Archive for the ‘Week1_TwoCultures’ Category

Week 1 - Two Cultures - The Nature of Creativity by Devin Quinlan

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

I am a first year bioengineer here at UCLA. When most people think of the typical engineer, not even to mention a bioengineer, they envision the Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking figure who spends all of their time alone, immersed in their studies. They envision someone who lacks social skills and is no good at doing something “creative” like art or literature. I, however, do not fit within that stereotype, and the truth is that the majority of south campus majors here at UCLA are not polarized individuals, incapable of doing anything else but math and science. Likewise, north campus majors, whether they be artists, historians, or writers often take interest in the sciences, and don’t all fit into the stereotype of the inspired artist who is addicted to various substances and takes pride in being a social deviant. I maintain the view that all of the disciplines are intrinsically intertwined, and whether you look at science and math or history and art, no one individual subject area can provide the basis for our society and culture.

I am a firm adherent to the idea that everyone should strive to be the “Renaissance Man”. Much like Leonardo da Vinci, I appreciate all areas of knowledge, even though I spend the majority of my time learning about molecules and atoms. This focus certainly stimulates my appreciation of the sciences, but to satisfy the other disciplinary areas of my life I create photoshop artwork, refine and develop my musical taste, and spend a decent amount of time watching Project Runway and the Game Show Network. Much like Professor Vesna explained, the ideal citizen should have a specialized understanding of one facet of knowledge while still maintaining a broad understanding of all disciplines.

In addition to the idea of the “Renaissance Man,” I also agree with Professor Vesna’s view of creativity being independent to all disciplines. I find it mildly aggravating when people assert that the arts are the only outlets of “creative” people, while math and science experts are just good with logic. The truth is that creativity is necessary for anyone to excel in their field. You can’t become a great artist by selling copied works from others, just as you can’t become a great scientist by doing research and following procedure for your superiors. It takes creativity to become great, and whether you’re Andy Warhol or Francis Crick, you owe the majority of your success to creativity and ingenuity. Thus, a creative individual can excel in science or in the arts, or in fact whatever career they wish to pursue.

If it is true that it takes creativity to be good at art, and that it takes creativity to be good at science, then doesn’t it follow that by having the ability to create you have the potential to excel in both disciplines? The answer to this question, of course, is yes. This brings me to the the focal point of this course – the combination of art and science. The majority of art is based on science, whether it is something basic like the chemical composition of various paints or something more involved, like professor Vesna’s Blue Morph exhibit. A powerful illustration of this concept is the fractal. Not only is it created using computer software, often in conjunction with Photoshop (both of which are themselves technological innovations that enhance the ability to create art), but the fractal itself is defined by mathematic equations that the artist (or mathematician!) is able to input and manipulate to create something beautiful. Thus, the creation of the image itself is inherently related to both science and the arts. In the end, creativity is what decides the success of the work.

By the end of the quarter, I hope that this course helps myself as well as my fellow classmates obtain a firm appreciation for the arts, the sciences, and the relationship that they share so that eventually we might just get rid of the stereotypes of the typical North Campus and South Campus student.

Devin Quinlan

Fractal 2

_

fractals combine math and digital art

fractals combine math and digital art

Week 1: Me, “Two Cultures,” UCLA and Kinetic Sculptures by Ryan Andre Magsino

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Webcomics: Fusing Art and Science?

Web-comics: Fusing Art and Science?

Week 1: Me, “Two Cultures,” UCLA and Kinetic Sculptures by Ryan Andre Magsino

I like to consider myself a “Renaissance Man” or polymath if you will, for I persist in believing my knowledge is not restricted to merely one area of study. (Note: This probably explains why I am still Undeclared.) If I have accrued anything over these past few years, it is the passion in the fields of both the arts/humanities and the sciences/technology. Coming from a project based learning high school which stressed the integration of subjects from both fields, I am honored to brandish the products of my labor. Before coming to UCLA, I was actually working on something that was both artistic and science-related. Believe it or not, I was working on a video game per say. Although some may discredit video games as being related to either field, they fail to acknowledge the concept behind it. I find the key to a good game relies heavily on its aesthetic as well as the strength of the technology behind it. For this project, I programmed an enjoyable flash game that looked appealing while incorporating topics in chemistry. Players would learn actual concepts from chemistry and fictionally apply them in-game. (Note: To play the game as well as check out my weekly progression on the project, Click Here)

Although I hate to recognize it, there exists a divide amidst the fields of the arts and the sciences. As British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow points out, these two cultures are oftentimes divided thus causing poor interaction between the two. Looking further into what he had to say, I was appalled to discover that those in the arts only themselves as intellectuals thereby disregarding those in the sciences. Such a claim and other subjective differences culturally divide the two cultures. Furthermore, scientists though making discoveries failed to imply uses of such discoveries. Reflecting upon Snow’s analysis, John Brockman hints to the existence of a third culture in which scientists would be able to make those implications. Personally, I would not simply confine those in the third culture to only be scientists but rather those who have an active role in both fields.

Though more jokingly, such polarization does exist here at UCLA. Depending on your major and where your classes are located, students are considered either North Campus students (primarily Arts and Humanities majors) or South Campus students (primarily Science and Technology majors). Students who brandish the North Campus title often relate to their outstanding GPA, good looks (Note: This is probably an exaggeration.) and their ability to produce works that appeal to people’s senses or emotions whereas those with the South Campus title relate to the abundance of job offers, future six-figure paychecks (Note: This could also be an exaggeration) and the importance their study is for humanity. I believe the Cabaret for UCLA Freshmen Orientation clearly sums this up:

[A Whole New World - UCLA North vs South Campus]

“The worlds between arts and engineering exist only in our minds.” – Theo Jansen

I recently stumbled upon Theo Jansen, a Dutch kinetic sculptor. His works are deemed as aesthetic marvels in engineering and truly inspirational. As his occupation reveals in its title, his sculptures kinetically come to life powered by such natural forces as the wind. Not only do the sculptures manage to amaze those viewing them, their movements are governed by the understanding of science and mathematics. The following is a video displaying his kinetic sculptures:

[Theo Jansen - Kinetic Sculptor]

Wk 1_Two Cultures by Alana Chin

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

I always believed that there was a divide between the arts and sciences. I don’t just mean that art is a combination of lines and colors to make something visually stimulating while science is a combination of theories and experiments to make discoveries about the world. Superficially, you can say these things, and for the most part be correct. It can be analyzed further that art is more of an abstract exploration of aesthetics while science is more of an unbiased collection of data and procedures to support a hypothesis. When stated this way, it is clear that art and science are separate and distinct. However, it is not so simple. Everyone knows of the North campus/South campus division, but I believe it runs more inherently than that. It is not just that one field is more abstract and the other is more statistical. I believe that the fields are different because it stems from different kinds of people and different ways of thinking. C.P. Snow mentions in his “Two Cultures” that scientists tend to be more politically liberal and nonreligious. To me, science and art people are just different people. It seems that their brains just work in different ways. Art people tend to be more abstract while science people tend to be more analytical. Art people make decisions based on emotions and feelings while science people make decisions based on previous knowledge or facts. Art people want to know how to create things while science people want to know why it happens. Even the language between art and science people differ. When comparing two opposite things, art people will say that they are “incongruous” while science people will say that they are “inverses.” If someone deviates from the topic of conversation, art people will say it is a “digression” while science people will say it is a “tangent.” Of course this is not always true, and I don’t claim to know how all people think; this is just what I have noticed in my experience.

However, to say that art and science are very different doesn’t altogether mean that they can’t work harmoniously. Art and science frequently come together to produce a well-balanced unit. It’s practically impossible to use one without incorporating some of the other. For example, painting relies on the science of blending certain colors to create new colors. Sculpting relies on the density and durability properties of different stones. Civil engineering or architecture relies on art to create a structure that is both aesthetically pleasing and functional. Cinematography utilizes science frequently in digital film or CGI, computer generated imagery. A recent example of this would be seen in the Disney and Pixar computer animated film, Wall-E. Just looking at the character Wall-E itself, one notices that Wall-E is a computerized image of colors, lines, and shadows. Looking closer, one sees that he is made of wheels, gears, hinges, and electric parts. His image alone is a combination of science and art. However, to give him life, even more science and technology is utilized. To create a creature that we can identify with and feel for, the science of computer imaging, sound, and movement are all synchronized. The end result is a fusion of art and science that people love and connect with. His likeness can even be identified in food. This picture is further proof that art and science collide as agriculture and food manufacturing come together to create art.

by Alana Chin

Week 1: Thinking about the divide by Kimberlie Shiao

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

This week we talked about the intellectual divide between people of the arts and people of science. While there are examples of people who cross this divide, in general there can be understood to be a startling knowledge disparity between the two. Even as there may be merit in arguing the extent that this disparity exists with examples of science fiction, math rock, and algorithm powered art, I find myself pondering the whys of the disparity. I feel it would be very simple for members of either field to learn about the other; there are a number of texts out there at the library or on the internet. So then, the continuing divide is at least partly self-perpetuated by the people.

