Carrying on from our discussion of objective and conveyable realities, consider the following musings on the role and nature of Art:
“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth.”
-Pablo Picasso
“Art renders accessible to [those] of the latest generations all the feelings experienced by their predecessors and also those felt by their best and foremost contemporaries...[Art] is a means of union...joining [people] together in the same feeling. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and also experience them...A real work of art destroys in the consciousness of the recipient the separation between himself and the artist, and...also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art.”
-Leo Tolstoy
For your Thursday post:
In one of your other classes, find a lie that makes you realize a truth. Identify the feelings with which it infects you, and consider the nature of your knowledge. Is it subjective? Can it be both subjective and universal?
Today in IB HL History, our teacher told us that Russia could beat Austria, but not Germany, but Germany was an ally with Austria and backed Austria up when they were in trouble. When my teacher said this I was confused at first and then I realized what she was saying. Then I found that she was trying to get us to realize that Russia was actually not able to defeat either Austria or Germany since Germany always came to the rescue of Austria. Then after a while to repeated what she was saying and then told us this riddle. This made me question the way that teachers present information, most of it common sense that we just need to move around and piece together. This is both subjective and universal because at first when you learn this information, you take it as it is and do not immediately connect the pieces, but when you are pushed towards the “answer” to the riddle you quickly figure it out. This is subjective because some people need the influence of another to notice the connection, but this is also universal because if you studied World War I in depth for a longer time, you would most likely come to this conclusion on your own.
ReplyDeleteWorld War I: Russia can beat Austria.
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect because Russia can’t beat Germany. Germany supports Austria, so therefor Russia can’t actually beat Germany because at the same time they would be fighting Germany.
~We first heard that Russia was strong enough to beat Austria, but then we found out they weren’t strong enough to beat Germany. Germany was supporting Austria, so therefor Russia wasn’t able to beat Austria because of their ties with Germany.
~My feelings made me question why would I get the first statement, if it could just be explained by, Russia cannot beat Austria because of the support they have from Germany. I don’t understand why the extra statement was made because it was ultimately disproven the sentence afterward. I had not known any of these facts, and if the teacher didn’t say that Germany supported Austria I would have believed Russia could beat Austria. It didn’t really “infect” me because it was just a way new information was explained to me. However it could have been said Russia can’t beat Austria because of their ties with Germany and then “if” they had no ties, Russia could have beaten Austria. This would have given us the “real” information and then the “if” factor.
~I don’t believe this “lie” was made subjectively, because it was said with the intention to explain further. My teacher was trying to explain information clearly, so we could also understand the power balance. However it was quickly caught with facts so we weren’t “unknowledgeable” for too long.
~It can’t be both universal and subjective. In reality this piece of information is subjective because all of the world this topic it taught with the country’s bias. This statement could be used in Russia when teaching this subject, but in Austria and Germany, they would start the lesson with: Russia couldn’t beat Austria and that’s it. This is not universal because not all teachers teach information the same way, and this lie/statement might be explained differently all around the world.
I could not find an example relating to one of my classes, but I thought of a general example. If I asked another person if they were feeling okay and they answer "I'm fine" this could be a lie. By them saying this I could realize that truthfully they are not okay. When someone says this I feel sympathetic towards them and want to try and make them feel better. The nature of my knowledge of their state is thoughtful and considerate. This observation is very subjective because it is affected by my type of personality and compassion for others. These feelings can be subjective and universal, but there are people in the world with no consideration for others.
ReplyDeleteToday in chemistry class, I went to the teacher to explain for me a question that I had gotten wrong on the test. While explaining to me she told me that electrons move in energy levels called shells. This is a lie because no one has ever seen an electron and how they move around. This made me realise the truth because it is impossible to see an electron and how they move around.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't really infect me but it had some impact on me because I realised that sometimes things can be both lies and truths.
The nature of my knowledge is subjective because I know what I know because somebody else taught me. I know that you can't see electrons because my teacher explained to me that electrons are tiny and can not be seen. If the teacher hadn't taught me at first that you can't see electrons maybe I would have believed that they move in shells.
