Student 22

The context in which knowledge is presented may influence whether or not it is accepted based on the receiver’s emotions surrounding the source. The first object depicted in the image above is my 7th grade sketchbook. Most of the sketches are based on youtube tutorials that I watched and eagerly consumed rather than the actual art classes I was taking. My priorities regarding art seem to relate the object, the sketchbook, to an important portion of the AOK that pertains to art.

Objectively, the concepts in the art class and in the tutorials were the same. What led me to prioritize one method of learning over another was how I relate to the context. Youtube videos presented information in a modern format that fit my development. For example, human anatomy has remained the same for centuries, but it was the method of presentation of influencers that intertwined it with my life. Because the information on YouTube was designed to reach my generation, I accepted and replicated it in the sketchbook. The official art class in my school contained antiquated lessons where the most modern example was from the 70s. I was incapable of absorbing that knowledge based on its context appearing old. In reality, the art within my sketchbook utilized the same basic guides of the class, however I created a needless distinction of the same knowledge based on context.

I also refused to use my sketchbook to record knowledge from my class because of its context’s connection to school. At this point of my development, my brain rejected most institutions and this habit of rejecting knowledge based on the context of school applies to the artistic development of many of my peers as well, even those who have been taking classes for years. These peers also had sketchbooks of their own that displayed the priorities of how they accepted knowledge. They too prioritized knowledge from the internet over the formal setting of school.

My second object, my father’s copy of 1619, is a book that describes African-American history that is left out of the U.S. school curriculum. The book is connected to real life situations that display how the context of knowledge influences its acceptance or rejection by the reactions and perspectives surrounding the book. Since its publication in 2019, there has been an extensive debate surrounding its contents. The debate is whether or not this history should be presented since it impacts the common perceptions of America, such as the American dream. My dad bought this book and was open to accepting its knowledge because of how its context aligned with his political views. The history of the U.S. has been taught with egregious lies throughout his childhood, and the realization that this is still affecting new generations made him inclined to pick up the book and share the information with me. In contrast, the perspective of 1619’s context in the Southern U.S. causes people to strongly reject the information within it because it was frequently described as threatening to patriots’ perception of America. The different perspectives on whether or not the knowledge in 1619 should be accepted is deeply intertwined with the exhibition question.

1619 connects to the AOK of history in content and in context. When the U.S. is under political distress like it is today, the matter of how the knowledge of history is spread becomes an important discussion. More conservative perspectives often advocate to withhold and reject information that may cause a more negative perspective of the country. The object has both its modern context, and its context as a parallel to a repeating subject in history. 1619 may be rejected on the basis of how a person wants to connect to the culture and historical perspectives of their family.

My final object is my certificate of completion for my driver’s education course that allowed me to get my permit. The certificate displays how context can cause someone to reject or accept information through the AOK of human sciences. Before I completed the course, my parents continuously tried to convince me to make more progress in the course. However, through a combination of fear and a lack of need due to the pandemic I didn’t continue in the program. It wasn’t until my friends stated the exact same advice and words of encouragement that I began to complete the course. I was more inclined to accept knowledge in the context of my friends than my parents. This ties in to Van Gennep’s rite of passage and how across cultures there are specific events that tie into your maturity. At my age, usually getting a driver’s permit is an event laden with peer pressure in order to get it at the same time as others. However, due to the lack of contact from the pandemic, I missed the emotional connection to the rite of passage. The context of my parent’s encouragement could not lead me to accept the information because the context my head requires is encouragement from my grade level. The certificate is a result of finally gaining the right context to accept information.

Listening to my peers has led me to realize that the majority of students are also ‘behind’ on completing this rite of passage since the pandemic interrupted the important social aspect of it. The certificate represents my delayed acceptance of information as a driver’s permit or license does for others. There was a necessary context that was interrupted by the large scale disaster that is the pandemic.