About the Course  

Students  

Research  Topics  

Interviews  

1.  What is your definition of Art? of Science? 
Authors:  Ben Bartolone, Jess Kates, Sienna Moran 

Art: 
    The majority of the interviewees said that art is an expression of experiences, oneself, or humanity (11).  Other answers included the making and creation of something (3), the understanding of life and the world (2), creativity (1), and communication (1).   All the scientists (with the exception of one), 3/8 of the artists, and 3/7 of the “neithers” stated that art is the expression of some feeling or idea.  It seems that most people hold dear the concept that art is the communication of ideas, emotions, and experiences, no matter what their educational field or background.  The reason that all three groups are in such agreement is probably because of society's views on art.  Most people see art as a pastime to be enjoyed; most people see science as a difficult and boring subject. Even long ago society praised those who were “cultured.”  Everyone was supposed to learn a few great works of literature, some of the famous plays and music pieces, and the current dances. Arts were, and still are, considered  pleasurable and fun.  As a result, almost everyone is educated on art at some point in life; this is not always true for science.  This idea relates to one of the topics discussed in class:  that everyone considers himself an art critic, but only scientists are science critics. 
    There were a few interviewees that did not give any of the responses listed above.  One science student stated, “Art is an ideal science.  It goes beyond understanding and further into the nature of things.”  He seemed to think that art is a subsection of science because it covers areas that science does not.  An art professor said that art has no working definition because each definition of art requires the definition of additional words that are very subjective (for example, beauty).  
 
Science: 
    A variety of answers were given: finding out how things work (7), the study and understanding of the universe(5), the search for knowledge(5), and finding the truth (2).  Most of the artists tended to focus on the superficial and technical aspect of science.  In fact, 5/7 of the artists said science is the study of what things consist of and how they work.  Only two other people in all the different categories combined, gave this same answer.  Scientists on the other hand, generally gave the answers: studying and understanding the universe, and searching for knowledge.  Their definitions relate more to the theory behind science than the technical side.  
    The difference in opinions can be attributed to the fact that most artists probably only see the finished product of science; they may not consider the events that lead up to the conclusion or the importance of the conclusion to society and the world.  For example, when non-scientists hear that a cure for cancer has been found, perhaps they do not realize the debates that took place regarding the experiment, the several rejected hypotheses, or the hours spent making meticulous observations and calculations that preceded the outcome.  They may not know that scientists can use this information to 
understand how other diseases operate and progress, and that it will change how treatment is approached in the future.  They are not closely enough involved in the process to realize the full importance of the cure.  Scientists, being right in the middle of the entire scientific process, see the larger picture when considering the effects of science.  The “neithers” tended to agree more with the scientists than the artists.  
   In the future, different people should be interviewed and their responses combined with the responses from this group for a larger survey number.  Also, we only interviewed very educated people.  Most Americans are not as educated, and so they may have very different opinions.  New questions would be directed towards determining what gives the interviewee the ideas to say what they do.   Another interesting question to ask about art would be one asked in class - "If a man drew on the wall of a cave and no one ever saw it, would it still be art?" 

2.  What drew you towards your chosen field?  What draws scientists/artists to their field?
Authors:  Carrie Campana, Chelsea Koehler, Emily Randall, Melissa Zegar 

Towards Science:
   The answers can be categorized as follows: curiosity (10), analytic or methodical thinking and following rules (5), an inherent quality or aptitude (5), to benefit society (4), creativity (1), discovery (1), understanding (1).
   The majority of the professors agreed that “curiosity” was the reason why scientists are drawn to that particular field.  Most of the art and science professors answered in this manner.  However, among the three “neither” professors there was more of a variety.  The responses were creativity, curiosity, and an inherent nature. 
    There was less of a consistency of answers when the students’ responses were studied.  Even though “curiosity” was still the most popular answer, others were also given. They did seem to lean towards helping society, and finding a way to logically examine the world.   Some of the students also mentioned that people were drawn because of “interest” and “ability.  No student said that scientists were motivated by creativity.
    It was interesting to examine the relationships between the artists and scientists, especially the students. Why is it that more of the art students felt that curiosity was a part of science than the scientists or the neithers?  Perhaps this indicates that art students are more focused on curiosity about the world and thus imagine that it is a part of scientists’ motivation. 
    What does motivate people towards science? Are they fully conscious of it? Do scientists know better than artists or are the artists seeing a force in science that science students don’t recognize?  Why is it that more science professors than science students recognized curiosity as motivation? One theory is that it has something to do with education- how much room for curiosity in your experiments is there before you are a graduate student or a professional?
    Why are the responses more varied from the neithers?  Why were there many different answers?  Why did the students have more variety among their answers than professors? Perhaps if a larger group had been interviewed, the trends would be more apparent, or the answers to these questions would become more clear.
    One question that can be asked for a future interview is, “What made you curious about your particular field of study as opposed to just the broad categories of ‘art’ and ‘science?”  This way, one can break down the categories of art and science, in order to better study the relationships.  Maybe chemists are more related to musicians than to singers, for example. 
 
