2. For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.
artist
natural scientist
important
which
can/ cannot
explain
arts
natural science
why do we want to know if something can be explained or not?
more "IMPORTANT"? So both are important? Just which one outweighs which in WHAT terms?
To help the artist/ natural scientist become BETTER? but HOW?
able to acquire new knowledge?
able to confirm or prove a previous theory
and
does that mean that the conclusion must be true for both artist and natural scientist?
does that also mean that both the explainable and unexplainable NEED TO COEXIST?
how is this SIGNIFICANT in arts or natural sciences?
how do you consider something is explainable in arts
what about something that is unexplainable?
have great significance or value
(of an artist or artistic work) significantly original and influential
how do we classify something as having great significance
make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts
give a reason so as to justify or excuse (an action or event)
is it when it can be interpreted by the audience?
or is it when a method use to create the art is recognised
is it the reference identified in the art?
(Intertextuality in arts)
or is it when you can compare and contrast the art from others
what would we do when we come across unexplainable arts?
unexplainable to who? Everyone or just the audience?
who has a final word in determining that the art is deemed unexplainable?
how is it identified and verified?
but which interpretation is true? and if yes, so?
how would this help in contributing to its significance?
what are the factors that are considered when doing this process?
so that the technique (knowledge) is replicable?
wouldn't unexplainable arts loose their purpose?
look for purpose of arts
but at the same time, this will allow for creativity and interpretation
what does this means in terms of arts?
it is the interpretation of the art (subjective) or the method use to create the art (I think is objective)?
in natural science, is this the concluding part after analyzing data from the planned investigation
What exactly is EXPLAINING in arts?
is it a process
is it a system
is it a phase
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)
how do you consider something is explainable in natural science
what about something that is unexplainable?
What exactly is EXPLAINING in natural science
proving a theory suggested by providing evidence
new or old supporting evidence
how did the theory came up in the first place?
empirical evidence?
coming up with a hypothesis based on previous observation or logical analogies
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
how about something that is not observable?
like microorganisms and the observable universe (before advance technology)
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).
There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.
qualitative
quantitative
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
in natural science, theories or phenomenon that are unexplainable drives the investigations and scientific researches in order to find an answer or EXPLAIN the UNEXPLAINABLE.
so this statement would suggest that eventually, everything that is discovered whether comprehensible to our current knowledge or not will eventually be figured out
OK NOW NEW APPROACH
WHEN TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SOMETHING IS EXPLAINABLE OR NOT WE SHOULDN'T JUST LIMIT IT TO A PRODUCT OR OBJECT.
MEANING THAT THE PROCESS INVOLVED TO CREATE THE PRODUCT IS ALSO ONE OF THE THINGS USED AS A SUBJECT OF EXPLANATION
ARTS (DANCE)
SCIENCE
IDEA/INSPIRATION
TOOLS
PRODUCT
OBSERVATION
MOTIF
PHRASE
ROUTINE
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?
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
not necessarily. the conjunction used in the prompt is to refer to the AOK that needs to be explored by the student.
Therefore, there is a possibility where the conclusion made for the two AOK contradict each other
"more important" : one poses a more significant value than the other though both may still be considered as important to the subject being referred to.
Michelle Gaugy, 2018
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.
a fairly small group of academics and art critics and noted collectors tend to be the primary influencers of these kinds of decisions.
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.
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)
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 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
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.
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
click to edit
if there is no theory to support the phenomenon that occur
Yes. I would assume that these two factors drives the scientific and artistic process
Interpreting the verses depicted in the holy scriptures such as the Quran and the Bible
but to what extent are the paintings in context is able to interprete
NATURAL SCIENCE
ARTS
(Event Horizon Telescope, EHT that Provides Visual Evidence to Stephen Hawking's Theory on Black Holes)
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/black-hole-image-makes-history
YES
IMPORTANCE
NATURAL SCEINCE
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)
Joseph Stromberg, 2013
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.
Deborah Byrd, 2021
Slithering Stones Research Initiative
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
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
(Mondrian Painting: New York 1)
PROVES THAT THE UNEXPLAINABLE IS AS EQUAL TO WHAT IS EXPLAINABLE AS THEY DRIVE ONE ANOTHER
so should i focus the division to both and one is more significant?
TONE/ SPACE