In English class today, we had a hand out about the top 20 figures of speech. There were definitions and examples of each one. One of those figures of speech was Apostrophe. The example used to demonstrate it is as follows:
ReplyDelete“Oh! Stars and clouds and winds, ye are all about to mock me; if you really pity me, crush sensation and memory; let me become as nought; but if not, depart, depart, and leave me in darkness.”
In the simplest sense, this is a lie. It is a lie because stars do not mock speakers and they do not have the ability to crush sensation and memory or the ability to pity as they are not living beings. However, although what the speaker is saying is a lie, it is true in the sense that we gain insight into the speaker’s feelings. Through a lie, the speaker has been able to communicate to us that he or she is obviously upset about something and feels as if the whole world is against him or her. The speaker is so upset that he or she has resorted to referring to inanimate objects in an attempt to express his/her feelings. By means of a lie, the speaker has made us realize the depth of his/her feelings, which are true.
This knowledge doesn’t infuse me with a particular feeling. I have come across figures of speech like this many times and am quite used to seeing them. However, this is the first time that I took a closer look and am amazed to see that something I took for granted is actually a lot more complicated beneath the surface.
This example is both subjective and universal as people need to use their reasoning skills in order to figure out the intended message. However, eventually, most (if not all) people will arrive at similar (if not the same) conclusion; that the person speaking is upset.
Another example I noticed (although it was not during class time) relates to music (which is a form of art). When I was practicing on the piano, a wrong note made me realize that the right note was two tones upward. A “lie” in the piece (not following the notes correctly) helped me find the truth (the right note). Again, I was not filled with a particular feeling. This is a natural everyday occurrence for me. However, this ability is subjective. Not everyone in the universe can calculate the number of tones of error just by hearing a note and comparing it to what note it is supposed to be. It needs experience and previous knowledge of a piece. While a large number of people are able to do so (albeit, unconsciously) it is not universal because a larger majority cannot.
I encountered several lies yesterday as I went through my classes, but most of them seemed to be simply false statements with no real learning value to them. There were, however, a few which did. In history yesterday, Karen was describing the defeat of the Russian soldiers. They had few weapons are were dying quickly. She described the Russian soldiers as "drowning in their own blood". Were the Russian soldiers truly drowning in their own blood? No. This makes it a lie. Did this grotesque image convey the truth about WW1 warfare and make us realize the condition of the soldiers? It certainly did. More so, perhaps, than a simple statement about how many soldiers were dying. This lie gave us the truth through the power of hyperbole. Another lie which told me the truth yesterday was in Octet. I find that in singing, people often will use metaphors more than truly accurate descriptions to describe how breath should flow, how the ribcage should expand, or how wide open ones mouth should be in order to produce the desired effect. Likening lungs to rubber bands, spines to yardsticks, and warmups to yoga are common during A period. They are lies, certainly, but when one uses the techniques as illustrated by the metaphor, we see how truthful it is in directing us and aiding our singing.
ReplyDeleteI could not find a lie in a class that was not a metaphor. In stead, will share a more personal realization of truth through a lie that occurred during a teaching.
ReplyDeleteMy father and I almost routinely get into discussions about Buddhism no matter what the conversation began with. Usually by the end, I find Buddhism more beautiful than I had before the conversation. One night, I was simply turned-off by Buddhism.
On that night, my father spoke to me about accountability in relation to Buddhism. What he told me was that sins relied on the use of a human's five senses and its mind. Attached to this is of course how others react. No matter how good your intentions may be, you are accountable for your sins upon others is what he described. I argued, "you cannot control how others react."
He responded with a smile and response, "you have to be mindful and careful."
"But you could say an absolutely wonderful and kind thing and someone may just be mean and take it wrongly."
"You have to consider what you are saying."