One of the beliefs I see as contributing toward the divide between art and science is utility and functionality. Science careers are associated with utility: doctors help you get better, and engineers build bridges. The esteemed art careers are not utility; the most recognized art inspires and questions. Such elated work would be widely recognized but few in number, making art a place of fierce competition for the short attention spans of the general public. General science careers, then, can be argued as less competitive and having a clear goal. Such differences suggest a cause for not only the impression of dissimilarity between art and science, but also for the number of people who are drawn toward the sciences.

Another factor that I think contributes to the perceived gap between the two subjects is globalism. Not completely just globalism, but also the awareness of space, i.e. how the image of our planet from space humbles our species into a smaller context. As we become more aware of things outside our lives, our countries, and our planet, less of our academia seems to apply. The fields of study that hold the most truth and relevancy in this expanded awareness are the maths and sciences, for they are more “pure”. Arts and humanities, are human centric, and occasionally even most relevant to certain humans (e.g. some art is reveled in one society and ignored in the next). And for this seeming narrow-mindedness and limited relevancy, some more scientifically minded people may be more inclined to dismiss art.

I think these are two perceptions that must be changed as the two cultures come together to blend into a third.  Art is neither useless nor irrelevant.  Science is not merely useful and not always open-minded.  It might be a difficult path, needing people to overcome their preconceived notions and maybe even encountering bumps in the road like “the Uncanny Valley”, but it will be worth it.  As the forerunners help the emergence of this middle ground, there can be advantages gained from both sides to create something greater, a synergy of humanity’s search for truth, identity, and beauty.

Week 1-Differing Cultures by Brandon Aust

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Upon discussing the idea of “Two Cultures” in class, I began to think about the true differences between the “scientific” and “artsy” cultures. At UCLA, there is a clear divide among the students, since everyone who attends the school is aware of the North vs. South campus stereotypes. Although the students may be separated by what career path they are endeavoring in, I believe that we are all more alike than we are made to perceive. Just because a student is in a certain major, does not mean that they are not aware of all the great things that surround them in the world. A South campus major is still capable of understanding art, and a North campus major is still capable of understanding math and science. It also does not mean that they are incapable of being friends with, or simply holding a conversation with, someone of a differing major. I, myself, am majoring in mechanical engineering, but I do not see science as my only interest. I have a vast love of music, movies, drama, art, and other such things that would be seen as something a North campus student would be interested in. In high school I was involved with the school’s film group, Improv team, and drama department. This does not fulfill the stereotypes placed upon me by my “South campus” label. I also have a large amount of friends who are not majoring in math or sciences. These friends do not fill the stereotypes given by our fellow peers as well. Just because they may be an English, Theater, or History major does not mean that they cannot have an interest or understanding in math or science. Even if we are not taking classes that our peers across campus may be taking, we all took such classes in prior education and are all exposed to the topics discussed in these classes by simply living in the modern world.

Science vs. Art
In The Two Cultures, CP Snow states, “Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension-sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding. They have a curious distorted image of eachother.” I personally believe that this statement is overly exaggerated. Although people with differing interests may tease one another, there is generally not hatred amongst them. Also, it seems ridiculous to state that people do not understand one another based on differing interests. The majority of people have various interests. They are not solely defined by their career or intellectual path. Thus, it is possible to understand one another’s interests, because even if you are a Biology major, you will most likely be able to talk to a Film major based on the fact that you enjoy movies and cinema.
It is the combination of these differing thoughts and interests between the two sides which generally creates the best overall product. Art and science tend to go hand in hand. Without this combination many of the things we take for granted would not exist.  Architecture, an mp3 player, television, ect. are all a mixture between art and science. Even nature and the world itself is a mixture of art and science. For instance, flowers can be seen as a beautiful piece of art, yet some follow the golden ratio in there seed placement. Here, there is a strange, yet beautiful combination of differing cultures in nature itself. (For more on the golden ratio see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio).

Golden Ratioflower

Week 1 - Uniting Two Cultures by Richard Jin

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Ever since I was young, I was brought up to believe that there is either art or science. From an early age, this idea was instilled in my mind as even my class in elementary school was split into morning and afternoon sessions – art and science. Not much has changed since my days in elementary school, as even now in college we are divided into the arts and humanities of North Campus and the sciences of South Campus. However, upon reading D. Bohm’s On Creativity, I was struck by the remarkable similarity between the two people groups. Although we may use different tools and canvases to express ourselves, we are in essence the same. We are all artists creatively seeking new ways to unearth and express “…a certain oneness and totality, or wholeness, constituting a kind of harmony that is felt to be beautiful” (138). We seek to put things into new perspectives; whether our approach is qualitative or quantitative, our ends are the same.

In Toward a Third culture: Being In Between, Professor Vesna suggests the emergence of a third culture, a culture which will bridge art, science, and technology. Similarly John Brockman, author of The Third Culture asserts the same belief, however, claims that contemporary scientists are the third culture. I disagree with Brockman’s view, although it is true that contemporary scientists are increasingly utilizing art as a means to further scientific discoveries (e.g. 3D Periodic table arrangements, computer imaging/modeling), artists are also entering the realm of science and technology using both classical and media arts to integrate and put a new perspective on scientific concepts (e.g. Digital entities that can understand human emotion, dance in zero-gravity). I believe this emergence of a hybrid art-science culture has begun to arise as a direct result of the increasing popularity of the liberal arts approach to education. Whereas the traditional approach to education (still prevalent in many colleges) includes a major/professional specific curriculum, a liberal arts education forces students to take classes in subjects often thought to be unrelated to their professional goals. However, it is precisely because of this policy of “exposure to various disciplines” that a third culture will emerge. With a greater palette of knowledge to choose from, students can apply cross-disciplinary concepts and approaches to their research/profession (an “anything goes” mentality), allowing for further discoveries and the emergence of a hybrid-culture.

As a university adopting a liberal arts education system, UCLA is breeding grounds for cross disciplinary research, a synergy of art and science. Upon going to my math professor’s office hours last quarter, I discovered the research he was doing was a fascinating blend of art and science. Professor Teran was attempting to make virtual surgery a reality, creating a virtual biological double of a patient through mathematics, computer science, and imaging. Using mathematical algorithms and equations, three-dimensional representations of patients are created on computer programs that show how skin and soft tissues such as muscle, fat, tendon and ligament respond to surgical operations and incisions. Fusing art, science, and technology, Teran aims to minimize fatal surgical table errors by allowing surgeons to practice on patient replicas before entering the operating room.

 

Teran’s algorithms also went into creating the  movement of Davy Joness Beard

Teran’s algorithms also went into creating the movement of Davy Jones's Beard

 

Computer animated musculoskeletal system

Animations of muscles constructed from the NIH visible human data set:

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~jteran/

 

-Richard Jin

Week 1_Two Cultures Combined by Catherine Yang

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

As a south campus major, I would always discuss with my friends how hard it is to be a science major. I would ask how it would be like to be a north campus majors and my friends would reply, “O, its art or history, how hard can it be?” Through those words, I felt a little uneasy and asked myself, then why doesn’t everyone just be a north campus major then? Soon, I realize that even though it may sound easy to draw or produce something, it also take time and thought in order to develop a creative idea or a piece of art. Unlike the north campus, south campus does a lot of memorization and just follows the rules of an equation or idea. This made me distinguish that south campus majors are more restricted to think outside the box because science is based on facts and theories that are already there. On the other hand, north campus majors have the freedom of developing their own thoughts and imagination.

