark. I love this idea and it makes sense, but how many times do we see that kind of interdisciplinary collaboration?
Not many, for sure. I usually take note of the articles I run across, but I can't find my references on this. I think I ran into two articles -- one on Donne and the St. Paul's sonic reconstruction (NPR?) and the other on reconstruction of sounds and acoustic properties in a medieval cathedral (some more science-y publication?). If you find anything, let me know.
Paul Jaskot, one of the seminar guests, has mentioned the St. Paul's thing to me. He's used GIS to digitally reconstruct settings and buildings in the mid-twentieth century, including the ghetto of Krakow, both built and planned.
This is fascinating! Our local symphony worked hard to make sure one of our local churches wasn’t torn down to make room for an apartment building because it has such incredible acoustics.
That’s fascinating, Lia. Were there times that you thought, “If this was being performed in this space instead of that one, I would change my approach?” Whether it constrained your creativity?
Absolutely! Sometimes I would shift the program to suit the space, but when that wasn’t possible sometimes I would shift how I performed. I always preferred to use the acoustics of the space when possible, but sometimes it was necessary to use a microphone.
Great post, Bryn. This touchy subject of science and arts is on my mind a lot, because I, like you, have a foot on both pathways. I think that in some ways modern science has captured much of knowledge, putting us in a box when we want to think about knowledge, truth, meaning. I know this has been a really pressing philosophical concern for a long time. I have my students struggle through a really difficult Heidegger essay "concerning technology" that wrestles with the issue. I'm really suspicious of Heidegger just because of his dark personal history, but the essay lays out some really important points. One of the most intriguing things to me appears at the end of the essay, when he tries to find a way out of the tangle he see in modern technology (and modern science). He cites Hölderlin, and asserts -- not exactly convincingly probably -- that "fine art" can free humankind from the blinding and invisible shackles of modern technology.
I'm prepping for my seminar that starts in August, and this topic hovers over much of what ends up being discussed. I wish you could be part of that seminar. It'd be fun and wonderful to explore with you. I think you have a sense of the stakes and knowledge of the pieces of the issue.
I’d love to hear some of these seminar discussions, Mark. (And I’m going to look up that essay by Heidegger.) I think it’s an important topic to consider, especially when overlaid with the technology/AI piece...this idea of whether AI will free us to “indulge” in more creative, artistic pursuits. I’ve heard that idea in places, that it will allow us to take part in pastimes and leisure, but I don’t buy it. If it wasn’t a priority now, why would it be one with AI doing the drudgery? So to that point, I would initially agree with his assertion that fine art will free us. (Until the fine art is all made by AI, of course 😃)
Being "freed" from drudgery, I think, might just diminish the satisfaction. Art is more than its consumption, of course, and gluttons indulge ... but do they savor?
That feels like such a deep well, Bryn! There is (or can be) beauty or art in simple structure. Yet doing a deep dive into structure or process reveals the beauty of process or function. The structure intrigues, as is a mystery in itself and also the journey of discovery or creation.
The idea of intelligent design, that the deeper you delve, you infer the element of a creator or artist. I am well amateur at both!
Absolutely beauty in (supposed) simplicity - I think it’s what I love most about nature. Once you zone into a blade of grass or a tiny ant scurrying or a piece of rock, you come into layers and structures and processes so complicated. 🌱