Towards Art:
    The answers can be roughly categorized as follows: self expression (9), an inherent quality or aptitude (7), curiosity (3), understanding (2), to benefit society (1), discovery (1), and abstract thinking (1).
    The professors basically all said one of two answers.  This time, though, the art and science professors did not agree as much.  The majority of the science
professors said that self-expressions was the reason why artists are drawn towards art.  However, most of the art professors felt that one’s personality was the motivating force.  The “neither” professors were in agreement with the science professors for the most part. 
    The students answered in a similar fashion to the professors, but there was more variety.  “Love,” curiosity, thinking “abstractly,” “sense of creativity,” and
“contributing to humanity,” were some of these responses.  What does this mean about the differences between students and professors?   It was cool that the students had so many new ideas. Yea for youth. 
    One new question on this personality or inherent quality issue, would be to ask what background their parents had to see if they grew up in an art type of environment and never knew anything else.  Also, how does education influence one’s opinions?
    When one tries to analyze why these individuals responded in such a way, it is difficult not to compare it to the previous part of this question.  It was interesting to see that “curiosity” wasn’t mentioned with art a lot, but rather “personal expression” was.  It appears that these people feel that artists have the answers within themselves and they just want to express them to others.  They don’t want to “discover” as scientists do.  Based on discussions and readings in class, art was initially found to be a skill.  This is its simplest definition. However, digging deeper, we have concluded that art is more than simply personal expression.  It instead goes further and asks questions and searches to understand the world and that artists express this curiosity through their work. 
    Even though I don’t know why this wasn’t mentioned as a popular answer with these individuals, we can speculate.  It is possible that these individuals feel that “curiosity” does play an intricate role in art, but they just didn’t mention this in their responses.  In order to quench our own interest of this aspect of art,  it would be beneficial to specifically ask the next group of interviewees, “To what extent do you think curiosity plays a role in art?” 
    It is also interesting to relate this question to one of the others that we investigated which was about emotion involved in art and science. Often artists spoke of emotion as motivation because they were trying to express themselves, but they didn’t always mention it.  Scientists and neithers also talked about emotion as a motivating force because they felt that their emotions were the force that started the process. This was a very popular answer to the emotion question across the board. I think that emotion as motivation came out more easily when they were asked specifically about emotion rather than about what motivates.

3.  What do you aim to accomplish in art/science?  What do you think scientists/artists aim to accomplish? 
Authors:  Lou Mustillo, Diane Panetta, Jayson Swanson 

Aim of Art/Artists: 
Art Professors: The main emphasis on the responses from this group was discovery.  Some believed accomplishment was self-discovery, and some believed the main goal was to get others to discover their ideas.  Theater Arts Professor Rosemary McLaughlin said, “Its important to try to shine light on things.” 
Science Professors: Unlike the art professors, the science professors believed the main goal of an artist was expression and communication through his or her works.  An anonymous Chemistry Professor said, “The artist tries to convey beauty.” 
“Neither” Professors: The general answer from this group seemed to be a combination of the previous two.  Political Science Professor Joseph Romance said accomplishment in art was simply “to produce the beautiful,” whereas an anonymous Psychology Professor said, “Artists want to have self-expression.” 
Art Students: Generally, the art students aspired to have a distinct influence on society.  English major Andrew Crooke quoted John Stein beck when he said that an artist's accomplishment is “to make human beings understand each other better.”  In his specific field, he said he wanted “to do this by writing in a celebratory manner through a deep probing of the positive and negative facts.”  One Theater Student, however, said that all she was aspiring for was “to make a comfortable living doing what I love and am passionate about.” 
Science Students: Like the art students, the main emphasis in this group's answer was to influence the public.  Mostly, this influence would be for appreciation.  One Chemistry/Physics Student had an interesting response: “Exposition of their souls. [Artists] want to express their views and thoughts without words.” 
“Neither” Students: This group had a variety of answers.  Accomplishments in art, according to them, depended upon personal emotion, bringing more beauty into the world, achieving immorality, and even “to reach the realms untouched by science in order to understand them better.” 
    All the answers given by every group included either personal expression alone, the communication of personal expression or both.  Beauty, if mentioned at all, was not part of any of the artists' (professors or students) answers. Although the art professors and science professors weren’t in exact agreement, their answers didn’t completely contradict each other either.  They both believed that communication was important in the artistic field.  The main difference, however, was that the science professors, not the art professors, emphasized emotion over most of the other aspects.  This is similar to what we have discussed in class, that being, when one creates art, one aims to express some personal emotion.   
**Instructors note:  In class, the possibility that art asks questions, like science, about life and the universe, and tries to communicate ideas, instead of or in addition to, emotions was also discussed.  This is somewhat supported by the artists questioned.  Next time it would be interesting to get the opinions of a variety of professional studio artists.  An additional question to ask may be "Is there a distinction between art that is good and art that is great?"   

