An Essay A Day

[greslave-blog]

Day 2

“In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.”

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Throughout the ages, people have employed visual arts, music, and literature as means of expression. Not only does art present the distilled essence of the individual thoughts of its creator, but art is often also the reflection of an era in history. For thousands of years, mankind has crafted the fine arts as a medium for transmitting a message. Indeed, a piece that is truly meaningful must succeed in delivering the ideas of the artist. If the artist creates a work that is incomprehensible, the meaning behind his efforts will inevitably be lost in translation.

For modern gallery-goers, it is not uncommon to find contemporary sculptures and paintings beyond explanation. The popularity of abstract art has increased dramatically in the last century; yet, works of this genre are seemingly incapable of presenting a cohesive message. Those who favor abstract art often applaud this ambiguity as representing the postmodernist idea that there is no singular truth - but if this is truly the intention of the artist, do all abstract pieces represent the same idea? Surely that is not the case; however, if the viewer is unable to decipher the thought embedded within the artwork, the creator has failed to make himself clear and therefore the artwork cannot be meaningful.

A more comical instance of the loss of meaning in art is the infamous poem, "The Jabberwocky", by Lewis Carroll. In his celebrated novel, "Alice in Wonderland", the titular heroine Alice encounters Humpty Dumpty, who recites the poem for her. Much to her bewilderment, she is unable to comprehend a single word (since the lexicography is entirely made up). In her eagerness to understand, she asks her friend to decipher the verses word for word. However, since the words are non-existent in the English vocabulary, it is possible to assign any meaning to the words and hence the concoction of syllables mean nothing at all.

Since art originates from thought, art cannot have merit if it cannot be understood by the public. However, there is something to be admired of craftsmanship, even if a piece does not embody an idea: the beauty of a thing that is only meant to be beautiful can still be appreciated, but an illegible volume with all the knowledge of the world is only as good as a blank slate.

[greslave-blog]

Day 1

“As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.”

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Since the dawn of mankind, humans have made innumerable attempts to decipher the mechanisms of the world. From ancient times, we have inherited tales of gods and monsters, which were used to explain the course of nature. However, much progress has been made since the days of mythology - equipped with the fruits of scientific inquiry, we are now able to provide surface explanations for natural phenomena. Yet, these explanations remain incomplete; our labor has only unveiled more questions to be answered.

A notable example of the tendency of knowledge to reveal complexity is the concept of the atom. The word was first proposed by the celebrated ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who defined an atom as the smallest unit of matter. Nearly two thousand years later, the "raisin bun model" was introduced, in which scientists hypothesized that atoms were composed of a positively charged "bun" with negatively charged "raisins" embedded. However, advances in experimentation proved that negatively charged particles are not fixed to the atom and are responsible for chemical reactions and bonding. This lead to the Bohr model of the atom, in which negative electrons orbit a positively charged nucleus. This, in turn, raised the question of how positively charged particles would cling together, which contradicts the concept of "like particles repel, opposite particles attract". Rigorous experimentation ensued and finally reached the conclusion that neutral particles, named neutrons, must also exist within the nucleus. This did not conclude the effort to explain the composition of matter: the scientific community continued to improve its understanding of the atom, from electron orbits to electron clouds, subatomic particles to quarks - the pursuit of the perfect atomic model is neverending. For the ancient Greeks, the atom was such a simple concept - something that a child who plays with building blocks might be able to comprehend. In contrast, the modern concept of matter presents an entire field in physical chemistry. Thus, the knowledge we have acquired did not provide the clarity we had hoped to attain, but instead revealed just how complex nature really is.

Does this mean that scientists have toiled in vain? On the contrary, this improved understanding of the atom has given us myriad possibilities. The production of many man-made materials, such as metal super alloys and carbon-based materials, would be entirely impossible if it were not for the modern atomic model, which presents levels of detail in the behaviour and interactions of subatomic particles unimaginable for the ancient Greek. Although insight may not simplify matters as initially expected, this is not necessarily undesirable; for curiosity is the best motivation for discovery a human could ever have.