In areas of
knowledge such as the Arts and Sciences, do we learn more from work that
follows or breaks with accepted conventions?
The Arts and the Natural Sciences continually evolve as new work is
produced in each area. We learn from research and works of art in the sense
that they help us uncover the ‘truth’ of our existence. Scientists attempt to
learn how the world works by asking questions about it, using perception and
reasoning to develop hypotheses, then devising experiments to find answers. Artists
may reveal insight into the human condition with their portrayals of ‘reality’
through emotional impact the work has on its audience. In the Natural Sciences,
accepted conventions may be defined as scientific beliefs that have endured for
some time, while in the Arts they may be defined as the appreciation of
particular artistic techniques. While neither of these can be considered
absolute truth, they become benchmarks against which all new work is compared.
The inconstant nature of both areas of knowledge indicates that we learn more
from work that breaks with these conventions and explores new realms of human
imagination.
The fact that we may learn more from work that breaks with accepted
conventions of technique is illustrated by innovative movements in the visual
arts, such as the emergence of Cubism. The conventional style of Realism, which
accurately reflects nature, only shows the appearance of the subject from
whatever angle the artist chose. Cubism, which was a radical departure from
traditional techniques, enabled painters to explore the qualities of the
subject itself, not limited to external appearances. The unconventional
representation may tell the viewer more about the nature of subject, as
particular aspects of it are highlighted, or even offer insight into the
perspective of the artist, as he translates his emotional response to the
subject into his work, allowing the viewer to share the artist’s experience.
The learning that we glean from art is most evident from works whose
purpose is to make a moral statement, as they provide profound insight into the
human condition. More may be gained from artists who break from accepted
conventions and take risks, largely because their work has a greater impact on
the audience, such as the plays of Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen. Instead of
the moral dramas expected of the Victorian period, Ibsen’s work challenged the
values of the time and dealt with forbidden issues, including progressive ideas
of feminism and adultery. His plays were considered scandalous and quickly
garnered attention because of their controversial nature. Other more
conservative playwrights did not portray the human condition accurately as they
chose to depict only ‘proper’ codes of conduct, in keeping with the accepted conventions
at the time. By presenting issues that were considered taboo, Ibsen was able to
pierce through the sheltered beliefs of the audience. These types of
breakthroughs continue to the present day. For example, sensitive issues, like
violence and the brutality of war, now feature more prominently in films and
television. We are able to learn more from exposure to these unfamiliar events
as it allows a broader view of what happens in the world, expanding the limited
idea of truth that we have gathered from only our own experiences. However,
while artists offer valuable insight into the human condition, they are human
themselves and naturally bring their own biases to their work. By examining the
themes of Ibsen’s plays, we see his “anarchistic individualism” (Henrik Ibsen, 2002) and strong bias
against convention. For example, in his play An Enemy of the People, the
protagonist, Dr. Stockmann, stands alone in his attempts to expose the truth
despite fierce social resistance. Ibsen clearly expresses his views through the
character, attacking mass opinion and the hypocrisy of the political system (Cummings, 2003). Another example
of strongly biased work is propaganda art, such as the films and posters
employed by the Nazi party to incite anti-Semitist sentiment. Any work of art,
whether it follows or breaks with accepted conventions, is immediately limited
by the bias of the artist, which puts into question the reliability of what we
learn from it.
On the other hand, it is possible not to learn more from art that breaks
with accepted conventions if its purpose is not to educate. For instance, if a
musician aims to express an emotion, it is difficult to objectively judge
whether more is gained from a piece in a classical style or a modern rock and
roll song. Since the judgment of art is highly subjective, a listener may deem
one as more ‘truthful’ and effective than the other or even feel an entirely
different emotion to what the artist intended as he responds to the piece based
on his own experiences. However, music may provide valuable insight to the
culture and attitudes of society at a particular time as different decades
appear to be characterized by particular styles of music. At present, it can be
said that music is strongly driven by technology. Electric instruments are
widely used and synthesizers are aiding the advancement of music genres such as
techno and trance. These developments, which depart from more traditional
techniques, may be a reflection on the technological advancement of our society
on a whole.
