The arts are celebrated for their unconventional approach to knowledge and their often surreal view on circumstances. A lot of the knowledge we acquire through the arts is subsequent to our moral standing and views on politics, life, death and many more factors in life. In fact you could argue that although art may at first appear trivial or even superficial it contains more information about modern (or old) feelings and opinions which affect the human mood and body most of all. So arguably the knowledge we receive from the arts is more relevant to the average person than whether the theory concerning the layout of an atom is correct or not. For example artist Alex Grey released a collection of life sized paintings called “The Sacred Mirrors”. These paintings help the viewer find their own divine nature through examining the mind body and spirit in detail. These paintings are incredibly abstract but have immense detail into the layout of the circulatory system, muscles and the nervous system.
Alex Grey has also done artwork for a band by the name of Tool whose musical direction is extremely original and through their use of unusual time signatures and instrumental technique they have definitely influenced “prog rock”. One example of how they are completely original and unconventional is their time signatures employed on the single “Schism” from the album Lateralus is described by bassist Justin Chancellor to be 6.5/8 and that it later "goes into all kinds of other times", although prog rock is generally a low key genre of music but within the fans the live shows are extremely renowned. On tour Tool often incorporate an unorthodox stage setting and video display. The band members have designated positions on stage that they do not leave. No follow spots or live cameras are used; instead, the band uses extensive backlighting to direct the focus away from the band members and towards large screens at the back and onto the crowd. Breckinridge Haggerty, the band's live lighting and video designer, explains that the resulting dark spaces on stage "are … for Maynard (singer). A lot of the songs are a personal journey for him … and he feels more comfortable in the shadows." 1 This is extremely odd for a performing artist as conventionally singers tend to take the stage and be the center of the show. The big screens are used to play back "looped clips that aren’t tracked to a song like a music video. The band has never used any sort of time code. They’ve always made sure the video can change on-the-fly, in a way that can be improvised. … The show is never the same twice." Which again is original in live entertainment as usually producers and directors tend to keep things the same to avoid technical mishaps? We don’t necessarily learn anything from this but it can spur thought and inspire other artists to do the same with their shows.
Commonly in music conventions are broken for example jazz music is well known for this. But if musicians just blindly broke convention without paying attention to key signatures and timing then we would end up with an un-listenable mess hence we have to learn rules before we can break them.
Another example of art is the Renaissance, although it appeared as though these artists were peeling away from conventional “medieval” styles, in reality they were replicating ideas, rules and styles of classical artists Greece and Rome.
Many other artists such as 17th century Italian violinist virtuoso Niccolo Paganini who invented many strange and new unseen techniques which at the time were seen as “unconventional” but are now used to teach aspiring violinists and help them improve their technique. This again suggests that the conventional stems from the unconventional.
Science is not always correct and conventional a perfect example of this is Charles Darwin, I have recently been studying his theory of natural selection in biology and although he was eminent among scientists for his work on geology he proposed and provided evidence that all of life have over time from one or a few through the process of . Evolution became widely accepted in the and the general public during his lifetime; however his of natural selection was ignored, and looked down upon. Now almost 200 years later it forms the basis of . In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery remains the foundation of , as it provides a unifying explanation for the . This proves that even science breaks conventions, and so perhaps in order to acquire new knowledge we must go against what we already know.
When considering whether we learn more from work that follows or that breaks with accepted conventions it is always best to consider what we are trying to learn and what we wish to do with the knowledge we are searching for. This is because the conventional and unconventional are so different in what we learn from them and we also get different answers when we ask the same question to both fields.
An empiricist is likely to say that we learn more from that which breaks with accepted conventions as these subjects are more likely or commonly the arts and when looking at or learning from the arts we need to primarily use our senses (a W.O.K – Way of Knowing). Our senses often tell us different from our brain. It could be argued that we don’t learn more from the unconventional because as human beings we are prejudice, our interpretations of the art depend on our beliefs and views.
Rationalists would tend to go for the opposite way of thinking, saying that we learn more from that which stays close to accepted conventions. This is because rationalism is very logical in nature, as is science and so the two naturally fall into place together. Although having said this there is a slight contradiction in what I am saying because like I was saying earlier because science is logical in nature the very fact that it is based on theories that cannot actually be proven, is completely illogical. But the other way of looking at this argument would be that science may not necessarily be about learning but is indeed about developing, in order to expand as there is no proof in science only evidence.
In conclusion I believe that in order to answer the question: “In areas of knowledge such as the arts and the sciences, do we learn more from work that follows or that breaks with accepted conventions?” we must first ask ourselves if we believe in breaking conventions because although I personally believe that we learn more from the unconventional as it is more often than not completely new and original, which gives us more to learn about compared to conventional ways as they tend to have already been explored leaving less “fresh” or “untouched” knowledge to be had. However I also believe that without conventions we cannot gain “new” or original knowledge because as I said earlier on this essay the unconventional spawns from the conventional.
Bibliography:
– Information on tool lighting – written by Anon and last edited on 11th December 2007 published by Wikipedia.
- Information on Alex Grey from the official website, website master and designer –Peter Terezakis
- Charles Darwin written by Anon and last edited on 11th December 2007 and published by wikipedia
By Christopher Killington.
