ARTS TOK ESSAY for Theory of knowledge. Short draft PDF

Preview

Summary

Arts TOK essay that explores how "The knower’s perspective is essential in the
interpretation of knowledge in the Arts." To what extent
do you agree that this is the case in Arts."...

Description

"The knower’s perspective is essential in the interpretation of knowledge in the Arts." To what extent do you agree that this is the case in Arts. In the process of acquiring knowledge, it is inevitable that there will be differences in the interpretations we have as independent individuals. Nonetheless, obtaining our own perspective should not mean that we should discard the context nor the contrasting perspectives other members of society have in the specific element, in this case, the element being art. The art of “perspective”, to me personally, is THE critical factor that separates us from one another as unique and exceptional individuals. Deriving from the individual’s culture, beliefs, hobbies, life experiences and schemas, it’s an essential tool for character development as obtaining perspectives shape us into the knowers we are today. Knowledge in itself has multiple pools in which it can be categorized and defined. The general assumption is that knowledge solely comes within the primary & secondary facts that we learn. However, I think it’s vital to consider that some of the knowledge we gain, differs for everyone. It’s all to do with perspectives. In this essay, I will aim to delve into the knowledge of the arts and thoroughly explore to what extent the knower’s perspective is essential in the interpretation of knowledge in the arts. Substantially, artwork has been said to be first established possibly from approximately 70,000 BC but with certainty by roughly 40,000 BC. One detail I know for sure is that over the past millenniums, artwork that has had no confirmed context has been more successful in society’s interactions and engagement. To cement this argument, Azerbaijan, my home country, is very popular for its historical artworks. Things such as caveman paintings in Gobustan are now an extremely popular tourist attraction. Created in the medieval period, the zeitgeist of these drawings did aid in the community perceiving why the paintings were painted the way they were. However, the lack of knowledge in other conditions of the time period resulted in individuals enjoying the art from their own narratives and claiming only what makes sense in their schemas. Is this not the true purpose of art? To showcase a story without any words? Wouldn’t provided context defeat the intentions behind art? In the museum of Gobustan, appreciators of art are given activities such as sharing their inferences of the paintings with the tour group and illuminating their own stories by creating art in caveman style. I truly believe that the concept of this method unites humanity with art by constituting a relationship in which everyone can relate to the piece of artwork. Fundamentally consolidating that the knower’s perspective is highly crucial in the interpretation and engagement of the arts. On the contrary, we as homo sapiens have been psychologically proven to have

more interest in activities we understand better. Our brains are hardwired to release serotonin when we comprehend the concept with ease. So this raises the question, is the artwork being relatable more important than understanding the actual meaning behind the masterpiece? Professional art critics argue that any artwork cannot be entirely appreciated without exploring, understanding and accepting the detailed context behind the arts. An immediate example I think of while hearing this is Pablo Francisco Picasso. A legendary Spanish painter whose paintings went viral after his death for their irregularity and abstractness. At initial glance, the generalized public simply interpreted that it was a painting style, a signature, a way to differentiate from other artists. And they would be justified in doing so. Yet, with more inspection and research into his work, Picasso was revealed to have Alzheimer’s disease; a progressively degrading retrograde amnesia where he completely forgot what his own face looked like. Now with this newly discovered knowledge, the art appreciation for his work increased due to better understandings and got the attention of not only art lovers, but psychologists, psychiatrists as historians as well. Taking the example of Pablo Picasso into account, it highlights that in fact, the knower’s interpretations of art can sometimes completely distract the public from the original message the artist was attempting to drive forward. Thus, without a doubt, cementing the notion that context is vital in the process of thoroughly understanding art. While art’s purpose is to give a message upon initial inspection, and the knower’s self-interpretation is critical in making the artwork more responsive, I personally consider that the evidence on both arguments directs to the unmitigated significance of context in the interpretation of knowledge in the arts. Without having access to some sort of context, true appreciation of the message in the art is near hopeless. The knower’s perspective is a notable and significant element when interpreting art, but it’s the background secondary information of any artwork that is essential when delving into the thorough knowledge of the arts. AOK / bibliography -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815939/ // when was art first created https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-interpretation-of-art // critics opinions on context of art...