To what extent is knowledge discarded rather that built upon in art and the natural sciences? In the natural sciences knowledge seems to be built upon more than discarded and in art it seems like the knowledge is discarded over time in favor of the new way of thinking about art. Knowledge seems to be improved and built upon more in science where theories are constantly being tested and improved and seems to be discarded more in art where different types of art come into style during different time periods only to be replaced with another type of art in the next generation. We see art differently than the natural sciences because knowledge in art seems to be much more subjective than knowledge in the field of natural science. This is because
…show more content…
Not all knowledge in art is forgotten or even close to all. The knowledge that is discarded is often the knowledge about the lack of value in a certain style of art. For example the Louvre Museum is the most visited attraction in Paris. This is significant because the Louvre only has art up to the 19th century. The art in museums like the Louvre is known to be great art and has been for a long time the fact that it is continuing to be seen as great art means that much of the historical knowledge of art is not being discarded. That is a bit of an assumption however because I could have no idea the sum of knowledge in art throughout human history and how much of it is not known right now. However, because this is what we do know for sure about the history of art. The styles of art that were not popular for a long time could just take longer to establish and it could be seen as improving art. When we find good artists that were not popular in their time it adds to our knowledge of good art just by expanding it. It does seem as though there has to have been styles in art that were fads at a certain time but now are forgotten also it really is a discarding of knowledge when a style of art is more recently seen as good art rather than bad …show more content…
To me it seems as if in the field of natural science no knowledge is discarded. New knowledge seems to be accepted and added to the knowledge already present. Unlike in art these new ideas are used to improve the field of natural sciences. When I learned the planets in our solar system, I learned that there were nine planets. The new discovery is that Pluto is not a planet and that there are only eight planets in our solar system. This is a huge new idea in the field of astronomy, there was this new knowledge that had been discovered through a redefinition of the word planet by the International Astronomical Union. This new knowledge seemed to be used to improve our current knowledge on planets in our solar system. We now understand better what defines a planet. Although there would be some scientists that would disagree and say that it is not an improvement and there is no reason to change our knowledge on planets. They would view this as just discarding past knowledge and replacing it with newer ideas. I see this new development as an improvement. Because we defined that Pluto was not a planet and is something different than the other planets, we now have a working definition of planets that we can use in other situations easily. This is all perception, if you perceive Pluto as being a planet you will probably have the opinion that this new definition is discarding valuable
Not all knowledge in art is forgotten or even close to all. The knowledge that is discarded is often the knowledge about the lack of value in a certain style of art. For example the Louvre Museum is the most visited attraction in Paris. This is significant because the Louvre only has art up to the 19th century. The art in museums like the Louvre is known to be great art and has been for a long time the fact that it is continuing to be seen as great art means that much of the historical knowledge of art is not being discarded. That is a bit of an assumption however because I could have no idea the sum of knowledge in art throughout human history and how much of it is not known right now. However, because this is what we do know for sure about the history of art. The styles of art that were not popular for a long time could just take longer to establish and it could be seen as improving art. When we find good artists that were not popular in their time it adds to our knowledge of good art just by expanding it. It does seem as though there has to have been styles in art that were fads at a certain time but now are forgotten also it really is a discarding of knowledge when a style of art is more recently seen as good art rather than bad …show more content…
To me it seems as if in the field of natural science no knowledge is discarded. New knowledge seems to be accepted and added to the knowledge already present. Unlike in art these new ideas are used to improve the field of natural sciences. When I learned the planets in our solar system, I learned that there were nine planets. The new discovery is that Pluto is not a planet and that there are only eight planets in our solar system. This is a huge new idea in the field of astronomy, there was this new knowledge that had been discovered through a redefinition of the word planet by the International Astronomical Union. This new knowledge seemed to be used to improve our current knowledge on planets in our solar system. We now understand better what defines a planet. Although there would be some scientists that would disagree and say that it is not an improvement and there is no reason to change our knowledge on planets. They would view this as just discarding past knowledge and replacing it with newer ideas. I see this new development as an improvement. Because we defined that Pluto was not a planet and is something different than the other planets, we now have a working definition of planets that we can use in other situations easily. This is all perception, if you perceive Pluto as being a planet you will probably have the opinion that this new definition is discarding valuable