[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][01.28]

hugeseaUID: 190158

关于REBORN FROM THE ASHES组COMMENTS活动的说明&汇总
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1042733-1-2.html

Art Upsets, Science Reassures

‘Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque) Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning. To evaluate Braque’s claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure ‘what is’, as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail in their representational and informative nature. Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative of that which every person would think scientifically so. Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be a distinguishing skill; acting. Seeing the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt his children, is something that is far beyond what anyone has experienced in reality, and instills in individuals a mystical image of what could be. Or, the people indigenous to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science. These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work. Not everyone sees their dead father return in a pale, luminescent mist to speak to them, yet, Shakespearean actors would make us think otherwise. It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case. This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly). Confusion still comes about when the meteorology and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about. Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to reveal something about humans, or to deliver Stoll 2 any kind of message, the message might not necessarily be interpreted by the individual in the way it was intended. The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong. Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others Though this form of art may be upsetting enough, there are still many illustrations to ponder and induce discomfort. Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase (appendix 1). This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase. The would be end point reconvenes with the point at where we visually began, when tracking the staircase, and proceeds to ascend or descend another level, depending on how it is looked upon. Not only does this prove to be a physical impossibility, but a tedious chore for the mind. Everything that this staircase suggests defies reality, and goes against all that is known in the third dimension. The same is true for the impossible triangle (appendix 2), developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional world. The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration! It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present. The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque’s position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts. The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints of our visual system have if it Stoll 3 is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent. It would lead to biological disaster if you were blind to the unusual, inconsistent, or paradoxical (Seckel). This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well. Another example of science’s reassurance can come with experimentation. When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple; we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance. Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa. The paintings that comes from Latina artist Frida Khalo are self portraits that do not romanticize her image at all. She shows herself to be just as she was, with ridged facial features, and even facial hair. Or, Pablo Picasso’s early works; violent depiction’s of war in his time. It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality, that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph. Again there is the issue of perception on behalf of the person viewing this art, and how they interpret the work. Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective. As for science, there is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting. It has been my personal experience that quantum physics will offer Stoll 4 many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification. How can I really be right here, and over there all at the same time? Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet, that justification is not entirely useful or valid. The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science. From the Native people of Bali who claim not to have art at all, that they merely try to do things the best they can, and not toil with the unnecessary troubles of art, to the masters of the Japanese Noh, a drama that is entirely dependent on music as well as choreography (two examples of representational art). There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity. The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra). Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation. Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.

Bibliography

Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics (New York , Bantam Books, 1975). Seckel, Al http://www.illusionworks.com/html/site_credits.html, 1997. Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2

Word Count: 1638

domudomuUID: 2670967

Art upsets, science reassures’ (消除疑虑）(Braque) Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque （布拉克, 乔治斯((1882-1963) 法国画家, 是立体派的主要倡导者和理论家)would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify（使具体化） our reality, saving us from delving（深入探究，钻研） into the fantastic chasm（裂缝，分歧，差别） of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning.
（科学与艺术的结合，会不会是一个完美的阵容，让我想到了达芬奇密码里面名画解构）
To evaluate Braque’s claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof（他的，其）, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure ‘what is’, as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail（使。。。成为必要，限定继承） in their representational and informative nature. Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative（对他人操控，操纵的） of that which every person would think scientifically so. Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested（证明，已显示的） themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be a distinguishing skill; acting. Seeing the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt（出没于） his children, is something that is far beyond what anyone has experienced in reality, and instills（逐步灌输，逐渐使某人获得） in individuals a mystical image of what could be. Or, the people indigenous（土生土长的） to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science. These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work.
（艺术从一些方面是可以改变人们对其的观点看法的）
Not everyone sees their dead father return in a pale, luminescent（发光） mist to speak to them, yet, Shakespearean actors would make us think otherwise. It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case. This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly). Confusion still comes about when the meteorology（气象学） and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about. Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to reveal something about humans, or to deliver Stoll 2 any kind of message, the message might not necessarily be interpreted by the individual in the way it was intended. The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong. Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others Though this form of art may be upsetting enough, there are still many illustrations to ponder（沉思，琢磨） and induce discomfort.
（类似于跳舞求雨的祷告形式是没有任何科学依据的）
Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase (appendix 1). This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase. The would be end point reconvenes（复会） with the point at where we visually began, when tracking the staircase, and proceeds to ascend or descend another level, depending on how it is looked upon. Not only does this prove to be a physical impossibility, but a tedious chore for the mind. Everything that this staircase suggests defies reality, and goes against all that is known in the third dimension（方面，规模）. The same is true for the impossible triangle (appendix 2), developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional（3D，三维） world.
（谈论到了艺术中的三维效果）
The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration! It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present. The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque’s position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts. The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation（驳斥） of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints（系统规定参数） of our visual system have if it Stoll 3 is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical（似是而非，自相矛盾）, unusual, or inconsistent. It would lead to biological disaster if you were blind to the unusual, inconsistent, or paradoxical (Seckel). This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well. Another example of science’s reassurance can come with experimentation. When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple; we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance. Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa（反之亦然）. The paintings that comes from Latina artist Frida Khalo are self portraits that do not romanticize her image at all. She shows herself to be just as she was, with ridged（山脊） facial features, and even facial hair. Or, Pablo Picasso’s early works; violent depiction’s(描述） of war in his time. It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality, that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph. Again there is the issue of perception on behalf of the person viewing this art, and how they interpret the work. Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors（隐喻）, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective. As for science, there is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting. It has been my personal experience that quantum（定量，突飞猛进） physics will offer Stoll 4 many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification. How can I really be right here, and over there all at the same time? Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet, that justification is not entirely useful or valid. The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science. From the Native people of Bali who claim not to have art at all, that they merely try to do things the best they can, and not toil with the unnecessary troubles of art, to the masters of the Japanese Noh, a drama that is entirely dependent on music as well as choreography(舞蹈设计） (two examples of representational art). There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity. The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra). Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation. Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

Art Upsets, Science Reassures

‘Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque)
Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning. To evaluate Braque’s claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof因此, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure ‘what is’, as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail需要 in their representational and informative nature.
Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative of that which every person would think scientifically so. Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be 被认为，被当做a distinguishing skill; acting. Seeing the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt his children, is something that is far beyond what anyone has experienced in reality, and instills in individuals a mystical image of what could be. Or, the people indigenous to North America美国原住民 performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science. These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work. Not everyone sees their dead father return in a pale, luminescent mist to speak to them, yet, Shakespearean actors would make us think otherwise. It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case. This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly).
Confusion still comes about when the meteorology and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about. Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to reveal something about humans, or to deliver Stoll 2 any kind of message, the message might not necessarily be interpreted by the individual in the way it was intended. The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong. Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others Though this form of art may be upsetting enough, there are still many illustrations to ponder and induce discomfort. Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase (appendix 1). This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase. The would be end point reconvenes with the point at where we visually began, when tracking the staircase, and proceeds to ascend or descend another level, depending on how it is looked upon. Not only does this prove to be a physical impossibility, but a tedious chore for the mind. Everything that this staircase suggests defies reality, and goes against all that is known in the third dimension. The same is true for the impossible triangle (appendix 2), developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional world. The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration! It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present. The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque’s position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts. The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints of our visual system have if it Stoll 3 is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent. It would lead to biological disaster if you were blind to the unusual, inconsistent, or paradoxical (Seckel).
This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well. Another example of science’s reassurance can come with experimentation. When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple; we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance. Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa. The paintings that comes from Latina artist Frida Khalo are self portraits that do not romanticize her image at all. She shows herself to be just as she was, with ridged facial features, and even facial hair. Or, Pablo Picasso’s early works; violent depiction’s of war in his time. It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality, that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph. Again there is the issue of perception on behalf of the person viewing this art, and how they interpret the work. Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective. As for science, there is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting. It has been my personal experience that quantum physics will offer Stoll 4 many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification. How can I really be right here, and over there all at the same time? Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet, that justification is not entirely useful or valid. The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science. From the Native people of Bali who claim not to have art at all, that they merely try to do things the best they can, and not toil with the unnecessary troubles of art, to the masters of the Japanese Noh, a drama that is entirely dependent on music as well as choreography (two examples of representational art). There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity. The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra). Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation. Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.


