I understand that they can benefit from each and every one of the subjects listed, offering for creativity and ideas side and the other practical knowledge, mobilizing new approaches and perspectives to discover and provide new answers or solutions to existing problematic in everyday life.

Thanks @Federico. I agree about the potential of arts education to increase:

"creativity and ideas ...other practical knowledge,...new approaches and perspectives."

Arts, in so many ways provoke curiosity., wonder. This amazement ignites a desire to explain the bewildering art in terms of science. The kaleidoscopic rainbow led to the discovery that it is a prism. The desire to create gold from a stone led to scientific explorations that resulted to discovery of new metals. The search for elixir came out with medicines. Science and art are as interconnected as heart and brain, as male and female, etc. Sometimes, science results to art (look at the cinema of today because of technology) or art results to science (folk tales about human flight led to airplanes and jets).

What a remarkable coincidence. Miranda you must have read my thoughts. Yesterday I was discussing the same issues with one of my colleagues and we both came into a point agreeing that science and literature are not very different. These are actually same but described in a different language.

The rhythm of poetry or song is just a very organized mathematical equation. Learning literature, history, music and other languages thus are necessary to understand the basic usable, functional and perceivable form of science.

Dear Miranda:

I studied visual arts (drawing, painting, and sculpture) as an undergraduate and master's student, and all the while I did my best to integrate scientific knowledge into my artistic practice, since it seemed to me to be a useful tool to enlighten my path. I got drawn into art history through my fascination with the aesthetic experience (and, I must admit, the opportunity for engagement with my social context and thus survival; I sold some art objects but not enough to support my wife and my daughters). Art history is necessarily a transdisciplinary endeavor, so I undertook a doctoral program in social sciences, to study how the native peoples of Mesoamerica developed a system of pictorial communication which lies on the blurry border between the European concepts of writing and the visual arts. Why am I telling you this? Because in my transdisciplinary perspective there are no borders between art and science. Science is a perspective that permits us to understand the universe. Human beings are part of this universe. The arts are manifestations of human culture. The arts are just one portion of our reality, and science is a theoretical and practical tool that can help us understand any aspect of the our phenomenological reality.

In the same way, art resonates in the minds of all people, provoking reflections, emotions, and innovative ways of looking at reality. Art is as basic to the human experience as the rational processes behind astrophysics or tracking animals to obtain meat. A transdisciplinary perspective is necessary if we want to see the big picture. Each researcher must decide how much time to dedicate to focusing on specific problems and how much time to look at the external and internal contexts of our experience.

They will have a broader mind than if they had focused only in science: Sometimes you have to get out of the box in order to understand what is really happening inside it.

I prefer to copy a summary of P. Show Two cultures:

Reflective Summary: “The Two Cultures” *

In his 1959 Rede lecture, "The Two Cultures", C.P. Snow laments the intellectual divide between the natural sciences and the humanities—specifically literary arts. His tone throughout is one of frustration and persuasion for a growing problem of a cultural divide between two intellectually elite disciplines. Snow writes, “I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups.” Moreover, he is mainly concerned with the gap between education and economic status.

This difference can be attributed to the basis that, according to Snow, many scientists come from humble, low-income backgrounds while literary academics are born from well-to-do upbringings. Snow believes that scientists “have the future in their bones” and that the other group is focused on the past, preoccupied with traditional culture. These differences in intellectual interests are what keep the two disciplines from mingling. It is the elitist attitudes of each field that perpetuate the gap.

Snow has no tolerance for the lack of communication between science and the humanities. Furthermore, his disdain for social structure is critical in determining the underlying issue. He warns that if the gap is not bridged, science’s role in society will be one of misunderstanding and alienation. In the long run, this could potentially stifle our future progress. This is precisely why education plays a significant role in science’s cultural link to society. It is crucial to communicate with a wider audience. Though Snow points out that neither discipline wishes to be dumbed down in order to communicate with the masses. He states:

Most of my scientific acquaintances think that there is something in it, and so do most of the practicing artists I know. But I have been argued with by non-scientists of strong down-to-earth interests. Their view is that it is an over-simplification, and that if one is going to talk in these terms there ought to be at least three cultures. They argue that, though they are not scientists themselves, they would share a good deal of the scientific feeling. They would have as little use—perhaps, since they knew more about it, even less use—for the recent literary culture as the scientists themselves.

