A Biology Course for Art Majors

Charles Sinclair

The biology and art departments at the University of Indianapolis collaborated in creating a Biology for Artists course. It was first offered on a trial basis and was well received by students and the art faculty. This four-credit course consists of 2 hours of lecture and two 2-hour laboratory sessions per week, and it fulfills the university’s general science requirement. The only prerequisite is being enrolled as an art major (in fine arts, graphic arts, art therapy, or art education).

Although I am interested in art and took some classes in art history, I am not an artist. (This is evident when I draw on the board.) Despite this, I was eager to create and teach a new course at the University of Indianapolis called Biology for Artists. In collaboration with the art department, the science faculty made it clear that this was a science course for art students, not an art course. Had this course not been offered, most art students would have taken a general freshman-level science course for nonmajors. Such a course would have offered little integration of science with their artistic experiences.

What better target audience for a special biology course than artists? McCormack and Smucker summarize our intent well: “Contemporary artists not only draw direct inspiration from organisms, they react artistically to basic life science concepts and themes: birth, life cycles, interdependence, and symmetry” (1982, 112).

Goals and Organization

The primary goals of the course are summarized in Figure 1. We placed great emphasis on integration of artistic knowledge and science. Throughout the course, students progressed from rote memorization of anatomical structures and terms, to visualizing symmetrical and spatial relationships, relating structure and function, writing descriptions, and making comparisons. The cognitive demands increased as evolution, use of dichotomous classification keys, and application of anatomical knowledge to ergonomics and study of the human gait were presented.

In his discussion of introductory science courses, Druger asserts that, “These courses should help students recognize the relevance of knowing science; help students recognize that science is a human activity, whereby human beings use scientific methodology to make logical sense out of nature; help students improve oral, written, technological, and communication skills; help students improve critical-thinking skills; provide experiences that help students develop a mature, positive attitude toward science; and help students become self-motivated, lifelong learners” (2002, 280). To varying degrees, our course addressed most of these purposes. The class was organized into four units, which are summarized in Figure 2.

Unit I. Human structure and function. The emphasis in this segment was on learning the principal musculoskeletal and integumentary structures of the human body—those features most likely to be encountered by artists. Many students had difficulty understanding the functions of the muscles of facial expression. So, I assigned an exercise in which lab groups formed clay models of the muscles onto plastic casts of the human skull. (I do not recommend using pigmented clay on real bones because pigments may leach into the specimen.) The clay strands could be shortened to simulate the effect of muscle contraction on bone movement. This tactile and spatial approach was effective.

We used Human Anatomy for Artists as our textbook (Szunyoghy 1999). The art department faculty selected this book from several human anatomy books for artists. This text was intended to be a lifelong reference; students were encouraged to make notes and label structures in their books. Two lectures were set aside to discuss the human reproductive system. Student attitudes and comfort level with the subject were quite variable. Because external genitalia are often depicted in artworks, a mature and science-based discussion of reproductive structure and function is beneficial. The number and quality of questions posed by students clearly demonstrated their interest in the topic.

Several laboratory exercises involved microscope use. Students used real-time photomicrography and movie software to record capillary blood flow in the foot webs of frogs. In one exercise, students compared normal white blood cells and three types of leukemias, drew the normal and abnormal cells, and described the differences. Although they had little trouble drawing the cells, most had considerable difficulty using words to describe the differences. To make these descriptions, we developed a vocabulary (nucleus, cytoplasm, nucleus/cytoplasm ratio, mitotic figures, and so forth). Students’ difficulties in comparing cells emphasized the importance of clear description and correct nomenclature in scientific discussion.

Matern and Feliciano emphasize the importance of developing observation skills, collaborative learning, use of multiple modes of learning, and intellectual stimulation in the teaching of a fish taxonomy course (2000). These characteristics and techniques were necessary in our course as well. It is not sufficient for students to amass a vocabulary; they need to perceive patterns and relationships, retain and apply their knowledge, and learn to work together. We worked in teams of three or four, with some assignments completed as a team endeavor and others done individually.

We also offered a section on light and visual processing. In a spectrophotometry lab, in which absorption spectra of several watercolor pigments were generated, the artists learned about the optical properties of pigments.

