Abstract
Two girls (10- and 11-years-old) sit in front of trays filled with water having a rheoscopic material. (This is a special paint having very fine suspended particles that readily show the movement of the water.) They place drops of food color at various points in the tray and either blow on the food color to make it move or move a Popsicle stick through these patches of color. The resulting patterns are either curved lines or spirals of different sizes. This is the same activity described at the beginning of Chapter 7. Because of the very fine particles, slight disturbance will appear when air is blown across the surface. The camera is fixed on one of the girls who is highly focused and systematic in her investigation. She starts out by placing some food color in the middle of the tray that is in front of her and moves the stick back and forth. This creates an undefined shape. She also blows on the surface to see what happens. This causes the amorphous shape to move away from her and expand slightly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Another who has studied older artifacts and commented on the relationship between artists’ keen observation of changes and materials is Jon Eklund (1978). He gives examples of how the Greek potter must have been aware of chemical changes that occurred when certain amount of alkali glaze were added to the clay. This gave the blacken portion of these pots. He also observes that the practice of subjecting different materials to fire probably resulted in the discoveries of new materials for use by artist. These empirical types of explorations contribute toward a growing understanding of materials laying the foundation for a more scientific development.
- 2.
Evelyn Fox-Keller (2002, pp. 50–79) disputes the usefulness of D’Arcy Thompson’s approach in terms of providing a productive framework for research at least in the area of cellular biology.
- 3.
This statement is a summary of a development of each of these assertions. The reader would do well to go to the original article to fully appreciate both the wonderful drawings and the developed argument showing how contemporary aesthetic theories seem to directly influenced not only the thinking of these biologists, but also the very observations they reported and the manner in which they render these visually.
- 4.
This is a term that was used by one of the master teachers who was involved with the Elementary Science Study in the 1970s.
References
Arnstine, Donald (1970). Aesthetic Qualities in Experience and Learning, in R. Smith (Ed.), Aesthetic Education, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press, pp. 21–44.
Beane, James (1997). Curriculum Integration; Designing the Core of Democratic Education, New York, Teachers College Press.
Beardsley, Monroe (1970). Aesthetic Theory and Educational Theory, in R. Smith (Ed.), Aesthetic Education, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press, pp. 3–20.
Berlyne, Daniel (1974). Studies in New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation, New York, Wiley.
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (1987). Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Curtin, Deane (Ed.). (1982). The Aesthetic Dimension of Science, New York, Philosophical Library.
Cyril, Stanly Smith (1976). On Art, Invention and Technology, Technology Review, pp. 36–41.
Damasio, Antonio (1999). Descarte’ Error: Emotion Reason and the Human Brain, New York, Grosset/Rutnam.
Dewey, John (1934). Art as Experience, New York, Capricorn Books/Heineman.
Eklund, Jon (1978). Art Opens Way for Science, Chemical and Engineering News, 5(1078), 25–32.
Elkins, James (1996). The Object Stares Back, San Diego, CA, Harcourt.
Elkins, James (1999). The Domain Of Images, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
Fox-Keller, Evelyn (2002). Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors and Machines. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Hindle, Brooke (1981). Emulation and Invention, New York, W.W. Norton.
Johnson, Mark (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (1992). Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette and Inhelder, Barbel (1974/75). If You Want to Get Ahead, Get a Theory, Cognition, 3(3), 195–211.
Kemp, Marcel (2000). Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, The University of California Press.
Levy, Jerre. Cerebral Asymmetry and Aesthetic Experience, In Beauty and the Brain: Biological aspects of Aesthetics, Rentschler; Ingo, Herzberger, Barbara; Epstein, David; (eds) Birkhauser Verlag, Basel
Mithen, Steven (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science, London, Thames and Hudson.
Pearce, Peter (1980). Structure in Nature Is a Strategy for Design, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Poincare, Henri (1913). The Foundations of Science, New York, The Science Press, pp. 366–367.
Read, Herbert (1955). Icon and Idea, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Ritterbush, Philip (1970). The Art of Organic Forms, Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1985). Visual Thinking: The Art of Imagining Reality, Transactions American Philosophical Society, 75(6), 50–67.
Root-Bernstein, Robert (1989). Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Sparshott, Francis E. (1963). The Structure of Aesthetics, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Thompson, D’Arcy (1942). On Growth and Form, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Republished by Dover in 1992, New York.
Vickers, Geoffrey (1978). Rationality and Intuition, in Judith Wechsler (Ed.), On Aesthetics in Science, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 143–165.
Vogel, Steven (1988). Life’s Devices, The Physical World of Animals and Plants, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, pp. 114–116.
Wechsler, Judith (Ed.). (1978). On Aesthetics in Science, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Wilson, Frank (1998). The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture, New York, Pantheon Books.
Wohlwill, Joachim (1986). Varieties of Exploratory Activity in Dietmar Gorlitz and Joachim Wohlwill (Eds.), Curiosity, Imagination and Play: On the Development of Spontaneous Cognitive and Motivational Processes, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
Zubrowski, Bernard (1996). Mapping Water Currents with Food Coloring: Variable Exploration, Learning to See: Observing Children’s Inquiry in Science [video], Newton, MA, The Education Development Center.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zubrowski, B. (2009). Aesthetics in the Learning of Science. In: Exploration and Meaning Making in the Learning of Science. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2496-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2496-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2495-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2496-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)