by columnist Catherine Sigmond

Although I work in a science museum, I’m fortunate to have the opportunity to work and debate with colleagues from a range of disciplines at Tufts, particularly those in the art world.

Lately it’s got me thinking- why is there such a distinct separation between the arts and the sciences?

As a product of a multi-disciplinary education (I double-majored in History and Biological Anthropology and minored in French linguistics in college), this is a question that is constantly on my mind. And the more time I spend working in science museums and interacting with art museum professionals at Tufts, the more regarding, presenting, and teaching art and science as separate disciplines makes less and less sense to me.

Think about the common phrases “right-brained” and “left-brained.” Those deemed to be more “right-brained” are generally regarded as creative and innovative, while those seen as “left-brained” are viewed as being more analytical and logical. In other words, the creative right-brained folk are supposedly more artistic, while the left-brained, by contrast, are more scientific.

This division between people’s capabilities in art and science permeates several aspects of our lives- how we view our potential career options, what household tasks we think we will be able to complete successfully, the hobbies we pursue, the way we gage our ability to succeed in certain subjects at school, and a whole host of others.

It’s clear that most people assume that the ways in which artists and scientists view the world are inherently different from one another. And museums haven’t entirely escaped this trend. More often than not, art museums and science museums tend not to be in dialogue; seemingly assuming that the types of content they aim to teach visitors are too distinct from one another to be reconciled.

But if we disregard content and instead examine the ways of thinking that each type of institution seeks to impart upon their visitors, many of the overlaps between the two disciplines become abundantly clear.

When I go to work, staff and volunteers are trained to teach visitors that:

“Science is an activity: It is a way of asking questions and learning about the world that involves collecting objective evidence through observation and investigation, finding patterns in the evidence, and using these patterns to make predictions and develop testable explanations about the world we are a part of.”

And many art museum educators use Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) to facilitate structured, open-ended discussions where visitors are asked to “look carefully at works of art, talk about what they find, back up their ideas with evidence, listen to and consider the view of others, and discuss many possible interpretations.”

Despite some small differences, these ways of thinking overlap immensely. Both ask visitors to spend time investigating and making observations about what they see, challenge them to discuss these observations with their peers, make predictions about the cause of their observations, support their ideas with evidence, attempt to explain or interpret their ideas, and keep an open mind to a multitude of possibilities. Therefore although the arts and sciences appear to be markedly different, in reality they both rely on some of the same core values.

So why is there so often a disconnect between the artistic and scientific processes in the public eye? Why are kids often made to feel that they must choose one or the other, and what can museums do to change this?

I believe that museums, art and science alike, should begin by recognizing that the skills they are trying to teach are really one and the same. Despite the commonly held notion that scientists are not creative and that artists are not analytical, nothing could be further from the truth. If you work at an art or science museum, why not provide programming, develop exhibitions, or create interpretations that help visitors of all ages explore the relationship between the two fields and begin to understand how they overlap? Both art and science museums can and should play a role in combatting the notion that students will ultimately have to choose between one discipline or the other, and in doing so inspire truly creative design thinking.

Because what happens at the intersection of art and science? The answer is simple: wonder.

As Jason Silva puts it, it is at this intersection, “this intellectual collision of seemingly disparate bedfellows, that something magical and unexpected happens: new patterns emerge; new connections are forged between previously unconnected ideas and inspiration reigns.”

Of course, there are many institutions that are already doing amazing things to help the world realize that art and science are not really so different, and that neither field should be intimated by the other. One of my favorites is the Exploratorium, which employs “Staff Artists” and “Staff Scientists” and helps visitors explore everything from the science and art of severe storm visualization to the art and science of listening and sound. And art exhibitions that incorporate living things such as the upcoming CUT/PASTE/GROW exhibition in Brooklyn (and their recent crowd-sourced bioart mosaic at SXSW Create) are inspiring new approaches to aesthetic design and ecology.

