Theory of Knowledge
"Art upsets, science reassures" (Braque). Analyze and evaluate this claim.
Georges Braque was a famous French cubist painter who, throughout his life, lived under the biased opinion that art is nothing more than an expression of disturbance towards other people; a simple provocation. Considering he himself was an artist, this claim may seem extremely hypocritical. And why he pursued his passion for painting, even under his negative morality towards it, remains unclear. He knew, however, that art strives to blur and distort reality, causing the consumer to dwelve into a rabbit's hole of a different, more fantastical, yet fictional world. Science, on the other hand, reassures us of reality, enlightening us with facts that raise awareness of the conscious world around us. In order to evaluate this claim, one must firstly understand the essential differences between arts and sciences. Art is a portrayal of emotions, feelings, and subjective history spontaneously sculptured into a personal masterpiece. No rules or limits apply. Science has a more systematical and direct approach to it. It is the pursuit of a conclusion through observation and experiments, aided by existing formulas, and, above all, logic. It is very closely intertwined with reality, while, according to Braque, art isn't. Yet, due to the fact that there are so many different facets to art, Braque's claim can seem very ignorant and far too generalized. The sole fact that, nowadays, it is often argued that anything created by man can be considered art just emphasizes that art is a necessity in everyday life. So could one not argue that the cruel nature of science is in fact what upsets people, and that art is an essential escape into a different world that reminds (or reassures) us of the fact that there is beauty in the world?
This would be a very plausible question. The harsh impositions of reality on someone are subject to some of life's most heartbreaking experiences. Art as a psychical vacation from everyday drama and hectic lifestyles into a more beautiful world can only be considered as an essential phenomenon in our society. Famous American songwriter Elliott Smith's* last song entitled 'A Distorted Reality is Now a Necessity to be Free' dealt exactly with this need for an alternate, less cruel reality. This is why so many people turn to alcohol and other drugs, as these chemicals blur our perception on reality and replace it with a more esthetic and comfortable view away from all the conflicts and problems, and imposed on us by our vivid, beautiful imagination, which primarily channels the creative instinct that inspires us to pick up a paintbrush. So we can now argue that there is a need for art in order to function in our society and live a life that is not as unbearable as it could be. Even Sophocles once said that to have never been born may be the greatest boon of all. The first obvious counter-claim to this would be that life without art wouldn't in fact be so bad, but has anyone in our current world who is remotely connected to society ever lived in a world without any form of personal creation or any symbolic or creative piece that inspires one in some way? Another antithesis would also be that aslong as there is natural beauty in our world, we don't need any form of art. Take the example of Adam and Eve. They lived in the perfect eutopia created by God, and expressed no need for art. However, at this point one could say that God was in fact the artist painting the garden of Eden, and that nature itself could be considered its own personal masterpiece.
Now that the beautiful aspects of art have been discussed, one should question the purpose of darker, and more depressing pieces. For instance, Edgar Allen Poe is still considered one of the greatest poets to have ever lived upon earth's surface, but hardly any of his works provided the reader with any beauty or happiness. Instead, his works were noir, depressing and twisted writings. So why was Poe so greatly appreciated? Art does not only have the purpose of depicting beauty, but also to mirror reality. Conditioned and taught to be the way they are through life's experiences, artists project their personal feelings and emotions into their works for the viewer to receive and contemplate about. An artpiece is not far different from a philosophical statement or depiction of someones thoughts and oppinions. Furthermore, Italian surrealist Salvador Dali even once stated that art must be provocative in order to have any effect on people. This brings us to our next point; Art can also be considered a tool for evolution. A personal oppinion or expression is often what drives civilization to evolve the way it does. A recent example would be the introduction of rock 'n roll into the clean American society during the 1950's. The rebellious nature of the music attracted many young teen-agers, while the older population dismissed the music as pure noise. Over the course of time however, society adapted to this new direction of music and evolved further. Nowadays, a typical 50's rock song wouldn't dare to be compared to a current urban rap in terms of its explicitness. The same applies to the violence in movies, or nudity in advertisement, and so on. Another example is Spanish painter Francisco Goya's nude paintings that upset the nation in the early 19th century. This shock was by many anthropologists considered to be essential for people to lighten up and reconsider their views on the subject of nudity. Yet, whether it is art's subjective and daring nature that is a driving factor of civilization is unsure. One can always say that civilization evolves first, and that art is simply something that is dragged along, motivating people to be more daring and expressive.
So where does science step in? Science is also a tool for civilization. Technology has always been one of the most essential factors for evolution, but does that mean that it carries more importance than art? As Braque said, science "reassures". There lies a significant flaw in this statement. Science is infinite. It is a continuing strive for knowledge as scientists keep searching for the smallest molecule, the limits of infinite space, or the highest prime number, just to eventually be contradicted by other scientists with their thesis and so on. And returning to the original thesis that science is more upsetting than art, technology has brought with it far more death and pain than the effects of art ever will. Consider Albert Einstein's nuclear force experiments that eventually led to the atom bomb and massive collateral damage in which thousand innocent Japanese were killed. On the whole, one could say that the reassuring nature of science is unimportant, as it reassures us of only a small portion of facts (in some cases even untrue) that are oftentimes irrelevant and unaffective to our lives.
Art and science have now been discussed as two very different subjects, however they can be argued to be closely intertwined. Leonardo Da Vinci was known for being both artist and scientist. His famous drawing "The Vitruvian Man" is considered both a scientific study of anatomy and an artistic masterpiece. Many other masterpieces include references to scientific formulas such as the "Golden Ratio" or other geometrical formulas. And sciences have tendencies to need an artistic, creative enforcement in order to be pursued. Due to the fact that science is only meaningful if it affects a certain amount of people, scientists are often in need of an attractive way to present their findings in order for people to listen, oftentimes done through literature, diagrams, and speech; art. Because both art and science are very broad and controversial subjects, Braque's claim can be considered as far too generalized. Whether a Damien Hirst sculpture or just a natural tree, anything nowadays can be argued to be art. It is nothing more than a personal oppinion, just like Hitler and Churchill disowned the idea of abstract art, while it is now recognized as one of the most influential styles of our time.