In the Natural Sciences, it is easier to judge how much we learn from
scientific research as the purpose of scientific endeavours may be to learn the
truth about our world – how it functions, what mechanisms determine the way
organisms live and how we interact with our environment. When examining the
progress of science, findings that break with accepted conventions seem to lead
towards what we now accept as ‘fact’. Classic examples of this include the
study of the Earth’s shape, at first believed to be flat, then discovered to be
spherical and now described as an oblate spheroid. New discoveries, even those
that expound on existing theories, may be seen as a departure from the accepted
convention. Looking through the history of the Natural Sciences, there appears
to be a cyclical progression in what humans believe. Theories are constantly
being replaced by new ideas as further research ceases to correspond with the
existing paradigm, a process known variously as falsification or as Khun’s
Revolutionary Scientific Method. This clearly illustrates a limitation to our
learning from science, as the knowledge that we accept today will most likely
change in the future. Thus, the reliability of whatever we learn from
scientific experimentation is highly questionable. If it is likely that the
ideas we harbour today will be replaced in the future, what does that suggest
about our newly learned knowledge? It is clearly not ‘true, justified belief’,
as scientific truth cannot be entirely proven. The only assurance of the
credibility of our knowledge is that it has not yet been proven to be untrue.
However, it could be argued that we actually learn from being wrong.
When scientific research results in new discoveries, mistakes from existing
theories may be identified and previous conjecture discounted. In this sense,
we acquire a more comprehensive understanding of science, knowledge of what is
false and what is closer to the truth. Furthermore, the knowledge that we gain
from science may not have to be the absolute truth in order to be useful. Under
the concept of pragmatic truth, scientific findings may still be valuable and
even benefit humankind as long as they are relevant to our daily lives. This is
especially evident in the field of medicine. Healthcare professionals must
continually update their methods of treatment, in keeping with the latest
research on the human body, genetics and how the increased industrialization of
our environment affects us. In my own experience as a certified Emergency
Responder, the protocol for administering first aid is constantly changing. One
example in particular is the ratio of chest compressions to rescue breaths when
performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which has changed from 15:2 to 30:2
in the past two years. However, even if the knowledge I have is not the
absolute truth, evidenced by changes in the protocol, it is still relevant and
may be used to benefit others by saving lives. Scientists may use today’s
accepted conventions as a platform to further advance our knowledge by
continuing to ask questions, relying on their intuition and reasoning to craft
new hypotheses and eventually make new discoveries.
As seen in the progression of techniques in the Arts, we seem to achieve
a greater sense of truth from work that departs from traditional methods.
Similarly, scientific discoveries that break with the conventions of a certain
time are eventually accepted as truth, though the knowledge that we gain is subject
to question with regard to its reliability. Based on this conclusion, I may
assume a similar trend can be seen in other areas of knowledge, such as the
Human Sciences and Ethics, though the accepted conventions are be defined
differently. This conclusion also implies that artists and scientists should be
encouraged to deviate from accepted conventions to allow us to learn more.
Particularly in the Natural Sciences, this raises the issue of funding for
continued research, preferably in fields that have potential benefit to
humankind, such as healthcare. Realistically, from a business point of view,
capital would be provided towards endeavours that had potential to earn
profits. Generally speaking, I think that the tendency to question our idea of
truth allows our society to advance as a whole. Those individuals who choose to
take risks, using their creativity and intuition to go beyond the accepted
conventions, aid us in our search for the truth in a universe that is even
“stranger than we can imagine” (Lewis, 2006).
Alchin,
N. (2003). Theory of Knowledge. John Murray Publishers Ltd.
Cummings,
M. J. (2003). An Enemy of the People. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from
Cummings Study Guides: http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/EnemyPeople.html#Enemy%20of%20the%20People
Henrik
Ibsen. (2002). Retrieved January 27, 2008, from
Author's Calendar: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ibsen.htm
Kuhn,
T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd Edition ed.).
Lewis, J. J. (2006). Science Quotes. Retrieved
December 3, 2007, from Wisdom Quotes:
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_science.html