New Physics: Sae Mulli (새물리)

Korean Physical Society (한국물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Implications of the Relationship between Science and Art in the Twentieth Century for Science Education

20세기 상대성이론과 미술의 관계의 논의를 통한 과학교육에 대한 시사점

  • Jho, Hunkoog (Center of General Education, Dankook University)
  • 조헌국 (단국대학교 교양기초교육원)
  • Received : 2014.03.06
  • Accepted : 2014.04.17
  • Published : 2014.05.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to discuss the shared background between the theory of relativity in physics and surrealism in art and to elucidate the scientific features presented in paintings from the twentieth century. Regarding historical background, both physics and art were influenced by modernism which denies absolute truth for many reasons: high interest in psychoanalysis, socio-economic inequity and contempt of life. Art rejected perspectives about and concentrated on expression of given phenomena (cubism and surrealism), and science reached the conclusion that time is inseparable from space and that every motion or event is relative (theory of relativity). Many artists were interested in the theory of relativity and tried to apply scientific theories in their paintings through direct and/or indirect interactions with scientists. Paintings by surrealists and cubists showed the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction and curvature of space-time. The cases shown in this study will be used to discuss pedagogical ways of teaching physics with art.

본 연구는 20세기 상대성이론의 탄생과 초현실주의 미술의 탄생 배경을 살펴보고, 당시 미술 작품을 상대성이론의 관점에서 분석하였다. 20세기의 물리학과 미술은 모두 객관적 실체에 대한 부정을 주장하는 모더니즘의 철학적 흐름 하에 놓여 있었으며, 정신분석학의 대두와 산업 혁명과 제국주의에 의한 사회 경제적 불평등, 인간 소외 등의 공통적인 배경에 놓여 있었다. 이에 미술은 선 원근법과 공간의 절대성을 거부하고 이를 새로운 관점에서 분석하고 표현하려는 입체파와 초현실주의로 나아갔으며, 물리학은 절대적이고 독립적인 시간과 공간 관계를 넘어 상대적이고 얽혀 있는 시공간의 개념을 제안하였다. 또한 미술의 여러 화가들은 상대성이론에 관심을 가졌으며 직 간접적인 교류와 정보 습득을 통해 이를 미술에서의 표현으로 소화하고자 하였다. 20세기 화가들이 그린 미술작품을 통해 동시성의 상대성, 시간 지연효과, 길이 수축효과, 중력렌즈 효과 등을 살펴볼 수 있다. 이러한 사례를 통해 과학교육에서의 미술 활용 방안에 대해 논의할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. B. S. Baigrie, Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996), Chap. 2.
  2. A. I. Miller, Imagery in Scientific Thought Creating 20th-century Physics (Birkhauser, Boston, 1984), Chap. 4.
  3. I. Galili, Sci. & Educ. 22, 1911 (1938).
  4. J. K. Gilbert, Visualization in Science Education (Springer, Dordrecht, 2006), Chap. 1.
  5. D. F. Treagust and J. K. Gilbert, Multiple Representations in Science Education (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009), Chap. 3.
  6. P. M. Harman, Energy, Force and Matter (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1980).
  7. T. K. Simpson, Figures of Thought: A Literary Appreciation of Maxwellïs Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (Green Lion Press, Santa Fe, NM, 2005), pp. 13-16.
  8. C. Pedretti, Leonardo: Art and Science (TAJ Books, Cobham, UK, 2004), pp. 16-28.
  9. M. Lee and H. Hwang, Art Educ. Res. Rev. 26, 165 (2012).
  10. J. Gage, Colour and Meaning, Trans. Park Sujin and Han Jaehyun (Social Critique, Seoul, 2011), pp. 21-33.
  11. G. Parkinson, Surrealim, Art, and Modern Science: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Epistemology (Yale University Press, London, 2008).
  12. E. Strosberg, Art and Science (Abbeville Press, New York, 2001).
  13. P. Gilbert and W. Haeberli, Physics in the Arts (Elsevier, Burlington, 2008).
  14. H. Kim, Stud. Basic Des. & Art 13, 105 (2012).
  15. R. W. Weisberg, Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2006), Chap. 1.
  16. Ministry of Education Science and Technology, Report No. 2011-361, 2011.
  17. J. Park and J. Lee, Asian J. Educ. 14, 97 (2013).
  18. Korea Foundation for Advancement of Science and Creativity, Report No. 2012-12.
  19. H. Shin, Art Educ. Res. Rev. 18, 53 (2004).
  20. J. Kim, J. Art Educ. 32, 125 (2012).
  21. E. Lee, J. Art Educ. 33, 287 (2012).
  22. N. G. Lederman, F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell and R. S. Schwartz, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 497 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  23. J. T. Cushing, Philosophical Concepts in Physics: the Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998).
  24. I. Galili and B. Zinn, Sci. & Educ. 16, 441 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9006-1
  25. P. Halfpenny, Positivism and Sociology: Explaining Social Life (Allen & Unwin, London, 1982).
  26. H. Jho and J. Song, J. Korean Asso. Res. Sci. Educ. 30, 533 (2010).
  27. J. T. Cushing, Philosophical Concepts in Physics: the Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998).
  28. E. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art (Phaidon Press, New York, 2006).
  29. F. Bradley, Surrealism (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997).
  30. G. Parkinson, Surrealim, Art, and Modern Science: Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Epistemology (Yale University Press, London, 2008).
  31. G. Parkinson, Sci. Cont. 17, 557 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889704000262
  32. A. I. Miller, Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time and the Beauty that Causes Havoc (Basic Books, New York, 2001), pp. 18-24.
  33. F. Nicosia, Dali: Revolution of Unconsciousness, Trans. Jeong Eunmi (Maronie Books, Seoul, 2007), Chap. 5.
  34. S. Gablik, Magritte (Thames & Hudson, London, 1985), pp. 118-122.
  35. L. Shlain, Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light (Quill/W. Morrow, New York, 1993).
  36. P. C. Vitz and A. B. Glimcher, Modern Art and Modern Science: the Parallel Analysis of Vision (Praeger, New York, 1984).
  37. J. Voss-Andreae, Leonardo 44, 14 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00088
  38. E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (Princeton University, Princeton, 2000).
  39. T. Kang, H. Jeong, H. Min, S. Kim and J. Yoon et al., Art, truth, science (Jaewon, Seoul, 1996), pp. 10-40.
  40. E. Loran, Cezanne's Composition : An Analysis of His Form with Diagrams and Photographs of His Motifs (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1963).
  41. J. S. Ryu and C. O. Oh, J. Korean Soc. Des. Sci. 61, 117 (2005).
  42. U. Kraus, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 1 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/29/1/001
  43. H. Jho, New Phys.: Sae Mulli 64, 281 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.64.281
  44. S. Im and J. Kim, New Phys.: Sae Mulli 64, 56 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.64.56