Art and Knowing

Prescribed Title # 3: "Knowing is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts."

Art is a form of entertainment that has taken center stage on the tabula rasa, blank slate. What is constructed as art is dependent on the era it was constructed in or the individual who framed it.
Victorian art emphasized decorative arts in household settings and Realism art forms depicted images in more natural settings. With this in mind, an image that was created in the Victorian era and transported to the Realism era would not be as highly appraised than if it was in its original time period.

In art, perception is reality.

For instance, iconic images such as the Mona Lisa are probably famous because the society in that era placed a value that continues to persist in this day. I am certain that Leonardo Da Vinci was not the first person to paint an image with semblance to the Mona Lisa. So why is it that his painting, The Mona Lisa, deemed as famous? It is because society dictates what is great and what will be great. If The Mona Lisa was created in our century would it be as famous? Probably not. Why? Because as society changes, so does the perception of art. What is deemed as "artful" in one era might not be so in another.

In the art world, knowledge pertaining to aesthetic beauty is more than the systematic origination of facts, for the conceptualization of art stems from human perception, which is entirely subjective. The only aspect that is continuously systematic and objective are the organization of primary colors. Beyond that, how these primary colors emerge to paint "art" is depended on the artist himself. This is the subjective nature of art.

Knowledge and the Justice System

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts"

The justice system is a fundamental aspect of American society; its job is to bring justice to criminals and vindicate the wrongly accused. As one uncovers the structure of how justice is formed, the question of how this knowledge is acquired comes to light.

Information of a case is derived from any scientific and pertinent evidence. Knowledge about the events that happened is then formulated in terms of not only how these facts are organized, but also from how these facts are interpreted by the prosecution and defense team.
The prosecution is assessing evidence with the goal of proving the said perpetrator guilty. With this in mind, when the prosecution frames its argument, using the same information as the defense, their interpretation will be different then its opposing side (defense team). Similarly, the defense team is using the same set of information as the prosecution, but is forming a different argument in hopes of deeming an individual as not guilty.

The formation of justice is a process that is convoluted and not as straight-forward as one sees it. If it was, then the objective pieces of the information would exclusively determine the outcome of a case. However, along with objective information, subjective information is also injected into interpreting objective evidence. In a nutshell, the job of a lawyer is to construct a believable sequence of events to frame his/her client as innocent.  To an extent, this can explain why innocent individuals are convicted as guilty, and vice-versa. Objective evidence can be misconstrued through subjective interpretation of concrete facts.

In the Justice System, who is innocent and who is guilty is, to an extent, clouded by one's interpretation of what is "correct".

Religion: More than systematic organization

Religion, according to the Merriam-Webster definition, is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules that serve to worship god(s).

In the world alone, there are billions of individuals who identify themselves as part of a religious group, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, or Hinduism, among others. Most religions, notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have a similar belief structure, including: presence of an afterlife, a single God, a set of commandments, and the act of repentance, as a means to become sanctified.

One then can ask himself/herself, if religion is centered on a set belief system, why is it some religious individuals who follow these rules are more blessed than other religious people? Why is it that not all religious people's fates end up the same? Why is it that more miracles happen to some religious people and not others?

The answer all lies in faith.

Faith is an abstract concept that goes beyond the traditional systematic following of rules in a religion. And most importantly, it, unlike a system, cannot be measured.

When one has faith, his/her degree of faith can be the difference between his blessings and another individual's. Faith is believing the impossible is possible. Faith is putting trust in a supernatural being and relying on this alone. This is what faith is.

Although religion is based on the systematic organization of doctrines, traditions, and rules, which construct knowledge, faith is an aspect that is not systematic. One cannot calculate faith. Rather, one has to deliberately put his/her trust in a God, with no blatant indication of what the end result with be.

With this in mind, religion is more than the systematic organization of facts.

Human /Social Sciences and the usage of systems

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts"

In the social sciences, particularity anthropology, the practices of cultures from around the world are evaluated and assessed based on historic relics or practices that tell a story about their origins. From an objective standpoint, it can be said that the social sciences are based on the systematic organization of facts that point to a certain culture. If x is found in a part of y's culture, then this means z.

But it doesn't work like that; this formula does not entail the complete story and depiction of a culture.

When social scientists evaluate and try to make sense of foreign cultures, an understanding of the culture's way of life must be taken into account. With this in mind, a social scientist's interpretation of the practices of a social group must be taken into consideration. If the social sciences were solely based on the systematic organization of facts, there would be no social science, as this domain relies heavily on how humans interact among social groups.

Take this into consideration, let's say that in a certain culture, when an economic difficulty is being faced in the community, all the eldest single daughters are sold to increase household revenue, therefore increasing the society's wealth.

