Tag Archives: Science

Week 10: Vast Expanses

Posted on by
Reply

What I found most interesting in the readings this week was the second article, Vast Expanses: A History of the Oceans. In the article, the author discussed how knowledge has played a role in our changing perspective of the ocean. Through new knowledge, we have strengthened the connection between mankind and the ocean. But, this knowledge is a double edged sword, as this knowledge has also given more opportunity for exploitation of the ocean, control, expansion of power, and increased accessibility. As the author states: “Knowledge about the ocean–created through work and play, through scientific investigation and also through the ambitions people have harbored for using the sea–has played a central role in mediating the human relationship with this vast, tackless, opaque place” (p.4). The ocean has been discovered through both scientific investigation, and ambitions for use, as Rodzadowski states. This is important to note because it reveals that while we have what appears to be a scientific, objective interest in the ocean, we also have a deep urge to capitalize and dominate the ocean. Perhaps we can chalk this up to differences in people–scientists versus entrepreneurs and capitalists–or perhaps we can argue that every person will face a similar struggle at some point in their lifetime. Even the scientific approach has selfish reasons, humans crave to understand everything in this world; of themselves, of the other, of the distant. One can argue that science is objective, and studying the ocean is purely for the attainment of objective knowledge, yet, as this passage argues, this knowledge can have a negative effect. I do not believe that scientific investigation and ambitions for use are different; they tend to overlap far too much. Rodzadowski also describes the ocean as ‘vast, tackless, opaque’. In this way, he almost makes the ocean less human, less personified than many other texts we’ve read. Tactless is to be without manners or rude, and this word creates an ocean that has little regard for the rest of nature, including us humans. His use of the word opaque also makes the ocean mysterious, separate and hidden from us. 

Understanding the Ocean: Art vs. Science

Posted on by
1

While reading The Blue Humanities, by John R. Gillis, I kept thinking about the relationship between art and science.

I believe that both art and science are ultimately trying to accomplish the same goal – albeit by taking different steps. To me, the goal of art is to spread awareness and an overall understanding of any specific issue or topic by creating something an audience can observe and explore with their imagination. Whether its a movie, song, painting, etc. it is my understanding that art is to be carefully crafted in order to raise a question in the viewers mind that they are supposed to answer for themselves. Science, seems to be the opposite. Where art aims to ask questions, science wants to provide an answer. Science produces theories that are meant to be tested and experimented with to get the greatest understanding of the subject as possible.

So where does the Ocean come in with all of this? Well, with the ocean being so vast and mysterious – it is no question why so many works of art have been produced with the ocean being the main character. It’s unpredictable and violent while also being calm and serene. It is the perfect canvas to paint upon the fears, desires, and wonders of the human mind. But how does writing a book affect the ocean? Making a movie? Writing a song? The biggest influence art has on the ocean is how we view this integral part of our world. Could it lead us to wanting to investigate it.

Where we observe the ocean through art, we could disrupt it with science. While we can learn a lot about the ocean through research, there’s a difference between observing it as it currently exists and observing it with a plethora of variables. Human beings have an impact on everything they decide to get themselves involved with. I am not against science in the slightest, but I do tend to associate the urge we have to “understand” the world around us with the tendancy to try and control it. I think that we cant fathom the perfectly chaotic synergy of the Natural World. We require structure in our lives to make the world go ’round, so we intend to implement that structure on a world that would be better off without it. The way I see it, we are product of the Natural World, but we are in no way a part of it. I dont think we can return to it, so ultimately this debate on whether understanding the world through art is better than doing so through science or vice versa is rather moot.

Sorry for the downer post, I’ve just been chasing this idea around in my head and reading The Blue Humanities somehow made the idea click into place.