My comment
The author holds his stance that art are upsetting while science are reassuring. This article is not divided into paragragh, but it can be separated into three parts. In the first part, the author are telling us how art are upsetting through art’s content and the way of expression. In drama, art was manifest itself through act which is not scientific. Artist acts as ghost that is far beyond one’s experience and reality. Or people indigenous to north America dance to cause rain, and perhaps occasional rainfall to follow. In the second part, the author turns to art’s way of expression to reaffirm art’s upsetting nature. the work developed by Lionel Penrose and Roger Penrose, son of Lionel was described there. Even I have not seen the picture, I can imagine how it is like. These kind of pictures are upsetting, paradox, and confusing in its nature; people usually have no idea how to “see” this pictures. As was described in the article, Roger Penrose’s painting can be both be viewed in two-dimension and three-dimension, but when people try to see it in a three dimension view and render different point with depth., people will find it in a impossible structure. In fact, not only art are sometimes upsetting, as for science, there is a tendency to have occasion where the theories are indescribably complex and upsetting. My personal experience is that the quantum theory in many ways is contradicted to classic physics even itself is coherent and can be applied to explain some phenomenon.
In my point of view, both science and arts can be reassure and upsetting in some ways and field. Arts, epitomize in religious, can give people feeling of tranquility and release. Paintings in the theme of landscape can also give us a similar emotional feeling. And art depict about the hungry, poor people in refugee can give us a strong emotional impact and make us feel unease. We can not assert its function with black and white clarity.

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

这样好理解点，这是文章里面说到的不可能的梯子和三角形

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

Sentence

1) The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art.
2) Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase. This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase.
3) Science is not usually in the forefront of one's mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art's implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality.
4) It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image.
5) When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple; we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance.
6) There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity. The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra).

Comment

Art and science are the eternal topics of human. To my eyes, their main difference is that art is abstract and science is accurate. In this article, the author cites Braque’s famous words ‘art upsets, science reassures’ as thesis, a French painter, a leading proponent and theorists of Cubism.

The diversity might probably because the evaluation criteria of the two are distinct. Specifically, people evaluate an art work through their senses, such as visual sense and auditory sense; however, there is no uniform standard guiding person to give an objective sense score. For science, the situation is totally different. All the theorems are no unambiguous, all the conclusions are accurate, and all the tests have an objective standard. Therefore, it is easy to understand why two people will give diverse evaluations on a same oil painting, while for a same math problem people’s answers are often consistent.

豆腐店的86UID: 2512956

Art Upsets, Science Reassures
'Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque) Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist.(对比的句式，利用分号！但是最后面一个分局不是怎么懂) Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art.（分次做后置定语） This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible.

Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning（并列结构）. To evaluate Braque’s claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure ‘what is’, as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail in their representational and informative nature. Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative of that which every person would think scientifically so. Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be a distinguishing skill; acting. Seeing the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt his children, is something that is far beyond what anyone has experienced in reality, and instills in individuals a mystical image of what could be. Or, the people indigenous to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science. These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work. Not everyone sees their dead father return in a pale, luminescent mist to speak to them, yet, Shakespearean actors would make us think otherwise. It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case. This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly). Confusion still comes about when the meteorology and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about.

Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to reveal something about humans, or to deliver Stoll 2 any kind of message, the message might not necessarily be interpreted by the individual in the way it was intended. The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong. Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others. Though this form of art may be upsetting enough, there are still many illustrations to ponder and induce discomfort. Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase (appendix 1). This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase. The would be end point reconvenes with the point at where we visually began, when tracking the staircase, and proceeds to ascend or descend another level, depending on how it is looked upon. Not only does this prove to be a physical impossibility, but a tedious chore for the mind. Everything that this staircase suggests defies reality, and goes against all that is known in the third dimension. The same is true for the impossible triangle (appendix 2), developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional world. The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration! It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present.(双重否定)

The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque’s position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts. The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind （最先跳入脑海~·）when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of（如何回顾前面讲到的例子！） the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints of our visual system have if it Stoll 3 is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate（对比词！！） them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent. It would lead to biological disaster if you were blind to the unusual, inconsistent, or paradoxical (Seckel).This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well.

