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 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