Unit II. Evolution and zoology. This section was introduced with lecture and discussions on evolution and adaptation. The class compared and contrasted human structure and function with that of other common vertebrates. Students spent about 7 hours dissecting cats. (Students were allowed to skip this exercise if they objected on moral grounds; however, they were still held responsible for learning the relevant anatomy.) Topics of particular interest to artists included differences between horns, antlers, and tusks; hoof structure in ungulates; gait in quadrupeds; and variation in dentition among mammals. Pigmentation patterns in scales, feathers, and fur also caught their interest. This provided many opportunities to discuss natural selection and adaptation.

Unit III. Botany. It is impossible to adequately cover plant morphology in only 2 weeks. Therefore, we concentrated on concepts that are relevant to the botanical illustrator—types of plant growth and tropisms, gymnosperm and angiosperm morphology, and structure-function relationships in leaves. Students derived a list of differences between monocot and dicot angiosperms by observing several representative specimens. An exercise using a dichotomous key to classify seeds was intended to sharpen their observation skills and teach them the need for an exhaustive and mutually exclusive taxonomic system. A gel column and paper chromatography lab helped students understand the sources and interaction of pigments in leaves and flowers and the properties of solvents and solutes.

Unit IV. Microbial life and occupational health issues. We decided that students would benefit from a brief examination of microbial life and the use of biological stains. Teams obtained bacterial cultures from various environmental surfaces, including those in their studios. Next, they incubated the samples on a general purpose–nutrient agar and on eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar, which selects for coliform bacteria. Finally, they performed gram stains on selected colonies and reported the stain reaction and shapes of bacteria. These exercises provided an entrée into a discussion about “beneficial” and “harmful” bacteria, mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism.

Out of the Ordinary

We took three 2-hour field trips, the first of which was to a horse farm. After learning the principal superficial structures and muscle groups of the horse, students watched horses at rest and in motion, palpated musculoskeletal landmarks, and discussed the history of the relationship between humans and horses. This was a great experience for students because most of them had had minimal exposure to horses and other farm animals.

The second field trip was to a conservatory/greenhouse. The artists received a guided tour that emphasized the diversity of plant life and the relationships between humans and plants. They were invited to return later if they wished to draw or photograph specimens.

The third field trip was to Indiana University’s Department of Medical Illustration and Photography. The staff taught students about a variety of endeavors that integrate artistic skill and scientific knowledge, including computer-generated molecular and receptor modeling, development of prosthetic devices and medical teaching models, medicolegal illustration and photography, and biomedical illus-tration for textbooks and scientific publications. The staff also shared career-related advice with the class. Most medical, dental, and veterinary schools as well as large research universities have comparable departments

The last class meeting was a panel discussion with art and biology faculty members. This was the culmination of many informal discussions of stereotypes about “scientific people” and “artistic people.” The panel discussed similarities and differences in the training, cognitive skills, and challenges associated with careers in the sciences and in the fine arts. Student questions were insightful and probing.

Our panel came to a conclusion similar to that of Kelley, Jordon, and Roberts, who found that students tend to think the sciences are objective and data-driven whereas the fine arts are subjective and based on trend and opinion (2001). Students also tend to perceive science as unbiased, fact-driven, and convergent. The arts were seen as aesthetic-based and as encouraging divergent thinking. By the end of the semester, we developed a consensus that both endeavors require interpretation of data and information as well as creativity, careful observation, and self-discipline.

Few resources other than the equipment and specimens commonly found in a college biology laboratory system are needed to teach a course like this. We put a large easel in the lab that displayed posters of artwork related to the current topic, but otherwise did not make any changes to the laboratory environment.

About once every 3 weeks I showed images of classic works of art using an LCD projector. I recommend Mark Harden’s Artchive CDs for this purpose (Harden 2002). The CDs contain images of many major art-works with brief biographies of the artists. The Artchive disks are reasonable in price and are intended for educational, noncommercial use.

Showing images was an excellent way to promote integration of artistic and scientific knowledge. While doing so, I drilled students on anatomy and conceptual material. (We actually found a few errors in some of the works.) I also offered brief topical segments on artworks relating to death, mental and social pathology, public health, and the environment—as seen through the eyes of the masters. The CDs enabled students to link the aesthetic experience with their encounters with structure, function, and pattern.