Aim of Science/Scientists: 
Art Professors: Basically, this group said that scientists aim to pursue higher knowledge.  What they aspire for is learning more about the world and applying their knowledge to mankind.  Music Professor Norman Lowrey stated, “Scientists contribute to an understanding of what life is all about.” 
Science Professors: This group had more or less the same responses as the previous group, but they were much more specific.  They said an accomplishments would be pursuing not general knowledge, but knowledge about fields like nature and medicine.  A Chemistry Professor said an aspiration would be “to determine the physical and chemical properties of the molecule.” 
“Neither” Professors: The main emphasis this group had was truth.  They believe that a scientist’s accomplishment would be to find in this world all that is “truth” and reveal it to the world. 
Art Students: This group generally focused on the making of contributions to their field as a scientific accomplishment.  Another aspect, though is was not emphasized as much, was the same response the art professors gave: the search for knowledge within nature.  One Studio Art Student said that they “aim to help out humankind by applying their knowledge to complex problems.” 
Science Students: This group was not as specific as the science professors.  Their answers were mostly based on pursuing knowledge, and also having some sort of influence on society.  One student had such ideas for her accomplishments, and then some: “Research and teaching... and learning more about myself.” 
“Neither” Students: This group had similar responses to the “neither” professors.  There was one main difference, though; the professors believed the goals of science was the revealing of the truth, whereas the students believed it was the discovery.  They seemed to have put more emphasis on the process rather than the end results.  An Economics major said, “Scientists aim to 
discover new things, new ideas or ways of thinking.” 
     There were basically three different answers that were given.  In order of most popular to least, the goals are: (a) to improve the world by helping others, fixing things and solving problems, (b) to better understand the world and the occurrences that take place, and (c) to find the truth.  Response (a) was given by the mojority of professors.  Only three professors said truth as the aim of science and only one of them was a scientist.  
    In general, all of the answers given are interrelated.  Everyone, artists and scientists alike, seemed to be in agreement in the fact that scientists aspire to make contributions to the world via searching for knowledge.  Science professors were more specific about accomplishments than the art professors  which makes sense since they work in a particular field and would have a point of view based on that.  The art students believed that scientists aim to contribute to the scientific community; the science students not only believed that, but they also said they wanted to have an influence on society.  This is a common aspiration among today’s youth; since they’re already majoring in scientific fields, they were able to give insight into their personal ambitions.  The “neither” groups were interesting; the professors believed the main idea was showing research results to the world, while the students believed it was the research and discovering itself. 
**Instructor's note:  Discussed in class was that although society does benefit from scientific work which addresses specific problems, that work would not be successful without basic research, research that asks questions purely for understanding.  Although improving or helping society was the most common answer, it was not expressed to a level that would make a basic research scientist uncomfortable, however, our sample size is rather small. 

4.  Do you think what you do is creative?  If so, how?  If not, why?  Do you think art/science is creative? If so, how? If not, why?   
Authors:  Lou Mustillo, Diane Panetta, Jayson Swanson 

Creativity in Art: 
Art Professors: They believed that such creativity meant personal viewpoints and interpretations of things, issues, or concerns.  Theater Arts Professor Rosemary McLaughlin said of personal interpretation, “Even if [the concept] is painful— the death of a friend— I can transform at least part of that grief into some other thing.” 
Science Professors: Contrary to what might be expected, this department tied artistic creativity with emotion, whether pertaining to the universe or just emotions within the soul.  Physics Professor Robert Fenstermacher stated, “It’s a product of their own being; an expression of the spirituality and feelings they have about the universe.” 
“Neither” Professors: Their main point in this issue was that creativity must reach beyond what would be expected and focus on originality.  In other words, as an anonymous Psychology Professor put it, “Creativity is when you do something or think of something outside the realm in which it is done.” 
Art Students: There were a variety of answers in this group.  One Studio Art Student emphasized individuality, saying “what I do is creative, because no one else in the world is like me.”  An English Student said creativity was “literarily, to create something, to make something new.”  Also, a Theater Student said that what she does is creative because “it challenges me to use my brains in different ways.” 
Science Students: Like the Science Professors, this group believed artistic creativity comes from the subliminal, human thoughts and emotions.  A student majoring in Chemistry and Physics said, “Art visualizes beliefs as well as values and usually those are beyond understanding.” 
“Neither” Students: This group generally didn’t go into very much detail with their answers, but one student majoring in Archaeology said, “Emotions are manifested.  There is visual stimuli and it takes creativity to perceive it in a certain way.” 
    The common thread among most of the responses received in our interviews was that creativity in art consisted of individual viewpoints and the processes of 
original expression.  Science professors and students focused on the emotions that are funneled through creativity in art.  They believed that both emotions and creativity feed off of each other.  The “neither” groups seem to have conflicting opinions: the professors believe the main idea is originality, and the students believe the main focus is aesthetics.  The art groups, as expected, were able to relate their ideas on creativity with what they do.  

Creativity in Science: 
Art Professors: Generally, this group believed that since scientists have to find new ways of thinking about things, often using their imaginations, it would be considered creative.  Art History Professor Gerry Guest said, “People who make original advancements in science are creative by re-thinking and imagining problems in ways that other people may not have ever thought.” 
Science Professors: To connect creativity with what they do, the science professors found it within the physical concepts of their fields.  They believed that the physical/chemical makeup of matter and putting things together in new ways was creative.  Physics Professor Robert Fenstermacher said, “Nature is very clever in hiding the secrets of the world.  In order to find them, one must be very creative.” 
“Neither” Professors: This group sided more with the art professors.  They connected creativity with the ability of the human mind to reason and concoct ideas.  Another important aspect was thinking outside the realm of the typical; originality was critical. 
Art Students: One student actually said no to the question: “I don’t think so because experiments can be done and can yield the same results— there are only so many things an individual can do.”  The other students believed that thinking about past results and analyzing them to come up with new theories can be considered creative. 
Science Students: There was a clear thread through this group.  The students believed that new and different ways of thinking involved creativity.  One Chemistry Student believed that “in order to come up with new hypotheses, creativity is a must.”  Like the “neither” professors, the science students also believed that thinking outside the realm of the typical was crucial in scientific reasoning. 
“Neither” Students: This group was split down the middle on this question.  The students who believed creativity was not involved said that things already exist, and the thinking “requires a rigidity of thought that does not lead itself to creativity.”  Those who did believe creativity was involved said that one can always find new ways of thinking and that reasoning was “based on interpretation and the process of seeing.” 
    The majority answered by claiming there is creativity in science, while only there stated otherwise.   The affirmative responses focused on three different aspects of the role creativity plays in science.  These included: (a) to create new theories, hypotheses, and methods, (b) interpretation, observation, and understanding all require creativity, and (c) for putting things together and adding on to established theories.  Art and "neither" professors agreed with the science students in that they believe creativity exists within original scientific thought.  The science professors, found creativity in their scientific processes and physical makeup of matter. 
    Of the three negatives, two are involved in courses other than art or science and the third is involved in art.  The art student who replied said that science is limited to what can be done and therefore there is no creativity.  

5.  To what degree do emotions play a role in Art? in Science?   
Authors:  Carrie Campana, Chelsea Koehler, Emily Randall, Melissa Zegar  

In art:  
    Answers to this question were virtually unanimous. Professors and students of almost all fields agreed that emotions play a role in art. However, their reasoning behind this assertion was varied. An attempt to do a rough oversimplified categorization follows: communicating one’s emotions to others (10), emotions as a motivating force (3), discovering one’s own emotions (2). Some responses, such as “emotion lies behind meaning” seem to fit into all three, and some, like “emotions play a large role” just weren’t too helpful. Some answered for more than one category.  
    The artists felt that emotion was an essential aspect of their work.  Either emotions led them to art, or it “gets the ball rolling” in producing a work.  However, none said anything about the purpose of art conveying emotion.  Science professors felt that in art, emotions play a giant role.  They felt it played more of a role in art than artists did.  The neither professors also view  
emotion as playing a  role in art, although the degree varied.  Two out of three felt that art’s purpose is to convey emotions.  The other felt that emotions played a partial role, or perhaps no role, in art when it was said, “They play a partial role, I suppose.  They (Artists) could be tapping into their emotions when they produce things, though I don’t think it’s necessary.”  
    The responses among students are the same as that for the professors.  However, unlike the professors, nearly every student found emotion to play a much higher degree of importance.  Emotion is “the core” in the work of the artist.  The art students were more forceful in their answers and one even stated that, “Without emotions, there would be no theater.”  With the science students, most of them agreed that emotions were a part of art.  However, one  
student answered that, “It depends on the type of art.  Some arts are very personal and emotionally expressive.  Other art has the purpose to teach.”  The “neithers” all said that it played a role in art.    
   