Another example of science’s reassurance can come with experimentation. When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple(讲故事··); we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance.

Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa. The paintings that comes from Latina artist Frida Khalo are self portraits that do not romanticize her image at all. She shows herself to be just as she was, with ridged facial features, and even facial hair. Or, Pablo Picasso’s early works; violent depiction’s of war in his time. It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality, that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph. Again there is the issue of perception on behalf of the person viewing this art,（“看问题的视角的不同而不同”的表达！！） and how they interpret the work. Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective.（注意本句的双重否定，所以这里art是subjective的·····） As for science, there is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting. It has been my personal experience that quantum physics will offer Stoll 4 many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification. How can I really be right here, and over there all at the same time? Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet, that justification is not entirely useful or valid.

The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science. From the Native people of Bali who claim not to have art at all, that they merely try to do things the best they can, and not toil with the unnecessary troubles of（不在xxx上画不必要的时间来苦干） art, to the masters of the Japanese Noh, a drama that is entirely dependent on music as well as choreography (two examples of representational art). There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity.（用yet对比！！！！） The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra). Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation.（where再来一个对比！） Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.（总结的paraphrase）

---------------------------------------------

orchestration
A composition that has been orchestrated.
管弦乐：管弦乐演出的作品
reify
To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.
使具体化：把（一个抽象的概念）看作或当作有具体的或物质的存在
delve
To search deeply and laboriously:
钻研：深入刻苦地研究
chasm
A pronounced difference of opinion, interests, or loyalty.
分歧：意见、利益或忠诚上的明显差异
thereof
From that cause or origin; therefrom.
从此：从那原因或起源；从此
deceit
The quality of being deceitful; falseness.
品质不诚实；虚伪
manifested
Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious
明显的：显而易见的或容易理解的；明了的参见
revered
To regard with awe, deference, and devotion.
尊敬，敬畏：带着敬畏、尊敬及热爱对待
indigenous
Originating and growing or living in an area or environment
当地的，本土的：起源于并生长或生存在一个地区或环境里的参见
reconvene
再一次的正式集会 （结合MW中convene的意思加上re词缀后得到的意思）
a tedious chore for the mind  
思维上乏味的工作
assigns
To set apart for a particular purpose; designate.
分派：为某一特定目的分开；指派
paradoxical
似是而非的
vice versa  
反之亦然！！！！
toil
To labor continuously; work strenuously.
苦干：不断地劳动；辛苦地工作
ridged
隆起或褶皱
transcend
To pass beyond the limits of:
超越：超出…的限度
-----------------------------------------
“Art upsets while science reassures.” When I saw the topic at the first time I was totally lost on the definition of upset and reassure. I kept looking at dictionaries hoping to find suitable explanations which can help me better understand the saying, however nothing worth was found. What this article provides me is a clear explanation on the two words as well as the relationship between art and science. Despite the examples which proves art is upsetting as science reassuring, what impressed me most is the idea that “Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa.” As referring Pablo Picasso’s piece of art, the writer believes that there lies a kind of art that reassures people of reality; yet quantum theory challenges the classic axioms, which can absolutely called an upsetting in the field of science. Thus, either art or science has its own characteristic, but there does lies incidents when one do the other.

jinziqiUID: 2387034

还没点进帖子，一看大海发的，一阵慌…看了以后，这不就是那篇issue么~
176."The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each."
我终于明白题目是什么意思了！哈还看了下大海的文章~

Science can indeed make human being reassured. Scientists can predict what the weather will be with the development of meteorology and they can also sometimes prevent the rain by techniques. People see the leaves falling down without surprising because they know the theory of gravity and they even can calculate the speed. Mechanics help human beings build the mansion which can support not only the weight of quantities of people but also lots of furniture, sometimes it can survive from the earthquake. However, people cannot deny that science cannot always make people reassured.

As for the art, it is because the function is to upset the science that it is called the art. The art is creative, brand new. Artists can paint illusionary pictures which are not possible according to the science, but you will be astonished for sure. The art just represents fantasy.

敛寒影UID: 2613052

Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning.


And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail in their representational and informative nature.



Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be a distinguishing skill; acting.


These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work.



It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case.


The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong.
Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others.

It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity.
Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present.


The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality.


The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied.


Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent.


This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance. Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa反之亦然.

Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors暗喻, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective.The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science.There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity.


Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation. Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.


Comment:


Science can explain the fatastic chasm of questions of art,telling us what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture.The author adduce two examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work.One is people dances in attempt to cause rain,the other is the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt his children,both instilling in dividuals a mystical image of what could be.
Following,through two instances of impossible triangle impossible staircase,the author substantiate that it is a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others.
In the third part of this essay,the author is to prove the claim that although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa.
This is a article converge science and art,the standpoint is easy to understand rather than the whole article.I acquired ample illustration from this article,calrifying the structure of this essay firstly,then comprehending and digesting the content.

qisaimanUID: 2703629

I can not help but wonder is the dance for rainfall in the definition of art, or just superposition.
art expresses the sentiments of human beings and science seeks the Law of nature.
I can safely contend that the music, especially those about religion , console the weary mind of us in most time. I can steadily demonstrate that the poetry, particularly those on love and life, reassure us in most time , despite of the author may suffered from the sadness himself.
once upon a time, when the physicist believed that the cosmos can be described using a set of equation created by mankind, and that given a definite initial condition, all motions of the material can be predicted thereby, we seemed embraced the certainty forever. but, as the article has mentioned, the quantum mechanics presents itself as a ghost ,torturing the mind of those who believed in determinism. of course , the art can upset us, which just prove that the art depicted the very mind-set of human, and the disaster we endured, since if not ,the art is not art at all.  
art and science , the present of we mankind granted by the god, are the tools in which we appreciate beauty, overcome the fear and feel the eternality.

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

‘Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque) Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify (to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing) our reality, saving us from delving into (to try to find more information about someone or something) the fantastic chasm (a marked division, separation, or difference) of questions arising from art.

luminescent (adj. 发冷光的)


choreography (n 舞蹈编排（设计并且编排舞蹈或芭蕾动作）；舞蹈)


Comment：
The art to the science is what the fantasy to the reality. To some extent, it is a kind of conformity, a form of paradox. When we talk about art, we are talking about the untouchable theories, sometimes we can say it is completely different from the science, which show us as existing examples. While discussing the upsetting art and the reassure science as the author guiding us, we should keep this on mind that finding the connection and balance is the way to go. It seems that art is the spiritual refraction and the science is the directly reflection.

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Commnets
      The writer holds opinion that "Arts upsets, science reassurance". To support his conclusion, the writer adduces various cases on both art and science. However, his assert is spme how one-sided.
      The development of science has its own principle, which has much more connection to maths rather than to arts. In most cases, a scientist observes a narutal phenomon  objectively and then tries to use maths to establish a theory. The new discovery iitself is either upseting nor  reauring. It simply presents an approach to the phenomenon.Consequently,  it can be both right or wrong. That is, science would never serve as criteria for right and wrong, for scientific models itself is always changing.

plukaUID: 2721764

ESSAY

‘Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque)

Analyse and evaluate this claim. The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist. Yet, as Braque would surely agree, there are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify（使具体化） our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning. （科学的reassure的限制范围）

To evaluate Braque’s claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure ‘what is’, as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail in their representational and informative nature. 【Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative of that which every person would think scientifically so. 】Dance and the Theater, a place where art has flourished, is an example of how deceit and manipulation have manifested themselves in an art form that is revered, and held to be a distinguishing skill; acting. Seeing the ghost of Oedipus come back to haunt his children, is something that is far beyond what anyone has experienced in reality, and instills in individuals a mystical image of what could be. Or, the people indigenous to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science. These are both examples of what art has done to upset the view that one has on the way things work.【艺术upset人们对事物的原有理解】

Not everyone sees their dead father return in a pale, luminescent mist to speak to them, yet, Shakespearean actors would make us think otherwise. It may be thought that this form of art would only serve as a method of human expression, and would actually be pure and true in revealing something about human nature, but this is not necessarily the case. This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly). 【艺术表达‘真相’的方式upset科学的描述】Confusion still comes about when the meteorology and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about.

Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to reveal something about humans, or to deliver Stoll 2 any kind of message, the message might not necessarily be interpreted by the individual in the way it was intended. The social science of psychology tells us that each individual has a different perception of complex messages, such as those offered by a theatrical performance, only proving that the art has served as a way to upset a person’s interpretation by saying that it is wrong. 【艺术可以被不同地阐释，upset个人的理解，让人不能确定自己的正确】Thus it is that a problem of knowledge when dealing with the arts is the interpretation of the arts by others Though this form of art may be upsetting enough, there are still many illustrations to ponder and induce discomfort. Lionel Penrose developed a work of art that was and is constantly an upsetting image. This image was of the impossible staircase (appendix 1). This disturbing image, as based on our visual system, seems to be a constantly descending (or ascending) staircase. The would be end point reconvenes with the point at where we visually began, when tracking the staircase, and proceeds to ascend or descend another level, depending on how it is looked upon. Not only does this prove to be a physical impossibility, but a tedious chore for the mind. Everything that this staircase suggests defies reality, and goes against all that is known in the third dimension. The same is true for the impossible triangle (appendix 2), developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional world. The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration! It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. 【艺术创造出实际上不能存在的东西，upset现实】Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present. The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque’s position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts.

The explanation of arts is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one’s mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art’s implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints of our visual system have if it Stoll 3 is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent. It would lead to biological disaster if you were blind to the unusual, inconsistent, or paradoxical (Seckel).【人类视觉构造对某些艺术难以忍受】 This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. 【科学解释艺术的超现实之处，让人分辨艺术的不可能】Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well.

Another example of science’s reassurance can come with experimentation. When Sir Isaac Newton sat beside an apple tree, and was struck by a falling apple; we see today, when we are holding an object, then let go when there is nothing between it and the ground but five feet of unoccupied space, we see the scientific support for the theory of gravity. This kind of reassurance is exactly what Braque is suggesting art cannot definitively support, due to the processes that science endures it is seen as a more legitimate and trustworthy method of assurance.【比起艺术，科学是确定的不变的持续的，更能够提供assurance】

Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa. The paintings that comes from Latina artist Frida Khalo are self portraits that do not romanticize her image at all. She shows herself to be just as she was, with ridged facial features, and even facial hair. Or, Pablo Picasso’s early works; violent depiction’s of war in his time. It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality,【有写实的艺术，reassure真实】 that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph. Again there is the issue of perception on behalf of the person viewing this art, and how they interpret the work. Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective.

As for science, there is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting. It has been my personal experience that quantum physics will offer Stoll 4 many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification. How can I really be right here, and over there all at the same time? Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet, that justification is not entirely useful or valid. The views on art only further prove its subjectivity, and how it can never be as reassuring as science. From the Native people of Bali who claim not to have art at all, that they merely try to do things the best they can, and not toil with the unnecessary troubles of art, to the masters of the Japanese Noh, a drama that is entirely dependent on music as well as choreography (two examples of representational art). There is a wide variety of opinion and lack of continuity regarding artistic concepts, yet science seems to find a way to transcend this subjectivity. The notions of eastern scientists, regarding the geometry as not absolute, but rather an intellectual construction holds true with such teachings as that of Ashvaghosh (an ancient Buddhist teacher) of space being a mode of particularization and how it exists only in relation to our particularizing consciousness (Capra).

Science can reassure because its axioms exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation. Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.


COMMENT

I must admit that this essay is a little bit vague and intangible for me. Nevertheless, I tried to get some ideas from it. The primary gain for me, then, is that I finally understand the meaning of 'upset'...well honestly, I'm beseted with how this word should be explained for long. Habitually I perceived 'upset' as something that provoke turbulence on emotion, strong emotion. Perhaps that understand is roughly acceptable, yet seems I used to constrained myself with too narrow confine that I came up with revolution only. So humm, now I can see 'upset' as more complex and subtle: the defy on already accepted or traditional views or stances. That expands the content a lot.
It seems, then, the major difference lies between arts and sciences is that one is subjective and may lend itself to multi-explanations, while the other is relatively objective that can sustain itself over time. The author started his analysis from tracing the difference of the two; this thinking pattern, perhaps, worth learning~