Lastly, Snow argues that, in order to preserve science’s cultural role, there must be less specialization in education. Commonality is vital, and differentiating the message for userability is key. In order to maintain society’s progress of innovation and creativity, it is important to find a way to speak to the general public about the practicality of the sciences. Science has the potential to uncover a deeper meaning of the nature of our existence. Thus, educating the public can lead first to understanding, then to acceptance, and ultimately support. Avoiding scientific illiteracy is paramount.

In conclusion, this argument at its essence is precisely what influences my research into the intersection of art and science. Considering that the museum offers an educational overview, it is this interest that leads me to an interdisciplinary partnership of the two fields. It is my goal to utilize the museum setting as a foundation for communication. Art for the sake of science is perhaps my biggest motivator. But, furthering this notion, it is my professional goal to popularize science and inspire the next generation of a combined science and art careers.

* This summary only reflects section I of Snow’s The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.

http://jumpsuitsandteleporters.com/post/1412859591/reflective-summary-the-two-cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

Science stream and arts stream can benefit from each other.

Friends, thanks for your views: Ed, Amritlal, David, Demetris, Costas, Patrick and Mahfuz). Everyone has expressed these views so scientifically and artistically :)) But we wait for our other friends to get on to this thread. Each one will share form our own experiences, just as you have been doing.....thanks.

@Prof Kamal, thanks for a great answer. I like your answer, just like I like all the honest wonderful answers of our friends on this thread. Honesty is our policy, and it's the only policy :) Because we aren't politicians? :)

@ Amritlal, it seems like there's some telepathy among RG friends :)

You said, 'Miranda you must have read my thoughts. Yesterday I was discussing the same issues with one of my colleagues and we both came into a point agreeing that science and literature are not very different. '

@Prof Bassam: it seems like there's more telepathy among researchers :))

Prof Kamal and friends, it's due to my father who loves English, Shakespeare and music that I have inherited all this. I love to study, any subject is great, whether arts or sciences...I hardly think of grades, but the grades just come along, thanks be to God.

Science students need to learning arts subjects because they can enjoy life better!

I strongly recommend arts subjects for science students. As a scientist, I certainly have benefited a lot from learning these subjects.

Yes Mohammed, it seems many of us agree that to separate arts from sciences in a curriculum is unnecessary and unnatural...

BUT something like that is being done in UK recently. Anyone has more info about this?

Science students rather need to have knowledge about arts subjects, according to me! Drawings, projects, models will be better if one has knowledge of art. History will give a better and broader perspective. Geography will give a better visualization about the location of survey or samples or products or the way weather influences products and results. There are a wide number of reasons why arts and science streams should be connected and are interlinked.

I like interdisciplinary approach!

But how about the following subjects...:)

Thanks Jaya, Lijo. Recently I heard that one of the UK politicians wanted Science students to learn science rather than literature :((

But I don't have more info on this. Anybody has it, please post, thanks.

Thanks Martin and friends, let me use a pic now, instead of just words...

@Miranda, a specialty for You, regarding Benefits of Music & Arts Education!

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.murphy/benefits_of_music_and_art_education

@Miranda, he place of the arts, humanities and social sciences in higher education is given in following chapter!

https://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/contribution/chap5.cfm

Thanks very much Prof Ljubomir, for great links. Just the thing to cheer me up when I go through details of free software with my friends who teach computer science this weekend :) I get into the links now, bye...

Art school in France are no more Beaux arts, structured on artist and studio. Now most of the academic tasks are turn to experimentation and skill balance between theory and making... Theses schools are developping skill in serendipity and creativity. Using culture and curiosity as the central matter. This skill should be transfered to sciences students and make them understand the balnce between the projects and the facts, the goal and opportunities ! Culture is now more than old humanities !

I received art formations before university. When I had to draw my first microscope observations (plant tissue) at university (Formation in Biology) I added shadows and contrasts, instead of drawing simple lines indicating cell and tissue borders. They told me that my drawings of the plant tissues were too artistic. Anyway, the old plant and wildlife drawings before the arrival of the photo techniques are impressive and contributed significantly to fields like botany, natural history, biology, medicine, and....!

My daughter went to a STEM high school which also required courses in art, history, English and Chinese. The courses were taught interdisciplinary (Biology with English, Math with Literature, Physics with economics/politics). This gave more meaning to their learning and placed the learning (it was project based learning so all learning was through work on projects) into the real world. Surprisingly, even though the majority of students came in for the STEM, many went on to study humanities, interdisciplinary subjects, or STEM subjects with a strong creative bent (architecture, bio-technology, nano-technology, engineering). In learning the principles of physics they also learned how design was important for people to use engineered products/buildings. They had to understand how different cultures had different beliefs about design, so if you want people to use things you need to understand their cultural beliefs and assumptions.