Flannery reminds us that the “images in these works are rarely generated de novo, but are reinterpretations, and in some cases downright copies, of images found in earlier works” (1993, 247). We did, in fact, notice such trends when examining patterns in the rendering of botanical and animal subjects. Figure 3 contains questions I use when showing Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus. These questions stimulate discussion and independent inquiry. The “Venus” theme has reemerged in Western art over the centuries; it is an excellent point of departure for discussion.

Curiosity and Initiative

Each student produced a project that integrated artistic skill and biological insight. Students were asked to demonstrate clear, accurate, and creative scientific communication to a target audience. The art faculty was available to assist students, and the quality of the projects varied considerably. Projects included studies of facial expressions among family members, botanical drawings and photographs, and three-dimensional anatomical models. One graphic artist produced a high-quality color poster on the co-evolution of flowering plants and their pollinators. Two students created whimsical imaginary animals, with an explanation of their habitat, diet, and behavior. The best products were displayed in an art department exhibition at the end of the year.

Students were evaluated on the basis of written examinations at the end of each unit. The human biology and zoology units included lab practicals, and several exercises were assigned. Most of them required students to label diagrams and comment on structure-function relationships. The semester project was evaluated using a rubric provided to students early in the course.
Students worked hard in this class, but I also learned a lot about teaching artists. Like most of us, they learn best when multiple sensory modalities are involved. I will probably encourage the next class to do even more drawing, computer imaging, and clay modeling.

I underestimated how strong their visual-spatial skills were. Nearly all excelled at lab practicals—once they overcame the fear of unfamiliar terminology. They worked hard in lab. In part, this may be because they are used to meticulous, sometimes tedious work in the studio. They have obviously developed good visual-memory skills.

One goal of the university science requirement is to ensure that students develop an appreciation of scientific reasoning and principles. They had difficulty when I started to lecture about evolution. I quickly abandoned lecture; they responded much better when I switched to a Socratic approach that tapped their current knowledge and preconceptions about evolution. Tileston suggests that instructors brainstorm ideas and information that students already know when introducing a new unit (2000). Good advice. I plan to rely mainly on brainstorming, Socratic dialog, and discussion in the evolution segment of the next course.

I was impressed by the spontaneous demonstration of curiosity and initiative demonstrated by many of the artists. Classmates knew each other before taking the class and did not need to impress one another with their scientific erudition. They were not reluctant to ask questions.

Feedback from the art faculty was positive. Students were also positive, indicating on a follow-up survey that they were able to produce better art, improve their “eye,” and gain a deeper, more mature understanding of biology. They also seemed pleased that someone designed a special course for them.

Attendance throughout the course was consistently good, reflecting a good work ethic, if not a sincere interest in the subject matter and its relevance to their lives. I was pleased that three of the 15 students chose to take a science elective the next semester. At least we did not turn them off to science! Feedback from art faculty members suggests that students applied the knowledge in their studio art courses.

All in all, the course successfully motivated students to integrate their artistic abilities with scientific insight and knowledge. Although coverage of most topics was superficial, students acquired knowledge and biological insight that will enable them to confidently and independently acquire new biological information. I recommend that colleges with a general biology course for nonmajors set aside a section for art majors. This requires coordination with your art department, but the effort is well worth it.

Charles Sinclair is an associate biology professor at the University of Indianapolis, 1400 E. Hanna Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46227; e-mail: csinclair@uindy.edu.

References

Druger, M. 2002. Education of life. Journal of College Science Teaching 32(4):280–281.
Flannery, M.C. 1993. Studies in iconography. The American Biology Teacher 55(4):247–250.
Harden, M. 2002. Mark Harden’s Artchive. CD ROM series. Available online at www.artchive.com.
Kelley, C., A. Jordon, and C. Roberts. 2001. Finding the science in art. Journal of College Science Teaching 31(3):162–166.
Matern, S.A., and J.B. Feliciano. 2000. Drawing to learn morphology in a fish taxonomy laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching 29(5):315–319.
McCormack A.J., and T. Smucker. 1982. Biology and art: Interdisciplinary challenges. The American Biology Teacher 44(2):112–115.
Szunyoghy, A. 1999. Human Anatomy for Artists. New York: Konnemann Publishing.
Tileston, D.W. 2000. Ten Best Teaching Practices: How Brain Research, Learning Styles, and Standards Define Teaching Competencies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Click here for PDF file.