Current location - Training Enrollment Network - Mathematics courses - On the relationship between painting and primary school mathematics
On the relationship between painting and primary school mathematics
what can I say? I majored in mathematics, and I practiced sketching for a while before. I dare not say what I have achieved, but at least I have not forgotten my major. I can also draw pictures and appreciate those excellent works in art.

Personally, I think there is only relative contradiction between the two, not absolute contradiction.

Let me talk about the relative contradiction first.

Mathematics pays attention to logic and needs to be rigorous and meticulous, which can be said to be very boring. Different people can draw different feelings about the same scenery, but the same question can only get a correct answer. When people are young, that is, when they cultivate their outlook on life and world, learning mathematics will definitely have a certain impact on people. We hope to make logical thinking more rigorous and thorough through the study and understanding of mathematics, but this will inevitably lead to some formulas in our thinking.

We all know that painting, that is, art needs inspiration. There is no trace of it, or what you find is just a similar thing after all. In the final analysis, art is a means to reflect people's hearts and express their inner sustenance. It needs a keen and even sensitive heart. The heart I am talking about here is actually the so-called logical thinking.

For teenagers, the first reaction to learning mathematics is to recite formulas and then apply them to calculations. This kind of mathematics teaching method and training method calls for restraining people's thinking and letting them pursue the rational road that has been verified by predecessors. To some extent, it also stifles the thought and spirituality that people pursue as themselves. As we all know, basically children like to watch it (at least when I was a child, I was always fascinated, and even many things were so impressive that I could answer them at any time when I asked), but few adults would go back to watch it. In the final analysis, it was we who restrained ourselves on the way to the exam. We have so many questions asked by others that when we suddenly look back, we don't know how to ask questions again and how to find the flicker of our thoughts again. From this point of view, rationality (at least our traditional mathematics teaching) is to restrain people's thinking to follow rules and regulations, while art is to tell people that divergent thinking shows the differences of everyone's thinking. They are relatively contradictory. But I always believe that there is no absolute contradiction between the two. On the contrary, to a certain extent, the two are interdependent and need each other.

When rationality reaches its extreme, it will kill human nature. To liberate nature to the extreme, that is, like the Jin Dynasty, to yearn for the freedom described by Laozi and Zhuangzi, rude and endless, is the madman like the Seven Sages of Bamboo Forest.

Mathematics is the most orthodox successor of reason, while art represents the external sustenance of human nature.

What we are exposed to now, or what we are exposed to within the scope of exam-oriented education, just need to remember the formula theorems verified by predecessors and learn to use them. In the final analysis, this can only be considered as just touching the threshold of mathematics. Mathematics is that people sum up the laws of nature, then sum them up into axioms, and then express their views from axioms, and deduce countless theorem formulas. These are like asking yourself questions and then giving your own answers. Of course, most people can't do this for the simple reason that it requires talent. What is talent? Is to have that flash. The same definition and axiom in mathematics can be deduced by different people, which, as art shows, fully embodies the uniqueness of everyone's heart.

By the same token, art is a means to express inner thoughts, but the inner feelings it reflects are beyond the control of art. A pale, shallow-minded and uneducated person, no matter how good his painting skills are, can only be spiritual-because there is nothing in his heart to show others. Our respected masters show their inner descriptions of goodness, evil, beauty and ugliness to the world in their eyes through their respective works. Without rationality and rigorous logical thinking, how can people distinguish these?

Du Fu's poems are not necessarily better than Li Bai's, and even I personally feel that Du Fu's aura is not as good as Li Bai's. But Du Fu is a poet, but Li Bai is not. This is not precisely because Du Fu's poems reflect his own ideals and ambitions, as well as his observation and reflection on the current social situation. "Poverty is the only way to protect yourself, and achievement is the best way to help the world" reflects his outlook on life and world through rational analysis and logical judgment. In contrast, what are Li Bai's violets, white cranes, and fairies of Qiong Yao, the gorgeous words that have been liberated to the extreme but only appear pale and helpless?

Art and mathematics are essentially the relationship between idealism and materialism. At least in the exam-oriented education stage, it is unrealistic to think of "civil and military training". But with the growth of life and the deepening of study, both are indispensable. It's like high school will be divided into arts and sciences, but in real life, geography, history, politics (in fact, shallow knowledge of psychology and economics) are not necessary? Similarly, a person who studies literature needs a rational heart if he wants to write clearly and be cautious.

Looking at China alone, there are quite a few people who have made great achievements in "both civil and military". Of course, the most feasible way is to specialize in one of them first, and when your knowledge deepens, you will naturally study the other. Under the existing education system, it is basically impossible to learn well at the same time.

Those who study mathematics don't understand art because they don't pay attention to it in the exam-oriented education stage; Math in fine arts is poor, because they have low cultural requirements, but they just don't pay attention to it. Over time, I naturally feel that there is a natural gap between the two. Personally, I think it is necessary to treat this problem dialectically and realistically.

I hope what I said can help you ~