Attached is a link to two of videos that give a more indepth explanation (you need to register to see them, but it is a free service) https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/collaborative-teaching-ntn and https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/pbl-building-blocks-ntn

@Stephane, Marcel, Virginia, thanks for your responses. I like many things:

'These schools are developing skill in serendipity and creativity. Using culture and curiosity as the central matter. This skill should be transferred to sciences students..';

'This gave more meaning to their learning and placed the learning (it was project based learning so all learning was through work on projects) into the real world. '

@Marcel: your drawings must have been praised as BEAUTIFUL. But we do practise 'scientific drawing' for science. Have a great weekend!

There has long been in the world of schools where school DNL are not taught in the language of the country, but one of the great cultural languages ​​are German schools abroad, the French schools, the British boarding and , for some time , the schools established by the European institutions for the children of their employees. These facilities are modern examples of learning a language and non-language subjects whose methods differ from those practiced in traditional language teaching and follow the basic principles of bilingual education , incorporating a foreign language to discipline non-linguistic (DNL ) .

This practice was beginning temps.Dès long since antiquity , for example , it was proposed to learn another language and experience the culture of the country of the target language. In the Middle Ages , many people were multilingual , when we know that with the exception of Latin, no other language was systematically taught in schools monasteries or other educational institutions. Foreign languages ​​were taught almost as a native language by using it in relations with native speakers , usually in a commercial or professional purposes.

Oftenly scientists make some deep aesthetical statement errors with their representation skill, and because their productions is drawing or "beautiful" or seem artistic they consider that art (mathematical art as example)... Most of the time it is a very naive attemp which is nothing within the contemporary world aesthical questions.

This is not because they produce forms that theses forms could be art.

The platonic idea that forms producing beauty remains locally exact, but need

to enlight within both last centuries aestheticals experienced.

Art and creation need to be developped and experimented a long time before to be issued as research publications. If we bring it to the scientific level quality requirements, we understand that beautiful drawing are just "beautiful drawing" and need continuity in space , time culture experienced to get in art level.

One of the big lack I oftenly met is the ignorance of the context of the representation, an hard belief in reality and its representation tool, no experience about critic and historical statements... So that's everything you learn in art school.

So learning scientists theses statements should help him to avoid naive attitudes within culture and art... and help him to get a broader point of view of his research and maybe to put in it the cultural theory.

Marcel,

How said that they found your drawings too "artistic"! And In France? We humanities professors most always have France held up to us as THE aesthetic exmplar. A few years ago I went to an art exhibit here in Birmingham; all the art consisted of medical drawings in color; a medical student would undoubtedly be able to identify a drawing of molecular structures or the human intestines, but to me many of the art works were like abstract or impressionistic art forms--absolutely fascinating. Fractals are gorgeous and are nothing but geometry when you come down to it.

Each year the medical school here at the University of Alabama puts on an art show; each contributor is either a medical student or a full-fledged doctor, board-certified, etc. i am always amazed at how gorgeous the art work is--and done by busy orthopedic surgeons, pediatricians, and a host of people I know as brilliant medical practitioners, not artists. Medical students can quilt; others are sculptors, painters, etc. The array is just wonderful. I send my students on an expedition to that art show each spring so that they can see in real life how much interaction can occur between the humanities and science. The world's great scientists are also often the world's great humanitarians--Einstein, for instance. Murray Gel-Mann, who discovered and named "quarks" got that term from James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake." The surgeon Leonard Schlain has written extensively on art and physics (his first book was entitled "Art and Physics"). That book is wonderful and shows not only the traditional view that scientists make discoveries first and then artists follow but also the other view that often the artists "foresee" changes that science is only able to assert later. The French Impressionists with the disappearing or absent horizon infuriated the French Academy; Monet's magnificent studies of light preceded the discoveries in optics by more than 40 years. Science without soul is empty and flat; and all humanities have some sort of science, technique, or pattern underlying them. The inter-relations of science and art are essential to the quality of life, no mater what one's profession may be.

Aysha Bey

Is I would. Music is full of science, painting and sculpture also, some of the very best Literature works were written by scientists.

In my experience, and I have a degree in classical guitar and jazz bass, music is a permanent help for concentration and relaxation during the process of manuscript writing. I'm also a science illustrator and some of my works would be very difficult to be done withouth this artistic tool.

History of science is also highly important not only in its informative knowledge basis but also as a tool for studying and developing ideas in quite recente fields of science.

Every year I give at least 4 lectures on the theme "Art and Science" and also 2 to 5 painting/illustration exibhits as well as some live concerts either classical or jazz.

Arts are also science: maths and physics and music may well be the most important exemples,

Best,

JP

According to me, Knowledge Matters!!!

Knowledge in any form is always useful and beneficial for us regardless in what subject it is.

For example: Knowledge of geography can be helpful to explore different places while we are on a trip.

Knowledge of Music can helps us to relax and soothe our mind.

etc...

Regards,

Nitish

Please forgive me to be the counter guy...

But I would like to warn this academic audience about the fact to mix both topic arts and science without wariness could comes to a grey unmeannigfull relativity landscape.

Rather to assume the ontologic gap between and art and science and work within it.

And consider their featiures.

I mean that science is to prove, demonstrate, working with facts and truth.... Art is really opposite ruling myths, story telling, it is a kind of magic which brings understanding after.

So let's considerate theses both features and don't try to comparate. We must assume their ontological standing. Wisely we should work and paradox and contradiction that their own presence bring to us.

That's what I call "a faithfull misunderstanding" which oblige each specialist to make effort to picture out what process within it.

But oblige each one to stand on his own process. By example when Salvador Dali's talk about DNA, there was nothing scientific in it, he used words and concepts to bend them in Dali's vision. That was the best, he could do.

We have nothing to do with scientific Dali's opinion ; his vision is enough and all the approximations and poetry give enough to imaginative mind to work on regardless it could be false or true. That's no science. That's art !

Science has something to do with truth, art has nothing to do with truth, it is magic, words, visual rethoric, impression and interpretation.

And it is not because art brings science in it, colors, vision, sound theory, chemistry, forms, morphogenesis, physiology etc that's art is science. It is a gorgeous misunderstanding which bring us freedom of interpretation, and it is the shifting mirror of our mind freedom. Science can't stand so much. Science need fact and proof. Proof in art doesn't exist, it is just a cultural context.

Please keep in mind the "faithfull misunderstanding" then after you will love both features for their one specificity. That's the best we can do do honestly. If science and art students can understand that, it will help theml to explore both purviews with any logical contradiction.

Thanks folks for adding your knowledge to this thread :)

@Joao, you say, 'Music is full of science, painting and sculpture also, some of the very best Literature works were written by scientists.' Yes, I cannot forget Leonardo da Vinci... :))

You also say, 'Arts are also science: maths and physics and music may well be the most important examples'.

I always liked Physics, music is Physics; I put an old Physics thread here...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_you_heard_Physics_is_like_chocolate_a_little_is_a_pleasure_too_much_can_be_lethal

Dear friends, on a social platform we respect all views. Everyone has a right to their own views, and we appreciate that right for each person. Have a good day, my local time 1600 h; I just drove back to campus in the great heat of the day :))

There Aysha,

I had university formations in Belgium (Antwerp).

Dear All,

Drawings of natural phenomena are simple indicators of observation skills. Observation skills are essential qualities for those involved in empirical research, like ecologists, field biologists etc... .

Asking (university) students to draw another living being would (1) contribute to develop observation skills or (2) would allow testing students' abilities to observe phenomena in nature.

If individuals cannot make an exact copy (drawing) of the photo of a bird, what does it tell us about the students ability to observe?

@Marcel, do you find it surprising that my students just take a photo with their mobile. They are great at putting the camera eye on the eyepiece of microscope to take pictures of stages of mitosis in onion etc etc...

In France we have a name for scientific drawing we call it "dessin documentaire",

"documentary drawing" but it doesn't mean it is art. This skills rules are must turn by the quality of informations rather the psychological or imaginary background.

Anyway they are oftenly pleasant to watch, or beautiful, but they are not art. As beautiful XIXth century astronomic drawing or other kind of notations. It is only visual notations, And after public surprised by their skill call it art... But they are not art.

We have the same process with fractals photographies which are nothing than fractal photographies. Mostly the confusion come from the platonic idea from beauty.

Beauty is related to truth, that's an old statement...

So oftenly I see some scientists getting hard inside their enthusiastic contemplation of beauty... which has nothing with art.

Alexandre, can you explain in more detail...concerning 'humanity'?

Thanks Patrick, Good point raised. But people like me and some of my friends can do so well at Geog, read maps well, but still need a GPS to navigate to unfamiliar places...

That's artist skill to move in unknow place. Artist are use to deal with unexpected conditions, They search for it. Over to get humanities, sciences students could find some balance between goal, path, confident and doubt inside an artistic process.

And most of it discovering serendipity...

Counterwise artists with science could understand that's world overcomes their egos, and rigor could magnify their intuition.

Friends, I found this site. Definitely Interesting. I quote:

'Research has demonstrated that interdisciplinary teaching can increase students' motivation for learning as well as their level of active engagement. In contrast to learning skills in isolation, when students participate in interdisciplinary learning they recognize the value of what they are learning and become more involved in it.'

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/strategies/interdisciplinary-learning

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/strategies/experiential-learning

I'll strongly recommend some arts subjects for science students like history, geography.

These subjects will not only be helpful in enhancing general knowledge but also be beneficial in understanding the basics of many science related aspects concerned with history and geography.

@Aamir et al., I agree. When I was a student, I studied Literature, History and Geography. I see the good effects. It's not for grades but for the knowledge; this knowledge enriches my life :)

Scientist need some kind of abstract way of thinking. I think any kind of art can help there.

To get INTO a language, the composition of a painting, or absorb and discuss products (literature) of other minds will help to expand your mind, reveal new way of thinking and promote abstract thoughts, I think. Also, doing thinks besides your actual research/studies helps the mind to 'relax'. Are there studies for this?

Nevertheless, I always try to encourage my students to do something 'outside' of the usual chemistry :)

Thanks Sven. I like this: 'To get INTO a language, the composition of a painting, or absorb and discuss products (literature) of other minds will help to expand your mind, reveal new way of thinking and promote abstract thoughts'.

I don't know yet about research in this area, but when I can I will search for it :)

My old Chemistry teacher sent me his recording of 'O Sole Mio'. He has a great tenor voice :)

It is always good to broaden one's horizon. Languages help to communicate and, in the best case, they help also to understand other cultures. The same goes for history, literature, music etc. They can help students to understand their own cultural backgrounds (and/or those of others) and give them a sense of how rich, diverse, complex and interconnected the world is.

With interdisciplinary approach students gain broad angle view about their very own subjects and topics.

Yes, Stefan, Darasingh and Patrick et al.

I agree: 'It is always good to broaden one's horizon. Languages help to communicate and, in the best case, they help also to understand other cultures. The same goes for history, literature, music etc. They can help students to understand their own cultural backgrounds ...'

'Science students also benefit by learning soft facts rather than just hard facts.'

Who wishes give to sciences, it's intelligence must be multi-disciplinary. We must learn other disciplines. Also, with the art of analogy and similarity we can benefit of these knowledges.

Yes Noureddine, thanks. I agree that for us, from a science background:

'We must learn other disciplines.'

@Miranda the benefits of Art integration in Science is well explained here:

http://artsintegration.com/portal/about-arts-integration/

Friends, I found some related info:

'Posted: 17 Jun 2014 06:10 PM PDT

A controlled study using functional MRI brain imaging reveals a possible biological link between early musical training and improved executive functioning in both children and adults, report researchers. The study uses functional MRI of brain areas associated with executive function, adjusting for socioeconomic factors.'

How can - for example - a medical practitioner benefit from geography, legislation or meterology? If your field of research is epidemiology, you do typically think about the interaction of infection rates and treatment methods. But maybe your conclusions are completely wrong because you do not care about geography, weather conditions, changes in patient's life style, or laws that have changed. Maybe the infection rate has nothing to do with vaccinations but is influenced by this: altitude where your patients live, extreme aridity, and the fact that more and more people own a bath room.

Every scientist should develop two parts of his personality: The scientific one and the broader cultural one. 

We should make an eternal bridge between the two cultures of C. P. Snow, see

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/snow_1959.pdf

and The Two Cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

I found some more papers related to this matter recently.  Here is one:

Long-Term Positive Associations Between Music Lessons and IQ

E. Glenn Schellenberg, 2006.

'In Study 1 (N=147), duration of music lessons was correlated positively with IQ and with academic ability among 6- to 11-year-olds, even when potential confounding variables (i.e., family income, parents’ education, involvement in nonmusical activities) were held constant. In Study 2 (N=150), similar but weaker associations between playing music in childhood and intellectual functioning were evident among undergraduates. In both studies, there was no evidence that musical involvement had

stronger associations with some aspects of cognitive ability (e.g., mathematical, spatial–temporal, verbal) than with others. These results indicate that formal exposure to music in childhood is associated positively with IQ and with academic performance and that such associations are small but general and long lasting.'