[未归类] ISSUE176的重大发现！！原来国外有很多论文专门讨论这个问题。文章题目几乎是一模 [复制链接]

Hellman
UID: 161973

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 459
注册时间: 2004-4-18
精华: 1
帖子: 1

楼主

发表于 2004-7-25 15:46:09 |只看该作者

ISSUE176的重大发现！！原来国外有很多论文专门讨论这个问题。文章题目几乎是一模

http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a4/cng49.shtml
http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/88670.html
以上是我找到的几篇文章，希望对大家有帮助。顺便贴出来，原文没分段，看得是辛苦了一点，各位将就一下啦。

第一篇：
A free essay on ‘Art upsets, science reassure
‘Art upsets, science reassures’ (Braque) Analyze and evaluate this claim. Although both science and art reassures reality of the world; science reassures the ‘reality’ of the natural world organized rationally through our perception, whereas art reassures the ‘reality’ of our inner experience as human organized in a way that we can communicate it to others. However, since these two areas of study organize different pursuit of truth (where art organize human-ness truth while science organize t
（剩下的部分文章顺序乱了，看不了）

第二篇：
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

第三篇：（一人问，一人回答，不是文章）
Alex asked:

I read somewhere that, "Art upsets, science reassures." — Can you explain that please? Can't it be
the other way round?

============

Not knowing who said this or why, I can only guess at what it means. It could be that art presents us with the unknown in the sense that our responses, our aesthetic ideas and our concept of art itself are not reducible to facts. Even if we take art as consoling, the how and why is not reducible to solid facts either. Science reassures since it enables to confirm and increase our knowledge and extend our powers over the world.

However, this seems absurdly theoretical. Art doesn't in fact upset us, but does console us and
provides us with an enormous of pleasure. So you can change this around since science can be held
to upset us because it in fact leads us to less natural forms of behaviour or some such thing. If you want to change this around, you can stick to facts. It is less plausible to say that science upsets us because it arouses in us fears that things may not be as they seem, because for most persons this is not the case. No normal person has such fears! This sort of thing is only considered in the philosophy class room when we consider the difference between our sense perceptions and what the physicists claim there is. However, if statement "art upsets, science reassures" is understood as a philosophical claim, this abstract, theoretical fear might lead us to deny its truth.

Rachel Browne

第四：
在百科全书里查到的关于purposes of art
Art
  VI. Purposes of Art

Through most of its history, art has served a variety of purposes: to honor the dead, to recall the appearance of rulers or relatives, to give visual form to gods, to create sacred places, to display wealth, to teach, and to give pleasure. Many people today think of the visual arts at best as isolated objects to contemplate in museums or, at worst, as mere frills, unnecessary in education or life. Historians trace such attitudes to 18th-century philosophers who hoped to find an intellectual basis for our perception of beauty and thus separated it from other activities. Their view became known as “art for art’s sake.”

Even if we think of art as isolated from the rest of life, we still must turn to architects to design buildings with important functions, whether churches or banks. We still value design in furniture and other useful everyday objects, and want monuments to honor our heroes. Visual effects in movies astound us, well-designed Web pages appeal to us, and gorgeous images in advertising persuade us. The methods and materials have changed dramatically, but art is still very much a part of our lives.

  A. Recording Appearances

An artist’s ability to reproduce the appearance of things in our world lies behind some of the earliest uses of art. Prehistoric people may have made carvings and cave paintings of animals to ensure the fertility of the flock or for use in rituals aimed at guaranteeing a good hunt. Female figures in prehistoric sculpture typically have exaggerated breasts and genitals and were probably used in fertility rites. Other sculptures found at burial sites show the appearance of the person buried there. Although no written records exist from this period, it seems clear that prehistoric people made images for use in rituals related to the most important events in their lives: birth, death, and hunting—the means of the group’s survival.

In many periods, works of art that showed the appearance of important people served as substitutes for those people. Egyptian statues served as substitute bodies that the pharaoh’s soul could inhabit after his death. Statues or portraits of leaders served as reminders of their power, a function especially important before mass communication became available. But even ordinary people turned to artists to record the appearance of their loved ones in portraits and in tomb sculpture. Today, photographs of people surround us, and it is easy to forget how important the art form of portraiture once was. Talented artists from places as different as ancient Rome, the royal courts of Spain, and colonial America created vivid portraits from paint or marble that remain living presences for viewers today.

  B. Making Visible the Invisible

Art can also make visible things we normally cannot see. The extraordinary special effects in movies have their origins in the ability of human beings to imagine and transform these imaginings into substantial form. Dreams and visions are dominant themes in some styles of art—symbolism (symbolist movement) and surrealism, for example. Throughout history, people have made images of gods, angels, and demons; of events from the distant past or the far-off future; and of what they wished the present would be but is not. Imagination is at work in more practical forms of art as well. Any act of planning involves imagining a result, and the artist or architect uses drawings or models to show patrons—the people who request the work—what the completed project will look like. The drawings, as well as the finished projects, are valued as works of art.

Giving visible form to a deity is only one way people have used art for religious purposes. Some of the most important works of architecture are religious structures, such as cathedrals, chapels, mosques, or temples. Their sizes, plans, and decoration reflect the religious practices of the people who use them. An enormous, ornate structure shows the power and glory of the god, while a smaller, restricted space may express the mystery of the divine presence. Some societies have found exquisitely worked, costly objects as appropriate ways to honor God, while simpler forms might emphasize the accessibility of God to humans.

Just as monumental architecture can honor gods, it can also show the power and prestige of human beings and their institutions. The scale, organization, and ornamentation of government buildings, schools, and residences (palaces or private homes) give us good indications not only of the function of the building, but also of the social or economic status of the owners.

  C. Communicating

Art in all its forms can display wealth, power, and prestige. Because of the high value of art, it may seem affordable to only an elite class of patrons and collectors. Some works of art, however, were created specifically to appeal to the general populace. For example, art that adorned churches communicated religious beliefs to worshipers. Portraits of leaders or images of historic events sometimes carried a political point of view. Before newspapers became widely available art also conveyed news of general interest. Easily reproducible art forms, such as photographs or prints, are the perfect media for art that teaches or persuades.

  D. Delighting

An important purpose of art is to delight. Some works of art are beautiful or charming in themselves. Others delight us through their visual intricacy, by reminding us of patterns in nature, and in many other ways. Some art works even delight by frightening us with terrifying sights, which are not really terrifying because we know they exist only in the work of art.