In Science:  
    The answers can be roughly categorized as follows: emotion a motivating force (10) no emotion (3) vague-“it is possible that emotion is involved” (3) emotions in response to science (“it is beautiful”) (1) all humans have emotions, so scientists must (1) fields such as medicine (1) a minimal role (1).  
    Scientists tended to acknowledge the idea that emotion should not be involved in their work, yet admitted to finding it in their own personal work.  “Well, it’s(emotion) not supposed to play a part in my work at all.  Yet certain measurements are beautiful.  I guess emotions do come into play.”  Two out of three art professors said that “persistence is sparked by emotion” or that emotion is the drive that keeps a scientist going.  The other said that emotion is needed to lead someone towards the sciences; they need intellectual excitement.  “Neither” professors were undecided about the role of emotions in science.  Two out of three believed there was a small role.  One said that there is a partial role, but emotions are not always necessary.  
    The students, on the whole,  agreed with the professors.  The art students were similar to the art professors in their answers.  They would answer, “Yes,” but they weren’t sure of how and why.  One commented that emotions were definitely present in the medical profession in particular.  The science students, in general, were also like the science professors.   One decided that he thought and worked better when he was in a good mood.  They concluded that it is possible to have emotions present but that the work must be objective.  Among the “neither” students, there were a wide range of answers which weren’t seen in the “neither” professors.  The answers ranged from a “large role” to “not at all in hard sciences.”    
    Generally, it seems that in art, scientists thought emotion played a large role, and the artist and neithers thought it played a medium role, medium as the average of the varying responses. Some artists felt that emotion was the entire focus of their work, and that the channeling of emotion was an integral part of their work process.   Art is a subjective process, a field devoted to emotion. Defined this way, the role of emotion in art is very different from the motivation of emotion  in science.  Others seemed to feel that emotion was simply a force that motivated them, and did not distinguish this motivation from the emotion that scientists may experience.      
    In science, artists thought emotion played a role, scientists thought it shouldn’t play a role, and the neithers were undecided.  The interviewees seemed to agree that a  process can be emotional without letting subjectivity guide the research.  All seemed to feel strongly about this and were not likely to categorize art and science as emotional vs emotionless.  At first, it may be simpler to classify science as emotionless, because the scientific method rests on objectivity, but as it is part of the human experience, there must be an emotional component.  “I cannot separate emotion from cerebration,” as one art professor said, aptly states the deep connection between all thought, artistic and scientific, and emotion.  
    In the future, it would be interesting to ask:  How do emotions differ among art and science?  Where does emotion play the greatest role?  Is it possible to have science with no emotion?  Is it possible to have art with no emotion? How are stereotypes involved in the way people perceive art and science?  

