Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Arts - As an Area of Knowledge

So when you think of the words "art" or "artist" what adjectives come to mind?
Mad, crazy, insane...
Well, OK, so the rest of this presentation will be in Italian.
Slide 1:

Alessandro immediately provides: That's Spanish, not Italian! Gracias, mi amigo!
So let's figure out what The Arts - as an Area Of Knowledge is all about.
In your TOK guide, you would have to look for them ....

And having found it, let's take another look at the larger picture. What does this piece of art, called the TOK diagram mean to you?


So, as Abhinav informs us all, the Knower is at the centre of it all. And who is this Knower? Albert Einstein...? OK, who else... great, it's all of us.
At the centre, stand I, and here is my perspective on what this picture shows: there are these two filters through which knowledge comes to me - the first filter are the four ways of knowing; the second filter are the Areas of Knowledge. The first filter helps me, the Knower, to process the world; the second filter puts everything into easy-to-bite pieces.
Whatever I think, feel, speak... everything is guided by these influences. Am I saying that nothing I think, feel or say is original, that everything is decided by all of this, that I am a mere puppet in these hands? Yes, I guess I am...

For some very odd reason, a whole lot of areas are clubbed together as The Arts. Why this is done, I don't really know...

















And since the Arts - all of the above clubbed together somewhat randomly - don't restrict themselves to any particular language, let's us continue this session in French.















"Life is very nice," he says, superciliously... but without art even life has no form. But what, really, is art?
Let's examine each of the following points in our TOK groups:

What one person finds meaningful, another may feel is meaningless. Kanak and Prerna lead the way with a few strokes of the brush on canvas. Abhinav and Aakanksha wonder about symbolic meanings in visual art and theatre. Alessandro imbues cuisine with a soul and is able to see beauty in a solitary spot. Sonal, Samia and Anand expatiate on the diverse meanings [or meaninglessness] of the Arts.

And alas, even meaningful art or art presentations have to bow to the dictates of time... so we break for five days and resume our discussion on Monday, 4 April...

ADDED ON MONDAY, 4 APRIL 2011: 3.30 P.M.


To continue, we consider the following:

























Feedback from the group discussions:
Vidyut/Madhav: art is something that the individual perceives; it evokes a feeling
Akhil/Sayuj: there are many different views of art - for me body building is an art; the emotion in a piece of art depends on what you think the emotion is; art is about self-control; technology and art do go hand in hand - therefore we have photography as a form of art; new forms of art are being formed every day.
Antalya/Shruthi: art has many functions - what is happening in Japan could be photographed by someone and shared in order to inform others.
The Big Debate on whether "information" can be called "art" with Adi, Samia and Kanak leading it.
Technology can enhance art - however, one shouldn't go overboard with it.
Ankit/Arushi: art binds people together; patriotism is promoted - especially through movies; art helps you to escape from worldly problems; it helps you to relate to your life, change your view [contributed by Abhinav]; plays like the Doll's House changed perspectives; technology can be used to edit others' ideas, so what happens to originality?
In response to the last question: Sonal - even when editing I still add my insight, my ideas, my creativity. Adi was of the view that editing itself is an art [I think, in retrospect, that he was talking specifically about film editing due to the example he gave - and certainly, one could call this a skill, but would that make it an art?]

As you can see from these discussions - and how intensely some of you disagreed with each other - there are different perspectives possible on every issue, and each of those perspectives is equally valid. If you approach a topic like a debater, you are quite likely to completely miss the TOK point in it. There are claims and there are counter-claims; even if you believe more in one or the other, an effective TOK approach would be to examine both for merits and fallacies. Right now, through this discussion, you are able to experience just how unstable the ground can be. This is, experientially, what TOK asks you to do: question absolutes, wonder about so-called "truths", allow paradigm shifts to broaden your understanding.


Theory of Knowledge being, as it is, a discipline in which we are encouraged to ask more questions and download less answers, I leave you with a few questions:

And finally, to acknowledge my one and only source:



1 comment: