Tag: Arts

Posted on

TOK Arts Common Assessment

What counts as knowledge in the Arts?

 

Knowledge in the arts is something quite subjective and is not as intuitive as other areas of knowledge such as the natural sciences or religious knowledge systems. This may be because the scope of the arts can in some ways seem unlimited unlike other Areas of Knowledge like the Natural Sciences where there is a clear scope and the content lies within the physical and natural properties of the universe. Art can also in some ways feel exclusive yet also too inclusive of everything in that anything can be art. Since art can be used as some sort of social function and in shaping belief to express ideas, that could be the knowledge generated through arts. 

 

However, personal and shared knowledge can be quite different from each other and reveal another possible knowledge created in the arts which are quite similar to the relationship between shared and personal knowledge in mathematics where intuition, emotion and imagination can give huge insights and discoveries in maths. For instance, a parent may have an emotional attachment to a piece of hand-drawn artwork their kid drew them (even if it may not be a masterpiece) however the wider community do not share that same experience of evaluability and knowledge that the parent has. However, where mathematics and arts differ, is the accumulation of shared knowledge. While maths builds upon ideas and creates new proofs, concepts and axioms, the arts can sometimes completely throw down ideas, conventions and values in the art to create something completely different, although some art styles are built upon others. Historically, knowledge in the arts is constantly changing yet there is the point in that most present-day art forms have had influence of older art forms. In other words, it can create confusion about what counts as knowledge in the arts. 

 

Furthermore, what counts as knowledge in the arts can get even more confusing when looking at truth and art expressing that truth of us in humans. On one hand, photography and realistic art could be considered as the highest form there is due to its realistic nature, although, that being said, even photography can lie. A piece of artwork is not actually showing, for instance, an apple, and is instead just a picture. On the other hand, art could also be considered as artificial and is something unique that is only itself which could indicate that there is another purpose or another way to gain knowledge. Despite this confusion, art may create knowledge that is emotional and moral and possibly even something that is attractive or aesthetic to look and experience. Think about the last time you listened to music or read a book or looking at a piece of artwork. You felt some sort of emotion and possibly even some insight into morality or your own self-awareness. 

 

In that case, art provides something for us and provides knowledge that possibly science and mathematics cannot, in which the emotions and thoughts that arise from art counts as knowledge in the arts. While mathematics has direct and explicit rules and knowledge created, the knowledge in the art is vaguer in that it is created in the opinions and thoughts created by the reader through his/her experience. In other words, our interpretation. How the creator and viewer interact with art is both unique and varied, and that knowledge created can be very valuable. What counts as knowledge in the arts is in that case, similar to the proverb—in the eye of the beholder. 

 

Posted on

TOK Portfolio Post: Natural Sciences #1

For a few lessons, we’ve been discussing the Natural Sciences which is the study of the natural and physical world using the scientific method of observation and experiment to find the truth about phenomena. The natural sciences include Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Astronomy and Cosmology. Most people agree that natural sciences is the most reliable and trustworthy of all the Areas of Knowledge in terms of truth, because of the methodology. In other words the scientific method where a hypothesis is made, a prediction is created afterwards and then through experimentation and observation, the hypothesis is either proven wrong (and thus a new hypothesis is created) or it is proven right and along with other hypothesises, it can make a theory. Theories are not like possible truths, they are rather the most closet things to truth there can be. The name itself may seem misleading, and theories could be considered as laws, as they are of the highest form in natural science. However, theories can be tweaked, improved and even falsified with new evidence. Models, assumptions and other methodology also contribute to the reliability of science.

Another important factor in that the Natural Sciences is trustworthy is the application of shared knowledge. Science is always built upon many different individual’s knowledge and improved to get closer to the truth. Science is dynamic and always changing. When a new theory is proposed or added to an existing theory, the science community conduct peer review journals to really validate the claim. In terms of the Ways of Knowing, language, perception, reason and in some cases emotion, intuition and imagination are all ways in which sciences contribute and add to knowledge. Quite surprisingly, emotion and imagination can be important qualities and ways of knowing to science because of the need for curiosity and interest to move forward in science.

Of course, they can interfere which is why reasoning, perception and language are more reliable ways of knowing in the case of the sciences. This is because science is partly based on observations and reasoning from experiments and observations and this is important in the distinction of uncertainty and certainty. Uncertainty doesn’t mean that the scientists are wrong but rather that no evidence can reach 100 per cent certainty. That is why experiments are repeated to reduce the uncertainty for instance. Language is very important in science and they are usually derived from Greek or Latin (more of a traditional reason than anything else) Science uses specific language, models, diagrams, mathematics and graphs to represent, explain and deduct knowledge. In some cases, the same words can mean differently in the public compared to scientific meaning such as positive feedback where it might mean good response in the public but in science, it is a self-reinforcing cycle. As we can see, natural science could be considered the most reliable fo the AOKs

Furthermore, we are going to have a debate and we’ve had a debate (with the whole grade with other TOK teachers and other teachers as well) on natural science and ethics, and a whole grade debate on which has more value, the arts or science. For me, the distinction between science and ethics is simple. Science is just a tool and a system to get closer to the truth but ethics is needed to make sure that the scientific innovations and quest for knowledge is beneficial for us humans and the environment around us. Science is the one that has proven that climate change is real and serious (there is no debate in that) but it is ethics and in some cases other AOKs that allow us to make change and reason what is right, so in this case to solve the climate crisis.

The arts for me has a purpose and no purpose. The arts are uniquely human and depending on different people, the arts have a different purpose to different people. Some find it life motivating, some find it beautiful and care only for the attractiveness of it. Others believe that art gives purpose to life while others believe it should represent life. Some people may argue that the arts are a way to express feelings, emotion, and change for activism while others care only for its symbolic and thought-provoking ideas. Others just see it as fun and enjoyable, to give colour to the arts. I have been told that I can’t say that science and art are of equal value (which is sort of why I believe) so I will choose a side.

At first thought, along with other thoughts, the art has more value because it has always existed and gives life more purpose (because of it’s nature to have any purpose) and also to give life more enjoyment and emotion which are human. With only science, it becomes dull and no one wants that and most people love the arts. Also, it is science, or at least the quest for growth and discovery, that lead to climate change due to the innovation in fossil fuel technology. However, this is where I change, although arts has for the most part been more valuable than science before the industrial revolution era, science is now the most valuable. It was science that realised the effects of what it had done, so now it uses other AOKs, to change it, mainly ethics with science. The arts may give stories and make a change in terms of awareness more than the statistics in science, but it is the tools in science that allow to make a profound change. On the other hand, people in the arts hae faith that science is valuable for instance when flying aeroplanes. Also, one could argue that science has existed, even without the scientific method in the form of curiosity and the development of new technology. So in that sense, it is science that gave fuel to the arts, that allowed new art forms to form and progress. So, although they both are valuable, it is science that is the most valuable from the ground up.