6.  What is beauty?  Do you find beauty in art? In science? 
Authors:  Carmen Drahl, Beth Reger, Ginny Smith 

   Question 6 was most definitely the most difficult question of all to answer.  We can deduce this, not only from my own interviewees who expressed lengthy pauses at the question, but also based on two facts obtained from perusing the collection of all the interviews.  These two facts are the enormous amount of variety in answers when faced with this question, and perhaps, more importantly, the common response, “I don’t know...”   
    It is rather difficult to define agreement and disagreement at all for this question.  But lengthy pauses aside, we received numerous interesting answers to the question "What is beauty?"  They can be grouped as follows: evokes emotion or a reaction (7), a product of experience (5), harmonious design (4), aesthetics [2/(8)], sense of well-being (2), exceeding one’s expectations (1), God’s creation (1), confidence (1), and truth (1).  And four people said that beauty cannot be defined.  One even “refuse[d] to answer” the question.    
   Both art and science professors agree on the fact that beauty has positive connotations for one’s mind.  “It is something that when you look at it, hear it or touch it, it fills you with a sense of well-being,” stated Professor McLaughlin. With some forms of beauty, “you can feel extra alive and extra human,” says Professor Guest.  Two art professors mentioned harmony in beauty; a science professor describes symmetry.  
   The “neither” professors, for the most part, had a more difficult time defining beauty; while one said it was undefinable, another made the point that while hard to find, beauty is simple to recognize.  Neither’s in general, students and professors, when definitions were given, came up with more diverse ideas about beauty than did the other two groups.  
   Most students of all three areas had a tendency to focus on the personal, individual quality of beauty.  An art student quoted the adage, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  A neither student said that beauty is appealing to the individual, and a science student said that beauty is what makes you (an individual) feel happy. 
   An interesting point was made by two neither interviewees, one professor and one student.  Both went against the general consensus that beauty was an individual concept, stating that cultural and family perceptions may influence a person. 
   On the whole, artists and scientists were seldom in agreement; non-artist non-scientists tended to agree with scientists more often than artists. Scientists were the most consistent in responses with each other.  Even with a question as complex as this, there were some commonalities and disparities.  But why was there such a disparate range of answers, with only some common analogies? Why did students focus on the many individual opinions of beauty while professors did not?  Are students more fully aware of the varying opinions of beauty in the world?  Probably not.  The placement of this question in the interview, alongside the questions about art versus science, caught some of my interviewees off guard.  It is a sort of question that one should be led into a 
little less abruptly.  
   The responses dictated in our interviews mirror many of the ideas we discussed in class.  Like us, many of those interviewed initially thought of aesthetics, but upon greater thought, added an addendum to their definitions, such as emotion.  As we had discussed, many felt that it was either 
impossible to define beauty, or that a definition was extraneous.  These people claimed that “they know it when they see it.”  We were impressed by the variety and creativity in the answers.  After all, we have been studying these topics all semester.  These people had only a few seconds to come up with an answer to the same questions that we have, not only been studying all semester, but not even established an answer to yet.  
   The second part of the question was “Do you find beauty in art?”  As would be expected, the idea that beauty exists in art was unanimous, with one hundred percent of professors, students, scientists, artists, and neithers in concurrence.  Philosophy professor Dutra brought up the topic of metaphor that was discussed often in class when he said, “It’s like a metaphor trying to explain beauty; there aren’t enough words to go around.”  He also said, “Something can be beautiful without having to explain what makes it beautiful.”  This comment alludes to the simplicity of beauty, the deep seated mental impression of beauty that an anonymous psychology professor said makes beauty “hard to define but easy to recognize.”  
   What links art and beauty so indelibly in the minds of people?  It is true that different people see beauty in different forms of art; however, all considered at least some art to be beautiful.  Beauty for many people is linked, perhaps, as we discussed in class, to giving feelings of happiness and pleasure.  It has a positive connotation. 
   Although almost all found beauty in art, not everyone found beauty in science. The responses to this question can be categorized as, no, there is no beauty in science (2 responses).  Yes, there is beauty in the breakdown and explanation of how things work (4 responses).  Yes, but the beauty has more to do with nature than with science (3 responses).  There was little correlation with hobbies and outside interests to responses.  While a more skewed result was expected, i.e. many artists may not see beauty in science, the interviewees gave interesting responses. In general, the people in the science category found beauty very orderly, while the people in the art category found beauty more expressive and abstract. 
   Among professors, all of both art and science professors answered “yes” to the question. Of the non art non science professors, one did not comment on beauty in science, but the other two had differing opinions.  
   Surprisingly, all artists responded that yes, they found beauty in at least some forms of science, whether the cures that medical research devises, or in the explanations of the mysteries of the universe.  So in the case of this question and the previous one, the artists and scientists are in agreement.  
   Non art, non science respondents tended to agree neither with the other two categories nor with each other.  Some of the students believed there was beauty in explanations, another two saw beauty in nature, another did not see beauty in science at all.  Perhaps this can be attributed to the great diversity in this group of “neithers”.  They have all different majors and minors. (Note: a respondent who saw beauty in nature minors in Environmental Science.)  
   The scientists all said they found beauty in their fields, except for one science student. The student is a chemistry major and rarely finds beauty in science, except in nature.  It was ironic that the student does not often see beauty in a field in which he will spend his life. 
   Why did all the artists and scientists agree on both questions about beauty in a field?  Did we as a class subconsciously expect all the artists to find nothing beautiful in science?  Why again is there so much diversity among the non art non science respondents?  Has the liberal arts experience helped Drew art and science majors see a little more about what the other is about, and therefore become able to respect the other field and find beauty in it? 
   The responses for this question were a refreshing surprise.  However, we sampled such a small group that perhaps, we have an inaccurate portrayal of opinions on art and science. In coming years, more interview results will add to this pool, and perhaps there will be more defined boundaries as far as given answers.  We should also consider asking scientists and artists (not just professors), and perhaps, teachers of other levels (high school, etc).  Instead of interviewing “non-art non-science candidates”, persons involved in both art and science should be interviewed.  The extremely diverse range of majors that encompassed “neither” gave us results that were harder to categorize.  Their responses often were so unrelated to others’ that we couldn’t use them when 
determining relationships.  Also interviewees should get to listen to some of the quotes we did in class, and comment on them.  For instance, the whole concept of "metaphorical moonshine".  It would also be interesting to show our summaries to the people we interviewed to gather their input, and to see if they agree with our conclusions.  The results could be beautiful. 