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accuraterepresentation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind,can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist.
reify（具体化）
chasm（深渊）
thereof（在其中的）

COMMENT:
Science, with axiom existing within nature, reassures , while art, focusing on the individual interpretation, is upsetting. With the given cases, the author tell us how art confused us in stage and in painting. Regardless the rules induced from the science, art itself is over-modified and far beyond life. Thus, confusing and upsetting is unavoidable. However, arts merely used to portray the reality is none the less contrary. Science, in this article, is explained more likely to disappoved the function of the art in reassuring the nature. As the author reckons, since science can be easily proved compared with art, reassuring is naturally one big job of it, even though some uncompleted laws may as well leave some confusion.

海王泪UID: 2673613

My Sum-Up
1.Introduction
[Definition]定义
Science: Reality, an accurate representation of objectivity.
Art: Fantasy, a personal, blurred interpretation with subjectivity.
Science only serves to reify our reality, saving us from losing in fantasy of art which deify our reality.
[Introduction of the Order]文章顺序
Physical PossibilityàRepresentation (Process to “What is”)àException

2. Physical Possibility[+]
1) The creation by specific skill of art upsets the common sense (and also science) on how things work that natural science supported extensively. (E.g. Ghost, dances for rain) Art is such a distinguishing skill instead of one in scientific manipulation. 2)Art brings physical impossibilities (e.g. impossible staircase, triangle) and deifies reality. Such unreal objects could only exists in the art of humanity.
【艺术upset常识(how things work)、艺术带来客观不可能存在的东西】

3.Representation (Process to “What is”)[+]
1)Some argue that these physical impossibilities are explainable through science (E.g. Dimensional theory and constraints of visual system in Biology), but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts of art create. The motivation of people in requiring such explanation to understand the upsetting concepts only prove that science can reassure people. The upsetting concepts created by art can only be reassured by science rather than another art works.
2)Phenomenon (e.g. A falling apple) can be explained by scientific theory and experimentation.(e.g. The theory of gravity and the experiment of letting go an apple). But art cannot definitively support it because art is not as legitimate and trustworthy as science in the method of assurance.
3)Even if the art serves as a tool of expression or communication for the creator, personal interpretation of art work by others may be different from the original meaning and purpose. (Expression: to reveal something about human; Communication: to deliver any kind of message)
【艺术带来upsetting概念并且只能由科学Reassure、Art在解释事物上不够Sci合理及可信、艺术在诠释事物上因人而异】

4. Exception[-]
1）Art
There are kinds of art which reassure people of reality. (E.g. Pictures of representational and informative art is more straight forward than words in metaphors or abstract concepts.)(E.g. From native people of Bali to the masters of the Japanese music and choreography.)
2）Science
There is an ever present tendency to have an occasion where the theories are indescribably upsetting.(E.g. Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification, yet ,that justification is not entirely useful or valid.)
【部分艺术能Reassue,部分科学会upset.】

5.Conclusion
Science can reassure our reality because its axioms (transcendence of subjectivity) exist in nature, where art will eternally be left up to individual interpretation which lead to variety of opinions and lack of continuity. (E.g. Geometry is an intellectual construction holds true to our particularizing consciousness)
【科学：超越主观（即客观）的公理，统一而持续；艺术：个人主观诠释，多样且缺乏连续性】
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful Expressions
Words and Phrases
The people indigenous to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only serves to upset the theories of natural science.
People indigenous to =native people of
Although art may upset, and science may reassure, this does not necessarily imply that one could do the other and vice versa.
And vice versa=the other way around(反之亦然)
E.g. [Oxford]
We gossip about them and vice versa.
Science must be at the service of man, and not vice versa

Functional Sentences
【Illustrate Your Own Experience】
It has been my personal experience that quantum physics will offer (Stoll 4) many explanations with extraordinarily complex, and/or incomplete justification.
It has been my personal experience that….
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials(Ideas/Examples/ Technique)
【Ideas for Issue--Pictures sometimes is better than words in communication】
Though, with art of this nature, one does not have to deal with metaphors, or abstract concepts, the picture is straight forward, telling what is, not what is subjective.

【Examples for Issue—Art upsets】
E.g.Ghost, Dances for Rain, Impossible Staircase, Triangle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment

This article is difficult for me at first because I lose in the definition of “Upset” and “Reassure”. When I come back to the first paragraphs I finally realize what the author means. These two verbs are action launched by “Art” and “Science” on “Reality”.

Art upsets when it creates fantasy that causes disorder of how things work in our common sense. It also disrupts and generates doubts to our cognition of this world. Ghost, dances for rain, impossible staircase and triangle deifies our reality so people require explanations for such physical impossibilities. Thus we can conclude that the explanation could bring reassurance.

The explanations come from the knowledge in science field. Science reassures by removing our doubts and fears of this world and support the reality. We feel safe; we feel things around us are under control by some axioms. The meteorology and earth sciences, the dimensional theory and constraints of visual system in Biology, and also the theory of gravity help explain what and how things really work.

Certainly, there is some exception as what the author illustrates: Pictures of representational art is straight forward and reassure the reality, while Quantum physics holds the answer that most likely does have justification but is not entirely useful or valid. But I tend to believe that representational art functions like photographs, products of camera technique results from scientific development. And quantum physics fail to be entirely useful or valid because it is still in scientific development; in other words, it would become axioms another day when it is well developed.

tequilawineUID: 2702008

evaluate
[e·val·u·ate || ɪ'væljʊeɪt]

v.
评估, 赋值, 评价

delve into
钻研,深入研究
reify  
D.J.['ri:i,fai]
K.K.['riə,faɪ, 're-]
vt.
使具体化

chasm
['kæzəm]

n.
深坑; 裂口

defy
[de·fy || dɪ'faɪ]

v.
藐视, 使落空, 挑衅

revere
[re·vere || rɪ'ver /rɪ'vɪə]

v.
崇敬, 尊敬, 敬畏

deceit
[de·ceit || dɪ'siːt]

n.
欺骗; 谎言

haunt
[hɔːnt]

n.
常去的地方; 巢穴; 栖息地

v.
常到, 萦绕于, 出没于; 出没, 作祟

indigenous
[in·dig·e·nous || ɪn'dɪdʒɪnəs]

adj.
土产的; 本地的; 土着的; 生而俱有的, 内在的, 固有的

luminescent
[lu·mi·nes·cent || ‚luːmɪ'nesnt]

adj.
发冷光的; 发光的

mist
[mɪst]

n.
薄雾, 霭; 水气; 雾状物; 喷雾

v.
下雾, 被蒙上薄雾; 变得模糊; 使蒙上薄雾; 使模糊

come about
1 发生
2 改变方向

ponder
[pon·der || 'pɑndə(r) /'pɒ-]

v.
仔细考虑; 反思, 回想; 衡量; 沈思, 默想; 仔细考虑

induce
[in·duce || ɪn'duːs /-'dju-]

v.
劝诱; 导致; 促使

reconvene
['rɪːkən'vɪːn]

v.
重新召集

1 The difference between; reality and fantasy, an accurate representation of what is, and a brilliant orchestration of the mind, can often become blurred with the paintbrush of an artist.
2 One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible.
3 Or, the people indigenous to North America performing dances in attempt to cause rain, and perhaps an occasional rainfall to follow, only连词 serves to upset the theories of natural science.
4 This art form still is only a means to upset what natural science has supported extensively (e.g. that rain comes from processes that occur naturally and randomly). Confusion still comes about when the meteorology and earth sciences tell us that performing a dance has nothing to do with a rainstorm coming about.
5 It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity.
6 It is this kind of art that reassures people of a reality, that she was not an overwhelmingly attractive female, or that war was a place of sorrow and death, not victory and triumph.
7 Braque does indeed show us how art can truly be upsetting, while leaving the reassurance to a reliable natural given that we find in science.

Comment
As science comes from objective, whereas art roots in subjective. There are certain areas knowledge that only serve to reify our reality, saving us from delving into the fantastic chasm of questions arising from art. This specific area is of course science.
But I think without the upsetting art, we seldom can gain the ambition to explore the new and unexploited field. As we all know, nowadays we don’t believe what we acquaint from the artistic things, however, it instills in our thoughts some imagination that we will never gain in our reality world.