In teaching science we need to remember that communication...

According to Jonathan Andersson, the artist, the blue color comes from cobalt salts and the yellow from silver. These are added to the glass and it is formed at high temperature in a sand mold. Firing to exactly the correct temperature and for exactly the correct time is necessary to achieve beautiful results. The process brings to mind synthesis of a high-temperature superconductor, annealing of a shape-memory alloy, and many other scientific/technological procedures. It requires of the artist the same attention to detail, observation, and record keeping that would be required in a laboratory. Additional requirements are imagination, critical judgment, and an esthetic sensibility--characteristics that are also useful in doing good science (1).

As is the case with most works of art (and of science), careful observation and contemplation allow one to discover new insights. For example, the color of the glass depends significantly on whether it is viewed by reflected or transmitted light. As the three photographs below illustrate, colors in reflected light are rather subdued, they become more intense when the object is lighted front and back, and the yellow and blue are striking when the only light source is behind the glass. Even more interesting is the variation in color of reflected light depending on whether the light source is behind the observer or on the other side of the object. The sequence of photographs above shows that when light is reflected through a small angle to the viewer's eyes, brilliant blues are seen, but they disappear when the light source is moved away from the viewer. Other colors can be achieved by further variations in angle of view and position of light source. Some of the color of the glass results from absorption of light, but Rayleigh scattering and interference (3) also play major roles.

... always benefits from imagination and esthetic sense.

Science and art diverge in that art usually represents a single individual's conception and viewpoint, even when many others are involved in bringing a work to fruition, whereas science progresses by extending consensus among those knowledgeable in a field. Art usually communicates at an emotional level. It values individual expression and impact on the emotions at the expense of objectivity. Science, especially in its archival record, values objectivity and reproducibility and does not express the imagination and joy of discovery inherent in its practice. This is too bad, because it does not give a realistic picture of how science is really done and because individuality and emotion are inherently more interesting than consensus. Leaving out the personal, emotional side can make science seem boring and pedestrian, when exactly the opposite is true. In teaching science we need to remember that communication always benefits from imagination and esthetic sense. If we present science artistically and imaginatively, as well as objectively and precisely, students will develop a more complete understanding of what science and scientists are about--one that is likely to capture their imaginations, emotions, and best efforts.

Literature Cited

1. Young, Jay A. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 329-330.
2. Bent, Henry A. J. Chem. Educ. 1981, 58, 331-333.
3. Brill, Thomas B. J. Chem. Educ. 1980, 57, 259-263.