George Hart’s article, What Can We Say About “Math/Art”?, reflects on the emerging field of math/art and its lack of a coherent framework. As both a mathematician and artist, Hart suggests that while the field is rich with interesting work, it has not yet been clearly defined or formalized. He argues that much of what is labeled “math/art” might be better understood as craft, design, or visualization rather than fine art—not as a criticism, but as a call for greater honesty about what the field is and is not. Throughout the article, Hart compares math/art to fine art and highlights how difficult it is to define either, making the creation of a clear framework even more challenging. Still, he remains hopeful, imagining math/art as an emerging third space—a “volcanic island” rising between mathematics and fine art, still taking shape.
In the article, Jasper Johns’ Numbers is used to question the boundary between fine art and math/art. Johns uses numbers as visual elements, yet the grid structure of the painting is inherently mathematical. Even if he was not intentionally “doing math,” mathematical relationships clearly shape the composition. This made me pause and wonder: does hidden mathematical logic make an artwork mathematical, and does the artist’s intent actually matter?
The Bridges perspective, as described by Fenyvesi (2016), suggests that this might be the wrong question altogether. Their work is grounded in the idea that mathematical structure is inherently aesthetic, and aesthetic choices are inherently mathematical. From this view, the math in Johns’ work doesn’t depend on his intention—it emerges through the structure of the piece itself.
Art is often understood as driven by feeling and intuition rather than logic. However, I suspect members of the math/art community would argue that mathematical thinking feels much the same. Throughout this course, a recurring idea is that both math and art are fundamentally about recognizing and expressing patterns, structures, and relationships. If that is the case, then the divide between them may be less about how they are created and more about how we choose to see them.
How we choose to see math/art is shaped by our point of view, and Hart notes that those within the math/art community are often their own most engaged audience. Fine art institutions are not the ones paying close attention, which raises questions about what is valued within different artistic spaces. Perhaps this is because math/art places equal emphasis on both mathematical structure and artistic expression, while fine art traditions prioritize something else entirely. Still, I question whether this is truly a problem. Many communities are most energized by their own work—why should math/art be any different? Value can be created from within. Hart’s metaphor of math/art as a “volcanic island,” a third space between disciplines, suggests that it is still forming, still growing, and perhaps not meant to fully belong to either world. This tension between structure, intention, and perception doesn’t just matter in theory—it has real implications for how we teach mathematics.
This is where the value of math/art lies for me as an educator. The wonder of mathematics is often lost in dry, pencil-and-paper experiences. When students only encounter math as procedures and correct answers, many potential mathematicians are left behind because they never experience its beauty. Math/art offers another entry point—it makes the abstract visible and tangible, and invites curiosity rather than compliance. If we want students to see themselves in mathematics, it is our responsibility to create opportunities for them to experience that sense of wonder.
Can you think of any students who would have thrived if thinking of math as a creative endeavour? How do we create balance in our classrooms for all students to thrive?
References
Fenyvesi, K. (2016). Bridges: A World Community for Mathematical Art. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 38(2), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00283-016-9630-9
Hart, G. (2024). What Can We Say About “Math/Art”? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 71(04), 1. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti2920
I especially agree with your point that, as teachers, we should create space and opportunities for multiple ways for students to demonstrate their mathematical understanding and strengths, since not all students do well on written math tests or exams. Shifting some assessments from test-based to project-based could really help certain students show their skills through creativity and imagination. For example, I’ve seen math teachers ask students to design board games or plan events, which still require strong mathematical thinking but in more meaningful and applied ways. Offering different ways of showing understanding can give students more autonomy and make learning math feel more engaging and enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteI like your question at the end Kristie. I also like expanding the concept of creativity utilizing some of the other course work we have done.
ReplyDeleteAnecdotally, I have witnessed (as I'm sure most of us have), students genuinely engaging in a mathematics problem that is engaging and allows for creative and critical thinking. In my present role as a numeracy support teacher, I am invited into the classrooms of other educators who are interested in seeing 3-act tasks and other rich mathematical routines implemented with their students.
This has been powerful affirmation for me that creative thinking is an essential tool for students in both their willingness to engage and also their ability to understand the mathematics they are learning in a meaningful way.
Thanks for your thoughtful posts this week!
Kristie T
ReplyDeleteI was really struck by your framing of “I’m not good at math” as a door that closes before students even see what’s behind it. That connects deeply with my own thinking about mathematical identity and how we often collapse math into arithmetic. Like you, I’ve been wondering how many spatial, relational, or pattern-strong learners quietly carry mathematical fluency that goes unnamed.
Your reflection on the garbage bag polyhedra also resonated with me. The idea that structure already exists, waiting for movement to reveal it, parallels how I’ve been thinking about braiding and algorithmic processes. Mathematics is already embedded in the form; it emerges through action. I also appreciated your point about bringing unfinished work into contact with others. That “igniting the spark” idea feels powerful, especially as I consider how cultural practices, fabrication tools, and student curiosity can co-construct something neither could create alone.