7.  Do you think art and science are related?  If so, how? If not, why? 
Authors:  Ben Bartolone, Jess Kates, Sienna Moran 

    When asked if art and science are related, of the 22 interviews studied, only 3 people (an art professor, an art student, a neither student) stated that they were not related.  However, none of these three gave any explanation as to why science and art are not related; they only said that they are separate ideas.  One reason that so many felt art and science are related may be because this particular question was asked towards the end of the interview.  The interviewees had already been thinking a lot about both concepts.  After being asked so many questions, they might have seen more connections than they had before.  
    Most artists (6/8) also agreed that art and science are related.  Their general opinion seemed to be that both are a way of exploring the world with the goal of understanding it–they just approach it from different directions.  The “neithers” also felt art and science are related, but for different reasons.  They believed the methods of art and science are similar, rather than their goals.  They said that both use symbols to convey ideas, both build from an assumption, and both collect information to understand the world. 
    All the scientists felt that art and science are related.  This is probably because after becoming so deeply involved in their field, they consider their work to be beautiful.  It inspires feelings in them such as awe and wonder; they relate these feelings to those that they get when observing art and other objects considered beautiful.  This is supported by the anonymous chemistry professor’s answer, “Trying to look at pictures of molecules leaves no distinction between art and science.  These pictures are not the effort of one person, but of two, the artist and scientist.”  
    Another reason scientists saw such a connection between art and science was because almost every scientist, both professors and students, listed playing or listening to music as one of their hobbies.  Very few artists listed a science-related activity as a hobby.  Hobbies affect how open the interviewee is to thought beyond the stereotype of art and science.  According to the interviews, a person who does either art or science, but not both, is much more likely to say that the two are not related.  However, a scientist who plays a musical instrument or an artist who reads science journals, is open to both worlds of art and science, and how they are similar. 
    In the future, different people should be interviewed and their responses combined with the responses from this group for a larger survey number.  Also, we only interviewed very educated people.  Most Americans are not as educated, and so they may have very different opinions. 

    The question “Which plays a greater role: science in art or art in science?” had no definitive answer.  All four possibilities were received - science in art, art in science, equal roles, don't know.   Eight interviewees felt their influences are equal.  Eight felt science plays a greater role in art, five felt art plays a greater role in science, and two neithers were unsure.  Three artists felt both are equal; 
the other artists were divided with two on either side.  One scientist felt both are equal; the others were divided with three on either side.  Four “neithers” felt they are equal; three felt science plays a greater role.  
    The reason that answers are divided so evenly is probably because the line between the two answers is faint and blurry.  One can think of several examples for either argument.  Overall, regarding professor/student differences, professors leaned more towards art and science being equal, while the majority students felt science influenced art more.  
    In the future, different people should be interviewed and their responses combined with the responses from this group for a larger survey number.  Also, we only interviewed very educated people.  Most Americans are not as educated, and so they may have very different opinions.  Possible new questions could address what it is that makes art/science in science/art so much better. 

9. When you are observing nature, what thoughts come to mind?  
Authors: Carrie Campana, Chelsea Koehler, Emily Randall, Melissa Zegar  

