When I first look at the murals side by side, I notice the difference in the base of the tree. In the science one, the body at the bottom seems to be hiding its body from the rest of the tree because it looks like it is in the fetal position. The reading claims “the figure at the base of the tree represents humanity rising to erect posture of thinking being” (Marsuka). However, in the art mural, the man at the base of the tree is facing upward towards its people. In the reading, it says that the “figure at the base o the tree is a symbol of universal human aspiration to create things of beauty” (Marsuka). This can be related to the spirituality lesson we had because art was connected to spirituality and religion because it can tell a story about the development of human kind. These two murals seem to reiterate the long-known tensions between science and art. Art, Runquist seems to be saying, is spiritual and religious, telling the story of the birth of human kind. Contrary, science, Runquist seems to be saying in his mural when comparing the base of the tree, is a thing of fact and the mind, which does not seem to connect society as a whole. I think this because when I first look at the images, the way the man at the base of the tree is postured shows whether he is accepting human kind or if he is rejecting others and thinking internally.
The next thing that I noticed when looking at these murals is the similar layout of how the painting was painted. Both the art and science picture has eight mini-sections that seem to connect within each box. An evolution of human kind can be seen throughout both images because when you first look at the pictures, the humans seem to become more and more developed as you progress from the base of the tree to the top. However, the development each is showing differs. The “Development of Art” mural shows how art has progressed throughout human history. It starts with “the earliest primitive period: cave painting, sewing” and then moves into “sculpting… weaving… builders” in the Egyptian and Later primitive period (Marsuka); next comes the development of “drama, music, stained glass, and goldsmith” in the Greek, Medieval and Renaissance periods (Marsuka). Finally, the top portion of the painting shows modern day art, such as the development of “campus art… cinema and radio” (Marsuka). This reminds me of one of the first units we had where we talked about what is art. Dissanyake talked us through the different theories of what art is, and I think this would be a perfect pairing to Runquist’s “Development of the Arts” mural because each theory coincides with a section of this painting. The top part of this mural I would classify as post-modernist art, which I think is one of my favorite theories of art because it talks about how art is up to the interpretation of the beholder.
In the science mural, Runquist used a similar technique as used in the creation of the art mural. The only difference in the science mural is that instead of documenting the progress of art throughout history, they are documenting the changes of science. In the Stone Age and Iron Age, man used “natural weapons such as clubs” which then turned into weapons made out of “metal” (Marsuka). This seems to go along with the primitive period in the art mural. Egyptian, Greek and Renaissance times led to “discovery of… hieroglyphics [which] gave a means of recording human thought… astronomical discoveries gave knowledge of earth… and the invention of paper making [and] printing” (Marsuka). This shows how, like the art mural, this time period of history marked great development in ways of communicating and exploring the unknowns. Finally, we see developments in “power…chemistry…and control of power” in the 18th-21st century (Marsuka).
This shows how as humans’ evolved, great achievements and developments were made in both art and science. I think this is my favorite part of comparing these two murals. It shows how as humans evolved, developments in different fields led to the improvement of the human race as a whole. I think it is cool that Runquist took two competing fields and compared them in a unique way that really shows how although people think there is such a difference between art and science, when they look at the big picture (or overall mural zoomed out) there is not much difference between the two.