But this trend must not stay limited to a small number of institutions and venues. Art and science museums should rethink their relationship with one another, perhaps embarking on new partnerships to help visitors explore the relationship between their respective fields and encourage innovation and creativity through a diverse variety of outlets.

As Mae Jemison (the first African-American woman in space, a medical school graduate, and a near-professional dancer) claims in what is possibly my all-time favorite TED talk,

“the difference between science and the arts is not that they are different sides of the same coin, even different parts of the same continuum, but rather, they are manifestations of the same thing. The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity.”

How can museums blend art and science to help foster this creativity? I wonder.

by columnist Cira Louise Brown

When I tell people that I’m going to school for Museum Studies, I often encounter confusion about what the profession actually entails (“you’re going to be a curator? … what is a curator?”). Once I explain that I want to develop the exhibits for science museums, I’m usually met with something along the lines of, “oh wow – people actually do that?” I remember my similar epiphany about six years ago, realizing that exhibits are indeed created by real people.

So who are they? One of the first things I did after the big “a-ha!” moment (apparently a common occurrence among my peers in the Museum Studies program), was to try and learn more about the backgrounds of exhibit developers. How did they arrive at that coveted position? Through researching and networking (and an admitted abundance of LinkedIn stalking), I’ve found that there isn’t a clear path at all, though a graduate degree in Museum Studies or Education is frequently cited. Some people were previously teachers (at all levels of schooling), while others have backgrounds in architecture and industrial design. Some are academics, completing immense amounts of scholarly work before moving on to the museum sector, while others were artists and sculptors, sometimes even having their own work shown in a museum. An overlap from the library field can be found, with archival work often being presented for public display, both in the physical and digital realms. Those familiar with best practices in collection management, from classification frameworks to restorative techniques, are almost always needed as well. Fabrication specialists, ranging from carpenters with decades worth of hands-on experience to experts in material science are vital in the creation of the exhibit, with the tactical aspects of an exhibit often being among the most decisive experiential attributes. People with a history of working with nonprofits and local organizations tend to transition toward the museum field, which can be expected since almost all museums strive to support their community. Evaluators, with knowledge in psychology, sociology, statistics,and educational philosophy, are vital to the creation of a successful and meaningful exhibit, all the way from conception to refinement. Ever increasingly, backgrounds in computer science and interaction design are skills that prove essential, with digital components becoming ubiquitous and information visualization becoming a booming industry in and of itself. And we can’t forget those with managerial and budgeting skills who are tasked with orchestrating and steering this whirlwind of creative energy!

With all of these trades meshing together under the umbrella of exhibit development, I have to wonder if there is another field that rivals in the variation of its constituents. Of course, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. These collective backgrounds are representative of the sheer magnitude of differing skills that are essential in building a successful exhibit. All strive to create a singular exhibition that is simultaneously tangible and abstract – an exhibition is an experience!

As I look through this landscape of museum exhibit development, I am continually finding tensions at play within the creative process. The design of an exhibition must be visually appealing and engaging, but also must still comply with universal readability standards and not incite visual fatigue. There is a fine line between being captivating and obnoxious, and the developer must find that balance. The information presented must not be so dense to turn off visitors, but must be interesting enough to hold the attention of those with prior knowledge. Then there is the persistent issue of making an experience distinctive and authentic, something that lends itself well to the museum venue, and cannot be easily replicated in a book or on a website. With interactivity easily achievable on websites and apps, standards for what makes an engaging museum exhibit are raised significantly. Even the degree of interactivity is a point of contention – I was surprised to learn that a component can even be considered too intriguing, potentially stagnating the foot traffic in an exhibition that generates revenue by the number of tickets sold.

Having just completing an exhibit development internship at the Museum of Science and currently creating interactive demonstrations at the MIT Museum, I’m fortunate to be able to observe and participate in this creative process firsthand. I always refer to exhibit development as a craft, based not only on the various skills needed, but also that I believe it’s best learned through active participation, a summation of endless tips, tricks, techniques and lessons learned. I’m eager to explore these themes through a series of blog posts, each focusing on a different facet in the development process. Stay tuned!