     Answers for all interviewed can be categorized into the following - beauty(8), visual and acoustic aspects of nature(6), wonder/we are part of something greater than ourselves(5), order/logical connections(3), God(2), specific scientific/chemical questions(1),  peacefulness(1).  Some answers are part of more than one category.   Although 3 individuals immediately said no thoughts, they then mentioned one of the other answers.  
    Most of the art professors (3/4) spoke of visual or acoustic (music professor) aspects of nature.  These included observations of pattern, shape, line, light, sounds (“listening”).  One art professor, like one science professor, in general, agreed, “Nature is big, I am small.”  Most of the “neither” professors agreed with the artists and observed light, color and shapes.  The scientific question came from a science professor.  The third science professor spoke of logical  
connections.  
    The students basically agreed on this question in all three groups, art, science and neither.  Almost every person mentioned beauty as what came to mind about nature.  Specifically, art and science students said beauty three out of four times.   The feeling of being part of a whole was the second most common response among both groups of students.  One student specifically said that they felt nature was artistic, and another student saw the patterns in light. The “neither” students said beauty (2/4), but also mentioned calmness and peacefulness, the feeling of being part of the whole and the artistic quality of nature.    
    Did professors agree with students? There were distinct differences between the professors’ answers and the students’ answers, where the students say beauty.  Perhaps this difference is due to the fact that professors are more educated.  The students have not had as much education in certain aspects of nature and take a simpler view of things. The professors tended to be more technical in their thinking which comes perhaps with age and experience. This can be supported only in the fact that none of the responses by students were as technical as those by professors.  We also noticed a difference between one person (a theater student) who mentioned the perilousness of the environment and the need for environmental awareness and the other interviewees.  Everyone else seemed to appreciate nature in some way, but we feel that some took it for granted.  Maybe people have to learn to love nature for it’s beauty, but also realize that nature is our world, not just something nice to look at.  
    One can interpret the fact there wasn’t one common theme among all of the answers, except for “beauty” among the students, in several ways.  It is possible that since nature is so varied itself, that the individuals were all thinking of different aspects of nature.  This could have influenced their thinking and in return, their answers.  As a result, if we wanted to obtain more conclusive data with the next interview, it might be beneficial to ask about a specific aspect of  
nature such as a tree.  This way, one could have more faith that the answers were all about the same thing and therefore more valid.    
    The students agreeing that they see beauty in nature could possibly be explained by their hobbies.  Just about every student mentioned some activity played outdoors as a hobby.  No one mentioned video games, watching television, or movies as a hobby.  Therefore, one could conclude that these students spent a fair amount of time growing up outdoors.   We suggest interviewing college age students who entered the work force after high school  
instead college next time for comparison.    
    And what’s the deal with beauty anyway? Is all of nature beautiful? Death is natural, and so is a lot of pretty bloody stuff. But are we conditioned to think of a beautiful landscape whenever we think of nature? What does this say about how we perceive beauty? Is it the form and stability in nature, or the freedom? We would have liked to pursue this question further- What is it that is beautiful about nature?  

   With the many varying fields and people interviewed, it is a wonder that any of these answers resemble each other and it doesn’t surprise me that there are a great variety of answers.  Responses included looking for understanding (4), teaching or making a difference(3), being remembered (3), learning (3), success 
of students (2), happiness (2), little victories (2), writing books (1), and making a living (1).  The most popular response was that success was understanding.  ½ of those seeking understanding were scientists, the other ½ are non-scientist non-artists.  Also, ½ are professors.  No artists believed that success was equated with understanding. 
   On the whole, artists defined success in terms of public, outside opinion. Some called this “audience centered”, others simply said it is being remembered or known.  They spoke of communicating to others, leading an 
audience in new directions, etc.  
   Scientists want to find solutions, understand as many mysteries as possible, discover something new.  However,  the most popular response among scientists was teaching.  It is especially interesting that art and science are 
often considered opposites, and their ideas of success, in some ways, are opposite. 
   Non art non science interviewees gave answers that resembled both artists’ and scientists’ responses.  They also want to gain understanding, but also want to be recognized for their research and have an appreciative audience.  One professor in the neither category did not have a definition of his own success, but gave two interesting definitions for success in the fields of art and science. Success for scientists is “the discovery and recognition of regular and specific 
patterns in nature.” Success for artists is “the production of the beautiful, which illuminates the good and the beautiful.” 
   One interesting point is that the students and the professors, though 
obviously at different stages of their development in their careers, gave similar answers. However, professors tend to define success a little less broadly.  This is probably because they have spent years in their field and can find success in little everyday events, as an art professor put it, rather than in some big cataclysmic discovery years down the line.  Students still have many years ahead of them, and may have many different things in which they wish to succeed.  
   Another point was that three people answered teaching as their idea of success, and none of them were professors!  Also, none of them were artists.  The answers of the artists were very well spread out; while the scientists tended to group together more.  This is very intriguing, as in our class discussions we talked about how scientists collaborate far more often than artists.  
   In the future, this question is probably unnecessary since we had asked earlier what scientists/artists hope to accomplish.