Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

2. For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can…

- - - - Who decides which art becomes famous and ends up in books and art history and things like that?
        
        Someone who knows about art sees the artwork and writes about it.
        
        Collectors purchase it.
        
        Some of the work goes into a museum or two.
        
        More writers praise it.
        
        The artist keeps working and improves.
        
        More people become interested in the artist’s creative journey.
        
        Someone may write a book, or make a film.
        
        Lots more articles get written over the years.
        
        Consciousness about the artist rises.
        
        The next time someone writes a survey book about that period of art, there's a high chance that this artist is mentioned.
        If this artist manages to do something creatively that breaks the mold and moves art forward a bit, or uses a new type of art medium, or changes the art is perceived or develops a style that no one has thought of before……then the artist and that kind of art can become a major and greatly significant part of art history.
        
        Examples:
        
        Andy Warhol
        
        used commercial art techniques and moved them into fine art and developed popular art, or Pop Art.
        
        Jackson Pollock
        
        put his canvases on the floor and moved around using his entire body to throw paint on them; layering and layering and layering.
        
        Artists had not done these things before, and these people did them very well, creating works that were well-crafted and to many people, pleasing.
        Additionally, they both also had powerful sponsors which is another, and very significant, part of the process of climbing to the top.
        
        a fairly small group of academics and art critics and noted collectors tend to be the primary influencers of these kinds of decisions.
- - - - it is the interpretation of the art (subjective) or the method use to create the art (I think is objective)?
        
        This is for end product (the art piece/ choreography/ musical composition)
      - at the same time it could also refer to the processes that are involved in making or producing the art. This includes the very first step of the process (observation or inspiration)
- - - - but which interpretation is true? and if yes, so?
    - - how would this help in contributing to its significance?
        
        so that the technique (knowledge) is replicable?
    - - how is it identified and verified?
    - - what are the factors that are considered when doing this process?
  - - - look for purpose of arts
        
        Role of arts in explaining what cant be explain
        
        POETRY/ SONG LYRICS/ DANCE PIECES that expresses abstract emotions into something that can be interpreted by layman
        
        It can be used to communicate ideas and thoughts; it can be used as a tool for self-expression, used as a form of therapy, or even as a means to find beauty in life. Art also captures a moment in time, historical events, social ideas and concepts, and political or social commentary. (Eden Gallery, 2022)
        
        Eden Gallery, 2022
        
        To provide an escape from reality
        
        To provide a sense of belonging and community
        
        To enable self-expression and self-awareness
        
        To provide a means for contemplation and reflection
        
        To provide a source of entertainment and enjoyment
        
        To create feelings of awe, wonder, or inspiration in the beholder
        
        To convey messages
        
        in order to convey a message, one must be able to understand the symbolism, motives, and contextual background of the art.
        
        this implies that it is vital for a final art product to be explainable in words in order to fulfil on of it functions which is to act as a medium of communication
        
        CAVE ART
        
        POLITICAL ARTS
        
        RELIGIOUS ARTS
        
        1 more item...
      - but at the same time, this will allow for creativity and interpretation
  - - - ART CRITISMS
        
        the analysis and evaluation of works of art. More subtly, art criticism is often tied to theory; it is interpretive, involving the effort to understand a particular work of art from a theoretical perspective and to establish its significance in the history of art.
        
        Donald Burton Kuspit (Aug 1, 2022)
- - - - if there is no theory to support the phenomenon that occur
  - - - new or old supporting evidence
        
        how about something that is not observable?
        like microorganisms and the observable universe (before advance technology)
      - how did the theory came up in the first place?
        
        Alina Bradford & Ashley Hamer, January 2022
        
        A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts
        
        structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws.
        
        Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts
        
        A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method
        
        Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
        
        A scientist may make an observation and devise a hypothesis to explain that observation, then design an experiment to test that hypothesis.
        
        If the hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, the scientist will develop a new hypothesis and begin the process again.
        
        If the hypothesis is supported by the results of the experiment, it will go on to be tested again.
        
        If the hypothesis isn't disproven or surpassed by a better explanation, the scientist may incorporate it into a larger theory that helps to explain the observed phenomenon and relates it to other phenomena, according to the Field Museum
        
        Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change
        
        For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact, but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made
        
        Some think that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method.
        A law is a description of an observed phenomenon in the natural world that holds true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true.
        A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process
        
        Berkely UOC
        
        The process of science works in much the same way whether embodied by an individual scientist tackling a specific problem, question, or hypothesis over the course of a few months or years, or by a community of scientists coming to agree on broad ideas over the course of decades and hundreds of individual experiments and studies
        
        hypothesis:
        
        proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena.
        
        usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.
        
        Theories:
        
        broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena
        
        theory helps us understand a wide range of observations and makes predictions in new situations
        
        Over-arching theories:
        
        important and reflect broad understandings of a particular part of the natural world
        
        broadly supported by multiple lines of evidence and help frame our understanding of the world around us
        
        they help scientists choose their methods of study and mode of reasoning, connect important phenomena in new ways, and open new areas of study
      - empirical evidence?
        
        Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation.
        https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
        
        seek to provide a measurable or observable reaction, trials that repeat an experiment to test its efficacy
        
        This methodology mostly applies to the natural sciences. "The role of empirical experimentation and observation is negligible in mathematics compared to natural sciences such as psychology, biology or physics," wrote Mark Chang, an adjunct professor at Boston University, in "Principles of Scientific Methods(opens in new tab)" (Chapman and Hall, 2017).
        https://www.amazon.sg/dp/1138469440?tag=georiot-sg-default-22&ascsubtag=livescience-my-4164366038859397000-20&geniuslink=true
        
        There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.
        
        qualitative
        
        quantitative
  - - - Natural science is science that involves understanding, prediction, and description of natural phenomena. Generally, it involves examining the physical world. Empirical evidence gleaned from experiments and observation is usually used to make conclusions.
        This, therefore, means that natural science cannot be real without observation as it mainly entails observing nature, experimenting and then drawing conclusions.
        (Jane Freeman, 2019)
- - - - so this statement would suggest that eventually, everything that is discovered whether comprehensible to our current knowledge or not will eventually be figured out
- - - - IDEA/INSPIRATION
        
        TOOLS
        
        PRODUCT
        
        MOTIF
        
        PHRASE
        
        ROUTINE
        
        TONE/ SPACE
    - - OBSERVATION
        
        HYPOTHESIS
        
        EXPERIMENT
        
        CONCLUSION
        
        is hypothesis accpeted or not
        
        methods used to achieve answer the hypothesis
        
        does the answer gain influenced by the advancement of technology?
- - - - you’re torn between a pair of certainties that are simply not compatible: (1) these rocks appear to have moved, propelled by their own volition, across the flat playa floor, and yet (2) rocks don’t just move themselves.
      - The mystery is rooted in an extraordinary fact: No one has ever actually seen the rocks move.
      - Explanations for the stones’ movement have tended towards the absurd (magnetism, aliens and mysterious energy fields, for example
      - In 1948, two USGS geologists named Jim McAllister and Allen Agnew set out to answer the question. They proposed that dust devils
      - perhaps in combination with the playa’s intermittent flooding. In 1952, another geologist tested this hypothesis as directly as he knew how: He soaked a stretch of the playa and used a plane’s propeller to create powerful winds. Results were inconclusive.
      - During the early 1970s, a pair of geologists—Robert Sharp of Cal Tech and Dwight Carey of UCLA—attempted to settle once and for all whether ice or wind was responsible
        
        John Reid, a Hampshire College professor, took student groups to the playa annually from 1987 to 1994 to study the stones. Because of the many parallel tracks, he came away convinced that they were locked together in large ice sheets that were blown by strong winds
        
        But Paula Messina, a geologist at San Jose State, used GPS to create a digital map of the tracks and found that most were, in fact, not parallel. Furthermore, wind-based models were thrown into doubt when researchers attempted to calculate the wind speeds necessary to move the ice sheets. The lowest figures were hundreds of miles per hour.
      - Scanning the scientific literature, Lorenz learned that the buoyancy of ice helped float boulders onto arctic tidal beaches, creating barricades along the shore
        
        kitchen-table experiment
        
        After decades of theoretical calculations by countless scientists, the answer seemed to be sitting on his tabletop.
        Lorenz and his team presented their new model in a 2011 paper
    - - Slithering Stones Research Initiative
        
        On December 4 and December 20, 2013, their setup – which used time-lapse photography – caught on camera rocks that were sliding across the playa at up to 15 feet (3-5 meters) per minute. They saw many other instances of sailing stones as well, becoming the first people in the world to see the stones in motion
        
        They said in their paper that watching the stones move enabled them to see the cause:
        
        In contrast with previous hypotheses of powerful winds or thick ice floating rocks off the playa surface, the process of rock movement that we have observed occurs when the thin, 3- to 6-millimeter ‘windowpane’ ice sheet covering the playa pool begins to melt in late morning sun and breaks up under light winds of ~4–5 meters/second [about 10 miles per hour].
        Floating ice panels tens of meters [yards] in size push multiple rocks at low speeds of 2–5 meters/minute [.2 mph or less] along trajectories determined by the direction and velocity of the wind as well as that of the water flowing under the ice.
        
        Richard D. Norris and his cousin James M. Norris