Life, as we all know is a vastly underrated experience. The saying goes ‘you don’t know what you have until it’s gone’ and nothing could be truer now. Reading through the musician’s nightmare I too felt the sting of grievance at the idea that music could be so structures. The thought that a child being unable to touch, let alone play, an instrument when it is a fundamental part of life just sounds odd. “It would be ludicrous to expect a child to sing a song or play an instrument without having a throughout grounding in music notation and theory” is the equivalent of reading that a child can’t run until they learn the physicality of that action. Knowing how the joints work with the muscles and how the brain sends a signal to the legs to move is all unrelated with the action it takes place. When a kid wants to run, they will run whether they understand how it works or not. For an artist, who is the ideal of self expression, being trapped in a box of rules is suffocating.
Yet the connection is made clear, the running theme in both nightmares is that these two art forms are being treated in the exact same way that math is. Math is taught in these rigid forms, first we learn to count, then add, subtract, divide and multiply. Little by little we eventually end up repeating what is being told to us and practicing what that by working through the same problems with different numbers.
To stifle the creative processes of an individual thought these nightmarish rules would keep anyone from picking up a crayon or humming a sung at all. I know if it was me and I lived in a world like this I’d never would have done either. The argument is that math is just as creative and expressive as any other art form, because it is, at the core, art.
I agree that institutionalized math education falls under this category of ‘no fun all work’. When I was learning class I followed the same boring steps any other student did. I hated it. It was only when shapes and toys would be brought out that I would begin to work a little harder. Learning math was the same as learning what happens in a history book. Nothing ever changes, the rules are always the same and ironically enough repeating patterns is one of the things that’s always bashed into our heads. Math always has a repeating pattern, math always has rules. Honestly who cares?
It wasn’t until taking this course that I began to see things differently. It was a tough and tedious process and often times I felt like I was bashing away at a wall with a picket ax. I was slowly breaking down what I believed to be math; a very long and annoying requirement to graduate. I never expected to leave the classroom with any newfound knowledge or love for the subject. Hopefully a passing grade and the relief that I was finally done with math and I’d never ever have to step into another classroom again. But I did learn and I evolved and through this class I began to look at other things in a new light.
Going back to my pattern theory, mathematics is all made up of patterns. Formulas fit under puzzles and one formula will lead to another (something I learned extremely well in connecting circles, which are rounded shapes, to it’s more straight lines counterparts). In general I love finding patterns in things. Once a pattern is found I can predict how something will occur and continue on for as long as I want. It is argued that a math formula is discovered, like a new planet outside the solar system, or created from the imagination like the statues of the Greek Gods in museums. Yet, both things imitate life so well and that is the fundamental connection.
While studying a sphere it was hard not to imagine it was the earth on the stand. How the circumference taken wasn’t the equator we were looking at. Whether it is with differentiated ratios of shapes (which was ridiculously long and annoying to do) a pattern was right there all along. When I imagine a triangle within a rectangle I imagine something that isn’t there. I make it up, and what I make up is often the ideal rectangle and the ideal triangle. It is, without a doubt, the most perfect shape I can come up with. If I were to put it on paper, it stops being perfect. Like all things in life perfection is unreachable. All we can do as humanity is use our imaginations and find the patterns to make our lives a little easier.
Like I was saying before, the imaginary triangle inside the mind of a mathematician is exactly what he or she wants it to be. The one on paper has already lost that “perfection” that they had created. It curves just a little, the points don’t meet in the exact same way. The lines take up a space within the drawing so do we measure from the outer edge of the lines or the middle? How precise will out answered truly be?
What makes it imaginary is that you can’t touch it or feel it. Math isn’t a concept that can be accurately portrayed on a canvas and displayed. Like an art piece of a bouquet of flowers, it can’t ever mimic the smell of those flowers or the feel of the petals against the skin. A piece of music that’s supposed to invoke the feeling of red is not the shade, and then what shade is it supposed to be? These concepts can’t be studied like World War II or experimented on like what happens when you put a Mentos in a bottle of Coca-Cola. They are just that; concepts, beliefs, and aspirations we hope are as accurate as possible.
One of the problems we worked on during class that still sort of bugs me when I think of was way back in the first half where we had two exact looking triangles with smaller triangles inside that on the large had the same area. However when the area of the smaller triangles were taken and added the numbers weren’t the same. They weren’t off by much (about a few decimals) but the idea stuck with me. How can two similar looking things be off to begin with? It goes back to the imaginary, how two mathematicians can see the same thing but get different answers. I think that mathematicians might be interested in these kind of problems because it creates a challenge. Those in math are curious, challenge-driven individuals and so it makes sense that they would find these sort of things engaging.
The beauty that Lockhart describes is imagination. His excitement is contagious even, full of vivid details and exclamations. He created a simple shape within a shape in his mind and realized that the shape takes exactly one half. That goes into the area formula of a triangle which is ½ base times height. It can also be described as half length times width which is the area formula of a square. This is just one way math finds patterns and adapts it to other things. It is beautiful and when thought about in “art terms” instead of “math terms” it’s relatively simple.
Lockhart doesn’t argue about the facts of a problem. We know that:
What he says is the problem that by giving the students the answer and question at the same time, we are inadvertently ruining mathematics for them. All they learn is to repeat and repeat the same thing without ever thinking of why it is we do what we do. It can be frustrating for anyone to do and it is no surprise why students tend to learn to hate mathematics but love art. Math isn’t fact, math is ideas formulated and played with to create those facts. Math isn’t ‘what is it?’ but ‘why is it?’ why does it do what it does and how can we explain it the same way a painting might make you go ‘huh?’ and never give you an answer.
In his example he explains and calculates that the triangle takes half the space of a square when a line is put through it from one point to the middle of the adjacent line. Math isn’t just the formula, but the explanation behind it, which is what he wants students to leave the classroom remembering. In class we do the same thing, taking apart a shape, putting it together, and forcing ourselves to explain what it is we’ve done in words instead of just numbers. We’ve used it throughout the sessions and no one problem differs.
He calls this article ‘A Mathematician's’ Lament’ because it’s just that. We are lamenting the fall of an art form, and not only fall but complete misinterpretation. The art, the beauty, and simplicity is being ripped from the imaginations of the young and given as a tool for… virtually nothing. Nothing is gained but a distaste for the subject and the ability to count from one to infinity. I find it most interesting his usage of words and how he expresses himself. It’s hard to believe anyone wouldn’t be changed after reading the article. Before math was nothing but a tool for me but I can’t help but feel like maybe there was a reason so many artists were also mathematicians after all.