Subjective Nature of Perception for Artists and Scientists On the surface, it seems that art and the subjective nature of perception go hand in hand. Yet if one were to mention science, it seems to be associated with objectivity. Science is all about the objective truth, while art is about articulating subjective truths. However, the advantages of subjectivity for artists has its limits, specifically when it comes to judging artwork. Likewise, subjectivity is not always an obstacle for scientists, especially in the field of research. The subjective nature of perception is advantageous to artists because it allows for expression of their own experiences. Artists can express through their work …show more content…
Scientists intend to discard all subjectivity in favor of objectivity, which ultimately paves the road to knowledge. However, scientists often encounter subjectivity in their work, and the fact remains that, while its use may be justified on the grounds of expediency, the exercise of personal judgment, no matter how “professional”, is subjective and has inherent dangers. In examining the log books of Robert Milikan during his experiment with the electron, the physicist and historian Gerald Holton discovered that some of Milikan’s criteria was subjective, as revealed by comments such as, “Very low-something wrong,” and, “This is almost exactly right.” Throughout, Milikan appears to have been driven partly by a desire to get results that were self-consistent, broadly in agreement with other methods, and consistent with his personal view that the electron is Page 2 the fundamental and indivisible unit of electric charge. While these criteria seem reasonable enough, they carry inherent dangers. Even today, a fundamental explanation of the precise numerical value of the charge on the electron remains deficient. Previous results may …show more content…
This refusal seems to have stemmed from a prejudice against the notion that the Earth could be subject to potentially serious bombardment. Additionally, scientists must overcome the subjective nature of perception in almost every area of their field. Subjectivity is present when dealing with measurements: who defines what a meter is and what makes it so special? Also, subjectivity can be viewed as a problem in experimentation. For example, the observer could influence the outcome of a certain experiment; other factors beyond the scientist’s immediate observation could play a role in the experiment; and, scientists must base their findings on what they have observed using their sensory input (sight, hearing, etc.), which could be defective, thus skewing the results of an experiment. What proves
The reasons why physicists were not justified in sharing the information was because they were
In John Maeda's article "On Meaningful Observation", Maeda effectively supports his claim that art and science should coincide for the purpose of innovation by using autobiographical authentication, personal experiences, and constructive, pathos-derived proposals in order to explain art's emotional necessity in science.
Another problem found for hypothetico-deductivists comes in this statement, “Personal opinions have no place in science” this quote is extremely trivial. The scientific world would not be where it is today without the speculation a...
Color seems like a unique topic that researchers have been examining for quite some time. Various people have claimed that how we perceive color is the same universally and cross-culturally. We essentially see what is visible to our human eyes through a very small chunk of what is known as the electromagnetic spectrum. Although people with normal sight perceive this visible section of colors the same way, there is more contemporary research which points out that the way we categorize and think about color is more complex then it is made out to be. In this paper, I aim to discuss how there is support regarding how different cultures and languages do affect the way we understand and think about color. However, I believe there is much more close studying and research needed in the future to make more exceptional claims involving color perception to conclude that it is either solely universal or reliably dependent on one’s culture and language.
Similar examples can be found in physics. Prior to the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887, which showed the constant speed of light, the experiments of FitzGerald and Lorentz, which explained the constant speed of light as the contraction of bodies and slowing of clocks, and the subsequent conclusion by Einstein that electromagnetic waves do not require a medium, scientists felt that light required a medium, and thus one was invented-ether (Hawking). These experiments demonstrate yet another aspect of a personal point of view in the pursuit of knowledge; the fact that despite the assumptions a personal point of view brings into a study, such as FitzGerald’s and Lorentz’s assumption that ether did, in fact, exist, knowledge can still be gained from such a study. Despite their assumption, they contributed, through their experiments, the knowledge that light does travel at a set speed. Thus, even when associated with false assumptions brought into an experiment, personal points of view are not always negative.
Most people are familiar with the word "music", however they barely consider the definition of it. After carefully think, everyone has their own opinions on this term and it is hard to have an uniform criterion of music sounds. According to the text book, Michael B. Bakan states five propositions to define the music. The first one is about the tone and the second one talks about the music is organized in some way. The next two are claims that music is human organized and a product of human intention and perception. The last proposition argues music cannot separate from Western culture. Among these propositions, I think the music is a product of human intention and perception is most interesting and worth to discuss. So I assert that the most
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
Scientists make progress by using the scientific method, a process of checking conclusions against nature. After observing something, a scientist tries to explain what has been seen. The explanation is called a hypothesis. There is always at least one alternative hypothesis. A part of nature is tested in a "controlled experiment" to see if the explanation matches reality. A controlled experiment is one in which all treatments are identical except that some are exposed to the hypothetical cause and some are not.
Unlike science, art is subjective. The artist leaves behind a part of himself in his work. Therefore, each piece has its own distinct perspective. Frida Kahlo’s self-portraits show her view on her life, on how she has faced so many struggles, yet managed to be a strong person. When we see or hear or read an artistic creation, it produces a mood such as calm or loud, fear or safety. For example, the Eiffel Tower gives Paris a majestic awe; everyone who passes by feels the strength of the 113-year-old grand structure. Art also has a texture. Photographs reveal much through their textures; grainy surfaces often make the picture more realistic while smooth ones seem softer. When we hear a piece of music or see a film, a rhythm carries us from one part to another. Not just true for these two genres, rhythm is present in any artistic work. These few properties are characteristic of everything we encounter in the world of art, the world of human expression. Most have other special features also. Most of the time, though, we do not think about these characteristics because we do not have enough time to pay attention to anything for more than a few seconds.
What are some of the elements involved in creating visual illusions? What role does culture play?
From the creation of art to its modern understanding, artists have strived to perform and perfect a photo realistic painting with the use of complex lines, blend of colors, and captivating subjects. This is not the case anymore due to the invention of the camera in 1827, since it will always be the ultimate form of realism. Due to this, artists had the opportunities to branch away from the classical formation of realism, and venture into new forms such as what is known today as modern art. In the examination of two well known artists, Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock, we can see that the artist doesn’t only intend for the painting to be just a painting, but more of a form of telling a scene through challenging thoughts, and expressing of the artists emotion in their creation.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
Of course, this argument cannot be held to all art. If that were the case, then a majority of artwork would be then considered worthless. Bell’s principle of aesthetic emotion is far too specific to define such a wide array of visual art. Not to mention, everyone’s interpretation of what
Nonetheless, it can be controversial to look at visual art through the lenses of relativity and perception.
Paintings, like many forms of art, are very subjective—what one may find intriguing another may completely disagree. “Art is physical material that affects a physical eye and conscious brain” (Solso, 13). To glance at art, we must go through a process of interpretation in order to understand what it is we are looking at. Solso describes the neurological, perceptual, and cognitive sequence that occurs when we view art, and the often inexpressible effect that a work of art has on us. He shows that there are two aspects to viewing art: nativistic perception—the synchronicity of eye and brain that transforms electromagnetic energy into neuro-chemical codes—which is "hard-wired" into the sensory-cognitive system; and directed perception, which incorporates personal history—the entire set of our expectations and past experiences—and knowledge (Solso, preface)