This division intrigued me more as Professor Vesna discussed about C.P. Snow’s concept of “Two Cultures”. After I read “The Two Cultures”, I felt that Snow’s discussion about how the groups, science and arts, are portrayed as different “polar groups” is a good point. By placing them as opposites in a subject sense, this shows that the members of the same group have common grounds toward each other. It was as if the group of people from the same subject knew one language, while the other one knew a different language. For example: Snow talks about how he felt that the question “If one knew how to read?” and “If one knew what is mass and acceleration?” were two similar questions but related to two different subjects. Because of this difference in understanding each other, the two groups become more ignorant of each other.

cartoon2 spiral-shell2

In my opinion, I agree with Snow for the most part on the division and separation between the two subjects. By dividing the campus as north as art/humanities majors and south as science/math majors, it allows the people of the same major mingle together and feel more comfortable with their surroundings. Like the cartoon I have posted, this person feels out of place as he enters the engineer place because he is suppose to be in humanities place. This feeling of uneasiness is felt because that person is not in a field that he is very familiar with. It is like when a person does not fit in with a certain environment in society. However, I feel that the two subjects are not ignorant of each other. Instead, I feel that science incorporates art and vice versa. For example: if a scientist wants to visualize an atom, DNA, or even bacteria, one must have to use an art form to portray it. As for art, sometimes artist have to align and measure how to draw something, which involves the usage of calculations. In addition, by combining their knowledge together, a scientist and an artist can work side by side to create projects such as scientific art pieces. The picture of a spiral shell is not only a beautiful piece of art, but also the spirals of the shell can be calculated through Fibonacci numbers. The combination of math and art with something as simple as a shell shows that art and science are dependent of each other.

Catherine Yang

Week 1-Is the Seperation of Two Cultures Natural? Jackielyn Lacanilao

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

         When I first read C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures, it constantly reminded me of how at this university, UCLA, students are divided into two groups-the north campus majors and south campus majors. South campus majors are the science majors while north campus consists of everything else besides science. I happen to fall into the south campus category as a 1st year Biology student. I really liked how C.P. compared how each culture stereotypes the other. “Non-scientists tend to think of scientists as brash and boastful.”(169) Professor Vesna mentioned during lecture her idea of a scientist as, “the mad lonely scientist working in their laboratory.” When it comes to scientists, the image that pops up is Bill Nye the Science Guy from the Disney Channel. He was a really insane and funny scientist that makes educational videos fun to watch. I remember sitting in Biology class in high school and watching Bill Nye the Science Guy and remembering the Photosynthesis song! I guess he was one of the reasons I enjoyed studying Biology.

Bill Nye the Science Guy =)

What I don’t understand is why science and the arts are seen as two different cultures? I mean we are surrounded and immersed in technology and art. Technology wise, we are glued on to the internet and to our cell phones. I believe those are the two things people cannot live without because then myspace or facebook will end to exist. I really enjoy viewing unique photography people post on photobucket.com. I’ve taken a different appreciation for the arts than I did before I took this class. In science, students study the periodic table and the DNA structure. In AP Biology I created a 3D DNA structure and I considered that art. The other day I was at the mall and I came across this interactive floor projection. This is similar to one of professor Vesna’s projects where your shadows can move the virtual ball. In this interactive floor projection, little children were stomping on virtual bubbles! I recommend watching a similar interactive floor projection on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMbbKUAEJqs. It kind of reminded of how everything is becoming interactive, like “at the touch of your fingers” technology. For example, when the iphone was revealed, the evolution of “touch pad” was created. Every store that you step into, the cash registers is touch pad. The convenience of this kind of technology is becoming popular. Just as C.P. snow said, “Literature changes more slowly than science.”(170)

            If science and the arts came together as one, ideas can be exchanged and be created into something beneficial for humankind. This kind of change should occur at UCLA where the north campus & south campus students have interaction with one another. It is like we live in two different worlds, the ‘jets’ on this side and ‘sharks’ on the other (West Side Story). Since I am taking DESMA 9, I get to see the other side of campus. Now I understand why North campus is beautiful because of the sculptures and pretty landscapes. Sometimes I wish all my classes were on this side of campus. I know one thing for sure, that through DESMA 9, I appreciate art in a whole different attitude with a better sense of appreciation.