In the U.S, this would be a no-no, but in other parts of the globe, this is an acceptable practice. If everyone in the world had a universal understanding of human life, then in the aforementioned situation, everyone would respond by either selling or not selling a family member. However, as we know, this is not the case.
Humans are social beings and, depending on the environment one is raised in, respond based on what he or she has been taught in his or her society. Hence, in the field of social sciences, it is important to understand that although understanding the systematic organization of facts (such as cultural rules, ordinances, customs, and sanctions) helps understand the skeleton of a society, the meat of knowledge lies in the comprehension of why these practices exist. Since reasoning is subjective, this process is not as clear cut and, consequently, not systematically organized.

Math: The usage of systems

Prescribed Title: "Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts."

Knowledge is primarily attained by empirical evidence; facts are culminated into distinct patterns, which are then integrated into an overall comprehension of the world. In the field of mathematics, numbers are units that provide human beings a system of quantifying and placing a numerical value on objects, or in some cases, intangible concepts.

For example, the value of a diamond is showed by its rarity. To do so, one must place a price tag on a diamond to show the extent of its scarcity ; The Steinmetz Pink Diamond is worth 25 million USD and is valued at such because of its rare pink color and size. Additionally, fashion products are rated "couture", once they become limited to an elite group of individuals and is not readily attainable by the average person. Humans value the quality of products, not by certain stylistic features, but by the logo an item of clothing has. From Vera Wang to Prada to Louboutin, all "high-end" products have one thing in common: A hefty price tag. Only those who can afford these brands are deemed as fashionable and, consequently, have bought the concept of "being cool". 


In the case of rarity and what it means to be "in fashion" and couture, the numbers game is used to place value on these concepts. With this in mind, it takes more than the systematic organization of facts to constitute knowledge in the domains of "rarity" and "high fashion". If nobody thought diamonds were spectacles to be awed at or certain designer brands were the highlight of the fashion industry, then there would be no difference between choosing between a fake or a real diamond or shopping at Target or Burberry. Everything would be a level playing field. However, this is not the case. 

The systematic organization of facts, in the case of mathematics and determining "value", is not so objective and systematized as one might think. Since perception is reality, that which we value will have a bias in the system created to evaluate it. As in the case of diamonds and designer brands, the more valued a product is seen, the greatest numerical value it is given. 

First the idea gave birth to the perception which gave birth to the price tag. What a systematic process. 

The creation of "Beings"

Prescribed title: "That which is considered knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow."

Spontaneous Generation experiment 

Spontaneous generation.

The abrupt and haphazard creation of maggots/flies from meat.

This belief prevailed the 17th century; it was "common notion" that when meat was left out, flies and or maggots would be "birthed".

Francesco Redi was an Italian naturalist, physician, and poet who debunked the theory of spontaneous generation.




To do so, he created an experiment that resembled the image below.

Three jars that each had meat had a paper cover, no cover, and gauze cover, respectively. Redi hypothesized that only the meat that had physical contact with the flies would "produce" maggots.

The hypothesis was correct.

Although each meat decayed, only containers (b) and (c) attracted flies; the open contact with air allowed the rotting smell to be transmitted and, therefore, be detected by the flies. Then, the flies would lay their eggs on the open meat/open gauze. In conclusion, the meat did not "birth" maggots (baby flies), the flies did.

The preexisting knowledge that accepted the spontaneous generation theory was no longer valid.

In the scientific world, it is only until another piece of knowledge replaces the prior that knowledge is accepted as "true".Science is always a changing and evolving field. New information will, more often than not, either build on or invalidate previous "truths". It is only until an individual challenges what is accepted as "true" that existing "truths" can be put to the test. Until then, however, what is accepted as knowledge will prevail.

Changing Views on Body Image

Prescribed Title: "That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow."


Image: "Born in the Wrong Century"

From Mona Lisa to the Assumption of the Virgin to Ruben's Adoration of the Magi, ancient historical paintings have lauded the voluptuous human form. There were no paintings of stick thin women who, on the verge of starvation, aimed to represent beauty.

No.

It was during these times that a women who had a more full figure was named beautiful.

Nowadays, It's the opposite.

The knowledge of a women being 'preferable' and of bride material in positive correlation with her body weight/shape has diminished. Instead, those who are near a size zero or emerging from a Vogue magazine have replaced this ideology. As seen in the left-handed image "Born in the Wrong Century", women who have the voluptuous and full-figured body type in contemporary society are shunned; however, this body image would have been advantageous in ancient times. It is ironic that although ancient paintings with women who represent the full-figured body type are still seen as exceptional art, women who represent this body type in contemporary society are not valued as highly, if at all.

Evidently, the knowledge of what it meant to be a "good figured" woman, as portrayed in art, during the earlier centuries is discarded in today's society.

Thin wasn't always meant to be.