Knowledge in the Arts

Knowledge in the arts

Reflection: what kind of knowledge can the arts give us that other areas of knowledge can't?

If the language of an art form is non-verbal, does this free it from being limited to propositional knowledge?

Image https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjOO4BIR-xdTyb4goSNzXYwwo9R9rxug/view?usp=sharing

Image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d_dXykOs2epNbHtaMblyx4yH6jRLSD8O/view?usp=sharing

When it comes to knowledge in the arts, the audience plays a very important role. In fact, there is an interesting dynamic between the artist, who creates his/her work of art, the art itself and the audience who engages with the art. Through this dynamic relationship, knowledge can be created. This interpretative aspect is what makes the arts so unique. Sometimes, the artist intends his/her work of art to mean something, but the audience interprets it differently and we may still consider this interpretation is true or valid. In some cases, the knowledge created by this dialogue between the spectator and the work of art, can be valuable knowledge, even if this knowledge is not in line with the artist's intentions. Within literature, for example, there are literary theories that advocate a de-contextualised approach. Others, conversely, require the reader to possess knowledge of the original context as well as the author's intentions to interpret the text.

Nevertheless, many art forms require some kind of response from an audience. This can be an emotional or a cognitive response. It could also be an aesthetic judgement. This response may lead to the creation of knowledge regarding human emotion, "a beautiful truth", human behaviour, social situations and much more.

Some artists deliberately play with the notion of audience interaction. They may also use meta-textual reference, and draw attention to the fact that the work of art is art (fiction). Some artists convey a dialogue between the creator and the creation within their piece of art. This can be a playful twist, or a more serious contemplation on the nature of creation, the purpose of life and human mortality.

Go to the pine if you want to learn about the pine, or to the bamboo if you want to learn about the bamboo. And in doing so, you must leave your subjective preoccupation with yourself. Otherwise you impose yourself on the object and you do not learn.

Matsua Basho (1644-1694) Japanese Poet.

Lesson idea: Convince me it's art!

On knowledge and the arts.

ACTIVITY:

Your teacher will place a collection of (random) objects at the front of the classroom. In turns, choose a couple of objects for your team. You then have to prepare an explanation as to why the chosen object is art. Explain the meaning of the "art work" and give it a title.

Afterwards, be prepared for a Q&A session about your "art work."

The most convincing explanation is the winner.

Follow-up discussion:

Does artistic creation rely more heavily on imagination than on other cognitive tools?

Does convention play a different role in the arts compared to other areas of knowledge?

To what extent do artists make an advantage out of the subjective nature of sense perception, whereas scientists see it as an obstacle to be overcome?

Is the only standard for “good art” individual taste?

Who creates or determines meaning for an artwork: the artist or the audience or both?

Can a work of art have meaning that the artist themselves is unaware of?

Methodology and the Arts

What methods can artists and the audience employ to gain knowledge in the arts?

Does artistic creation rely more heavily on imagination than on other cognitive tools?

Music and Creativity: https://youtu.be/-1aAunaw1GA

On the one hand, art draws its strength from human imagination. Our ability to conceive ideas creatively through the arts can lead us to a deeper understanding of the human condition, ethics and the world around us. On the other hand, we can argue that the arts are limited exactly because of its roots in human imagination. If art is just 'made up', what genuine knowledge can it actually give us? Natural sciences are often contrasted with the arts because they aim to discover and explore what is really out there (in the natural world, that is). Its methods are much more rigid and there is less room for imagination (beyond the scope of its methodology). But then again, there are situations in which the arts can give us much more powerful knowledge. They can tap into our emotions and make us think of the unthinkable. This is precisely why the arts have been such a powerful driving force towards social change. But also in daily life, we draw upon the arts to make us understand or feel what is hard to comprehend. Stromae's "Quand c'est?" song, for example, can make us feel the notion of cancer in a way that scientific vocabulary just can't. The arts can offer us knowledge that the sciences cannot give us. Interestingly, Denis Dutton's exploration of a Darwinian theory of beauty suggests that there is a connection between natural sciences and the arts. Perhaps imagination and reason can be reconciled through the arts after all?

Sense perception is obviously an essential tool we use to appreciate the arts. We use our senses to listen to music, taste culinary art, observe a sculpture or painting, appreciate a play or opera and sometimes even to heighten our sense of touch or proprioception. But art is about more than that. Most of us agree that a piece of art communicates an idea. Many people include the notion of creativity in their definition of the arts. Imagination consequently plays an invaluable role in this area of of knowledge. Imagination is important both for the creation of art as such, and the interpretation of the (knowledge conveyed) by its audience.

Art also has the power to tap into our emotions. Music is a good example of this., but visual art, literature, drama and performance art can evoke strong emotional responses from their audience as well. Aristotle valued art highly because of its cathartic power due to such appeal to emotions. By watching a tragedy, we can 'cleanse' our soul and this makes us behave better, he argued. Is this perhaps why we like watching soap series? Why we feel relieved having a good cry after reading a sad story? Why we enjoy listening to sad music like Stromae's "Formidable"? Plato, on the other hand, was a big fan of reason. He believed that the arts would lead us to become less "good" exactly because of this emotional appeal. According to Plato, a rational life was better than an emotional life, and he feared that the arts would make us more emotional. Nevertheless, he considered that art could be either good or bad. Good art, he believed, is art that incites us to do virtuous things. Bad art conversely, is art that incites "violent behaviour" and leads to things like "anarchy". In Plato's eyes, the latter would be absolutely terrible.

Reflection: Have you ever been incited to do something emotional after the appreciation of a work of art ?

Can art incite violence or inappropriate behaviour?

If so, should we censor certain songs or art forms?

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse