So I think maybe I died and went to cvj heaven. Let me explain. I mentioned to you a while ago the freshman seminar entitled “The Art and Science of Seeing and the Seeing and Science of Art”, for which there was an enrollment snafu. Well, it is continuing, and on Wednesday afternoons, I sit under the trees with two students for an hour and a half (KC Cole pulled out, since it would be a ridiculous professor-student ratio otherwise) and talk about a huge spectrum of things that fall into this category, as well as some of the things that come up in the Visions and Voices series.
Last week and this week, we discussed -with illustrations- two pretty obvious topics that come up first in people minds when the words “Science” and “Art” are in the same sentence. Those two topics are Fractals, and Escher. Quite obvious as “science-meets-art” topics go (and tiresomely so sometimes) but nontheless I believe it would be neglectful of us not to explore some of the interesting and wonderful themes, images, and techniques that those topics touch upon. Escher last week, Fractals this week. It was a lot of fun. I will tell you a bit about it later, in view of the lack of time (I had a breakthrough in a little computation that I really should get back to before I have to prepare a class).
Anyway, I come away from these sessions thinking how great it is to let oneself broaden the canvas upon which one can jot down one’s reflections upon and reactions (emotional, intellectual, otherwise) to when one looks at a piece of art. The broadening I refer to means simply to include science. Either directly or indirectly. This is the tack we’ve been taking in this seminar, and so far I think we’ve been having a lot of fun and learning a lot. I’ve been reflecting on how wonderful it would be if more people, in the context of art appreciation, would allow themselves the latitude to do this. Sadly, ignorance of what science is about, and the fear of science, topics that I talk about a lot on this blog, maintain huge barriers between art and science in most people’s minds, and so there is a whole dimension of appreciation that goes unlocked as a result (not just in the obvious context of Escher, etc, but in appreciating any art form). It was especially sad to see six freshmen disappear from the enrollment on the class principally because the word “science” was inserted into the title of what they thought would be an art appreciation seminar. Well, it is still an art appreciation seminar, but those who are coming are learning to look at art, and the world around them, with new eyes, and maybe seeing a broader and/or deeper spectrum.
So I go into “What if…” mode for a while on my ride back to my office and feel a little sad that even bright young people who are on campus to learn new things are selecting themselves out of such opportunities to engage with their world because of the word “science”. Sigh.
So imagine my delight last night (having finished a seminar on fractals earlier that day, pointing out several examples of “fractal geometry” in art and nature) when and architect friend of mine* emailed me a link to an institute, right here in LA, that seems to be right on the same track I’m talking about!
It is the Institute for Figuring, (founded by science writer Margaret Wertheim) right here in LA (yay!) and you’ve got to read the stuff on their site to believe it:
The Institute For Figuring is an educational organization dedicated to enhancing the public understanding of figures and figuring techniques.
The Instituteâ€™s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.
Unbelievable. It is as though they were at the last two seminars! It gets better…:
Among the events on their events page, there is – get this – a Hyperbolic Cactus Garden and Hyperbolic Kelps fair at the LA County fair. Great! There’s “Crocheting the Hyperbolic Plane” (see picture above, and more pictures at this flickr site), and there’s ” Structural Considerations of the Business Card Sponge”, by Jeannine Mosely, who created the giant model of the fractal called “Menger’s Sponge”, out of business cards. Yes, business cards. There’s much more on their site (galleries, exhibitions, events… etc).
On their “about” page, they are charmingly and unashamedly really into their groove:
The Institute does not yet have a physical space, but our permanent location in the conceptual landscape is on the edge of this iconic fractal.
…at this point they show a shot of the Mandelbrot Set (they give links to explain what that is) and a zoom into the shape, showing “where they are”. It is at this point I looked back at their icon and realized what the two numbers in brackets mean. I think that they must be the coordinates in the complex plane showing where they are on the set. Ok, it’s a bit silly in the scheme of things – but why not? (It is ok to be comfortable to paly with science themes adn jokes in everyday language, and we should not be shy about doing so for fear of having the words “geek” and “nerd” poked at us. See earlier post.)
Ok. I’d better stop here. But this is really great and it has really made my day to know that people are creating such great projects out there, and right here in the city too.