SPEECH AT
THE FORUM IN MAUBEUGE
by Michele
Emmer
When, in
1977, I began my "Art and Mathematics" project (and it is
unimportant
which word comes first), I had something that was very clear in
mind, I was
not at all interested in making "educational" films like the
ones being
produced at that time, which tried to explain what a result, a
theorem, in
mathematics was. Films that were very boring, and essentially
very short,
and in my opinion completely useless. I was not convinced, and
I am still
not convinced today, that a film, a video, a software can act as
a
substitute in teaching, and in particular in the case of mathematics, to
a direct
contact with the teacher.
One of the
things that the media will never be able to do, is to react to
the faces of
the persons that are listening to what you are saying. Anyone
who has
ever taught knows that the faces of the students are a very
important
thing.
A film
therefore cannot be used for this, it cannot be used to replace
studies
that must be individual, with books, exercises software
or
CD-roms,
that can always and only be used as a material support to the
"physical"
contact with the person who is teaching, with the one who
suggests,
informs, explains, clarifies. Besides, there is also another very
important
aspect, a famous Italian mathematician, who died a few years ago,
said a
number of times that teaching is the best way to learn deeply.
However I
was convinced that a film, a video, could be very useful to
strike
one's fantasy, to stimulate imagination, in other words to make one
feel the
need to understand, to study further. And not only a film, but
also an
exhibition, a book, a show.
From the
very beginning of the project I thought of making films,
exhibitions,
books, meetings, all these things together, and after a number
of years I
can say that the project has worked. It has worked because one
of the
great fortunes of art and mathematics is that of being universal. If
one speaks
of mathematicians or artists from any part of the world, one
can be
understood if he succeeds in finding the right interpretation key.
Why am I
speaking of art? Because from the very beginning, as the first
idea was
that of realising videos, "visual" images had to be used. And
therefore
why not also ask the collaboration of artists, besides
mathematicians?
I am also convinced that it is not possible to speak of
"Visual
Mathematics", in all the sectors of mathematics, just as it
would
be absurd
and ridiculous to make art seem to be always tied to scientific
or
mathematical ideas. Just like it would be absurd , today , to privilege
the
computer, the Internet, and make art seem to be "new" because it
utilises new technologies.
In
mathematics and in science, perhaps, we can speak of progress, in art
it is
totally absurd. Technology serves art in the same way as it serves
mathematics,
but neither art nor mathematics are pure technology, pure
method,
pure calculation. Creativity, invention, are essential both in art
and in
mathematics.
Which
surely does not mean that the task of "showing" the ties between art
and
mathematics is a desperate one.
So the idea
from which I started was to realise videos (and then
exhibitions,
books, meetings), in which the "visual ideas" that artists and
mathematicians
(and not only them, architects, biologists, musicians) used,
would be
highlighted. Ideas that can be compared, "described" in some
way,
always
trying to use mostly a visual language.
And so,
beside a number of mathematicians, from D. Coxeter to Roger
Penrose,
from T. Banchoff to De Giorgi, I asked the collaboration of many
artists,
from Max Bill to Luigi Veronesi, to De Rivera, to Bruno Munari and
many
others.
2.
In order to
privilege the images, the spoken part, the explanations were
cut down to
minimum, and these are not even "real" explanations. A typical
example is
the film "Soap Bubbles" in which Jean Taylor and Fred Almgren
speak of
the theory of minimal surfaces, in particular, of the result on
the
singularities of minimal surfaces, but the video can be seen by
children, even
if they are very small, and they will interpret it
differently
from, for example, the students of the University of Princeton,
where the
same film was shown.
Therefore
art, artists, can be very useful to mathematics, as, in a certain
sense also
mathematics, the images of mathematicians can be very useful to
art, to
artists. Always bearing in mind that each one is doing his own job,
that even
if creativity seems to have some features that are common in all
man's
activities, however each discipline, both artistic and scientific,
has its own language, its own technical means of expression. Otherwise, one
risks
making people believe that anyone can be an artist, anyone can be a
mathematician.
It is not sufficient to know how to "play" with a computer
in order to
become an artist, it is not sufficient to invent a new
technique.
As in mathematics, there certainly must be intuition, creative
capacity,
but there also must be the capacity to prove, to explain what
one is
doing, right to the end. Given the above, I believe that artists
can be very
useful in teaching mathematics, and also in making people
understand
how mathematics is a discipline with its history, with its
evolution,
with its mistakes and its successes, in conclusion, that
mathematics
have given and continue to give a great contribution to Culture.
Without
expecting, as faculty members always do, to teach the
school-teachers,
from kindergarten to the high schools, what they must
teach and
how. Those who do not have an experience in teaching in a
school, and
I do not have it, should be very cautious in suggesting
solutions
that seem to be the panacea for all the troubles of teaching.
Undoubtedly
most faculty members always look from above, downwards upon the
teachers,
and this attitude is not helpful. Also from this point of view,
artists can
teach mathematicians a lot of things.