Week 1 - Two Cultures by Crystal Lin

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

I’m really glad I decided to take DESMA 9. The first two lectures have already provided me with a lot of information, and some new perspectives. I knew the course was going to go over the realms of science and art, and how they are intertwined, but I never thought of exactly how separated the two are in today’s world, how much they have in common, and especially not of how much they rely on each other. Reading “The Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow made me notice how evident the separation is right here on campus. North Campus houses the Humanities majors, and South Campus houses the Science majors. I never thought of this separation as being a problem though. During orientation, we were given tours of the campus, and heard stories of how North Campus majors started an art project in an effort to make South Campus more beautiful, thereby emphasizing many of the differences we’ve created for the two fields of study. North Campus majors and the students studying them are characterized by beauty, artistic skill, creativity, and knowledge in literature. Math equations, science laws, piles of books, social ineptitude, and lack of creativity characterize South Campus majors and the students studying them. We feed off these already intact characterizations, and North vs. South becomes another rivalry to take part in for UCLA students.I’m really beginning to see the similarities between science and art however. (I’d like to interject and make a point of how I’ve constantly written “science and art” and not “art and science.” The class is Art, Science, and Technology, so one would think I would be inclined to write “art and science,” but instead, I always put science first. It’s interesting to think maybe it’s because I’m a science major, and that has led me to think science is more prominent.) In any case, I used to see things as one or the other. At science museums, each display I went to was a science project with a new piece of information to learn. When the professor brought up other “science projects” however, like the butterflies and giant bubbles being affected by interactions with shadows, I really began to see the art aspect of the displays. It was no longer purely science. In the same way, many of the things I usually see as simply science, like the projection of a grain of sand on to a pile of sand (the one the professor showed in class), are starting to become more artsy than scientific.

Being a engineer, and therefore South Campus student, I think it’s a lot easier for me to see the science in art than it is to see the art in science. Hand blown glass is beautiful, and truly a work of art, but as I’m watching the glass-blower work quickly to design his piece, I’m not thinking of the designs he’s going to make with each twist and pull. Instead, I’m wondering, what temperature does glass melt at? What temperature does it begin to harden, and how will the physical appearance of the glass change when he works with it at different temperatures? Hand blown glass pieces would generally be place under the art category, but I have to go find the science in it.

I’m not sure exactly, but I believe the TA’s this quarter are all studying or have studied architecture. Even if I’m wrong about this, the point I want to make is that I think architecture is one of the best examples of how art and science can intertwine. Architects want to create structures that are aesthetically pleasing, but science must come in to make sure the creatively designed buildings are structurally sound. In architecture, finding the harmony between art and science is what enables people to create structures like this,

Week 1-The Two Cultures that Surround Me- Idy Tam

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

the scientists

the scientists

and the writersthe writers and the artists

Through my first quarter of attending UCLA, I immediately distinguished the two cultures that C.P. Snow discussed about in “Two Cultures”, when I first stepped into this campus. I remember when I attended orientation during the summer, my orientation counselor told me that the UCLA campus is divided into North and South campus, North being the majority of where the arts and theater classes are held and South being where the science and math classes are held. Before when I was in high school, the distinction between these two groups were not as obvious but after attending to UCLA, I began to see this imaginary barrier that separates artists and scientists. Even observing the interactions between the counselors who are science majors and the counselors who are arts majors were stunning because their interactions emphasized Snow’s believes that these two polar groups have mutual incomprehension, hostility and dislikes, and curious distorted images of each other.

After reading “Two Cultures” on Tuesday night, I decided to do some research about my fellow classmates in the classes I am taking this quarter. I was curious how C.P. Snow’s finding apply to students at UCLA. The very next day, I asked classmates in my chemistry class about what their major is and why they decided to choose this major. The majority of the responses are they know that their degree in the science and math field will provide them a steady job with high income in the future. This response is exactly what C.P. Snow claimed about what young scientists believed in the western society. I would agree as a biology major, myself, this is one of my top incentives of choosing this major. I also met a few people who said they are a History major, English major, and arts and theater major. I never understood why people would choose to pursue in these majors. I believe that the stereotypes of a historian or an artist distorted the image I had towards them. But after asking my classmates why they want to become an artist or a writer, many of them responded that they are not seeking for high paying jobs or steady income. These people truly enjoy what they do and are inspired by many great artists and writers.

While there are extreme distinctions between these cultures at UCLA, there is also an area where literary people and scientist share commonalities. UCLA provides a variety of general education classes for students, which give them insight to different subject matters. For me, attending to the first two classes of DESMA 9, I began to see how the world is like from an different point of view. Especially after I watched the works of Professor Vesna, and listened to her lectures. I never imagined that artists and scientists can work together to create such amazing pieces, such as the Blue Morph exhibitions which displayed a mixture of art and nanotechnology. I hope after this quarter I will learn how to collide my scientific knowledge with the artistic knowledge that I will gain.