We carried on and he said that a monk who prays in a cave carries limited sins and commits good deeds by praying for others and keeping a pure mind. I questioned my father asking if it is a sin not to do anything with themselves physically to improve the world around them. He said no. He says that in Tibetan Buddhism, it is better to not do with your senses as much as possible that would effect sentient beings and to keep good thoughts in your mind. My father is an Atheist but grew up a Buddhist. Or so he says. I am a secular humanist. That night I learned I have been living a lie. Buddhism is not based solely on compassion. In a Buddhist philosophy, I've sinned unsurmountable times. I will continue to do so also because I will always be surround by living creatures and things that will effect them as well, and mother earth.
I learned that the deeper I go into Buddhism, the less about my self I'm sure of. I will continue on with my life, yes, but I have no true knowledge of whether I will do good to a person or not by offering a good mind and heart, in terms of Buddhism. This made me feel frustrated and sad. Sad countered the feelings of frustration so I didn't become mad. It is indeed subjective, the idea of whether one is a good person or not. He or she could be described as a good person because of his or her kind heart and actions or the effect he or she had on others, the individual's accountability.
Nothing is universal. There may be a generally accepted way or thing globally, but if one digs, they will find someone who disagrees or does not accept. Nothing is applicable to everything.
When I first think about dance, those professional ballet dancers and some hip hop dancers always show up in my mind. Due to their influences, I believe that dance is a kind of knowledge or a profession. People must have certain kinds of dancing skills in order to be called dancers. The idea was kept in my mind until I started to take IB Dance. Before I took IB Dance, I did not have any professional dancing training, and I went into IB Dance without any foundation. At first, I was very scared, and afraid that I would not be able to do well in that class compared to some other skillful dancers. However, my mind has changed quickly. In that class, I learned to how to move my body, and used my natural body language to create pieces of movements of dance. Although they did not have professional skills, they were still called dance, and I enjoyed it. Then, I realized that dance is made of natural body movement, and it is in everyone’s body which means that everybody is a dancer. I feel that I have lied to myself for many years, and now I finally realize the truth. Before I found out that, the classic dance seems untouchable, and far away from me, but now I think about dance as a language of body, and the nature of human; dance is composed of various body movements. Suddenly, I felt relieved, and I found out that dance can be everywhere in my life. It does not have to be a formal performance, it can just be a way to relax my stress. My early impression of dance was infected by the outside influences and what other people thought, and I realized the truth by my own experience. My experience of dance reshaped my knowledge of dance. This lie makes me realize the truth which opens a new world of dance for me. In this case, the lie of true dance is universal, and those skillful dances stick in most people’s minds. Some people think that they can not dance because they are not good at those professional movements, and others believe that they are not knowledgeable of the dance theories due to their profundity. When they may find out the truth of dance, their reactions can be subjective and various. In conclusion, the misunderstanding of dance is universal among people, but when they find out the truth, their feedback can be very subjective.
ReplyDeleteYesterday at the end of history class my teacher off handedly said that WWI never happened. This was a joke and we both knew it to be one, but it was also in some respects a lie because she did not really believe this fact to be true. I walked out of the class and laughed to myself because I knew that I had been waiting all day to notice a lie come from one of my teachers and the one I had gotten was a joke. But that made me think. It was so easy, for someone I trusted to educate me, to state such an lie. For a brief moment I was a bit perplexed. I knew that she was only kidding, but I also knew that that had the power to scare me. WWI did happen, there is a massive amount of evidence to support that statement. The same goes for people who do not believe that the Holocaust never happened. In some way though it is different for those people because they actually believe it to be true, they believe that the Holocaust never happened, so in there own way they know that to be true. My history teacher is very well educated and good at her job, but everybody makes mistakes. If she had said that she truly believed WWI did not happen, I would be forced to reconsider being a student in her class because I knew that not to be true, unless of course she could change my mind and force be to believe (or know) something else. This is a pretty universal consideration of both knowledge and truth. Most all peoples knowledge and ideas of what is true and false can be altered.
ReplyDelete