When Math and Art Fit Like a Tight Glove
Watching Nick Sayers’ work felt less like observing finished products and more like entering into his way of thinking. Several moments made me pause, connect, and question my own assumptions about mathematics, art, and identity.
Stop 1: The Spheres and the Spirograph Machine
One of the first moments that caught my attention was
his use of a spirograph-style machine to trace the outlines of students lying
on the ground. Their bodies became arcs, rotations, and circular forms. The
translation of something organic into structured geometry fascinated me. The
machine did not remove the humanity of the work; instead, it revealed pattern
within it.
As I watched, I immediately began thinking about
fabrication tools like CNC machines. If those traced forms were cut from wood
or plastic and assembled, would the machine be diminishing the art — or
extending it? This stop connected directly to my own final project thinking. I
began imagining how similar processes might generate forms inspired by
sweetgrass braiding. Could technology support a cultural medium without
replacing it? In that moment, math and art felt inseparable — fitting together
like a tight glove.
When he described feeling intimidated by numbers and
not seeing himself as a “math person,” I felt both recognition and tension. In
Manitoba, mathematics is organized into multiple strands: Number; Patterns and
Relations; Shape and Space; Statistics and Probability; and Mental Math and
Estimation. Yet culturally, we often collapse “math” into “numbers.”
Listening to him, I wondered whether he simply wasn’t number-dominant. His fluency in ratio, proportion, spatial reasoning, angles, and structural relationships was unmistakable. This raised an important question for me: have we defined mathematical identity too narrowly? Some learners are pattern-strong. Some think relationally. Some visualize space with ease. Some manipulate symbols comfortably. Mathematical competence is not singular. As a school leader, this stop challenges me to consider how many students quietly carry mathematical strength that goes unrecognized because it does not fit a traditional image of math success.
Stop 3: Art and the Issues of the Time
Another moment that stayed with me was how clearly his
environment shaped his work. His projects respond to outer space, environmental
concerns, engineering, fabrication, recycling, travel, and family history. His
art does not exist in isolation; it engages with the world he inhabits.
This led me to ask: do issues of the time influence art, or does art influence how we see the issues of our time? It seems reciprocal. His reuse of materials and attention to environmental systems position art as both response and commentary. This resonates with my own thinking about sweetgrass, land, and stewardship. Mathematics and art are not abstract exercises; they are ways of understanding and responding to context. His work reinforced that connection for me.
Stop 4: Coding, Braiding, and Algorithms
When he spoke about growing up with cameras, coding,
and early computing, I felt a generational recognition. Coding, at its core, is
structured instruction — a sequence of directions. As I listened, I realized
that braiding is also structured instruction. A spirograph produces patterned
movement through repeated rules. A CNC machine follows algorithmic paths.
Braiding is an algorithm.
Coding is an algorithm.
Fabrication is an algorithm.
This stop pushed me to rethink originality. If a machine assists in generating form, does that make the work less authentic? Or is authenticity rooted in intention, context, and relationship rather than in the absence of technology? These questions feel especially relevant as I consider how math, culture, and fabrication tools might coexist in my own work.
What This Work Offers Me
Nick Sayers’ work expands my understanding of math–art
connections by demonstrating that mathematics is not merely symbolic; it is
structural, spatial, relational, and embodied. His projects make visible the
mathematical thinking embedded within artistic creation. They show that math
can be discovered through form, movement, and fabrication rather than solely
through calculation.
As a math and science educator, his work challenges me to broaden what counts as mathematical fluency. It encourages me to honour spatial and relational thinkers and to use tools such as fabrication devices not as replacements for thinking, but as extensions of it. Most importantly, it reinforces the importance of curiosity. Throughout the video, he did not present himself as someone who had mastered disciplines; he presented himself as someone exploring them. That disposition is one I want students to see and inhabit.
Questions for Nick Sayers
1.
Do you see yourself primarily as an artist, engineer,
mathematician, or something else entirely?
2.
Do your projects begin with a mathematical idea, or
with a question about the world?
3.
Has working with machines changed your understanding
of originality?
4.
How do you respond to those who suggest that
math-based art is less expressive?
5.
When did you begin to see yourself as capable in
mathematics, even if not in numerical ways?
I had similar thoughts this week about how we have narrowed the definition of math to numbers and manipulation of numbers. Nick certainly has a deep understanding of spatial relationships and ratios. It makes me wonder how can we as math educators acknowledge and honor other ways of representing understanding? In British Columbia there is actually a lot of space for this in the curriculum. Representations can be "concrete, pictorial, or symbolic" and visualizations can be "graphical relationships, concrete materials, diagrams, or drawings". It is nice that there is so much space and possibility, but it is also daunting to consider the practicalities of assessment. The numbers and algebraic manipulations are manageable and reliable ways to assess a class of 30 students.
ReplyDelete“Yet culturally, we often collapse ‘math’ into ‘numbers’… Have we defined mathematical identity too narrowly?”
ReplyDeleteThis is a very common assumption. Many people view math as working with numbers, but actually, there are so many different aspects of math. As you said, many people don’t think of themselves as math people because they are not number-dominant. I guess one of the reasons is that in our education system, especially in math classes, we focus too much on numbers and calculations and forget that there are so many more things we can do with math. This makes me reflect on the reading I read this week, “What can we say about ‘math/art’”. In the reading, the author emphasized that many people are afraid of doing art because they think their work may not fit into the artistic standard. At the same time, math is facing the same problem.
To answer your first question: Do you see yourself primarily as an artist, engineer, mathematician, or something else entirely?
Originally, I would say mathematician without a doubt, because I studied math and teach math. However, now I started to ponder since I don’t think we need to fit into a certain role. Like Nick Sayers is doing math and art at the same time. He does not fit into the conventional view of a mathematician or artist. Thus, we shouldn’t limit ourselves and restrict ourselves from trying something innovative.