NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... e case of water) - which cannot be predicted from a complete knowledge of the constituent parts (single gas molecules or hydrogen and oxygen). Can the thinking process be surmised from the study of a single neurone - or is the Whole brain under observation the precondition? We can never be sure that the essence of the Whole is, indeed, resident in the part.
Holograms and fractals are one case: the shape of the Whole is absolutely discernible in the tiniest part. Still shape is only one parameter - and hardly the most important, pertinent or interesting one. DNA is a second (more convincing) case. Admittedly, we have to use very complex procedures (which far exceed our intuitive definitions of non-intrusive observation). Still, the whole information is absolutely there. Yet, even in this case we Cannot say that the Whole is in the part.
To say so would be to ignore the impact of the environment, of the Whole's evolution and its history, the interactions between its components. The Whole would still remain unpredictable - no matter how intimate and minute our knowledge of its DNA will become. It would seem that Essence is indivisible. The essence of the Whole is not be found in its parts, no matter what is the procedure employed (observation, measurement, more intrusive procedures). This, at least, is true in the physical world. Abstractions may be a different matter altogether.
A particle could be construed to be a part of a wave in Quantum Mechanics - yet, both are really the same thing, two facets of the same natural phenomenon. Consciousness arises in the brain and, therefore, by definition is a part of it. But if we adopt the materialist approach, consciousness IS the brain. Moreover, consciousness is we that include the brain as one of our parts.
Dualism (wave-particle, brain-mind) is a response to this confusing admixtures of relationships between Whole-part pairs wherein one or more of the terms is abstract. Perhaps the most intriguing variant is "God as a Clockmaker." God is compared to an artist and the world of phenomena to His art. The art is supposed to reflect the "nature" of the artist. A painting tells us a lot about the painter: for instance, that it can see (reacts to certain wavelengths), or that it has a limited set of ways of applying colour to cloth (using extensions of his body, for instance). It is also assumed that it can accurately inform us about the psychology of the artist: his internal world.
This is because art emanates from this world, is part of it, is influenced by it and influences it in numerous ways. The weaknesses of this approach are immediately evident: (1) The art work has a life of its own. The death of the author has been decreed long ago in the sense that the artist no longer has a monopoly on the interpretation of his work and his "original intentions" have no privileged status in this context. In other words, we never look at an art work "objectively", "without prejudice" (see Bakhtin's work on the discourse in the novel). A work of art tells us a lot both about the artist and about ourselves as well. (2) There is no way to prove or refute any assertion related to the private language of the artist.
How can we know for sure that the artist's psyche is indeed expressed in his art? (3) The art influences the artist (presumably his psyche). How can these influences be gauged and monitored? The work of art may have a snapshot (static) quality - but not a video (dynamic) one. It tells us nothing about the permanent state of the artist (which is of real interest to us). (4) An art work can be substantially and essentially misleading (when it comes to edifying us concerning the artist). The artist can choose to make it so.
Moreover, very important "features" of the work of art can be different from those of the artist. God, to take one notable artist, is described as omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal - yet none of these attributes is manifest in his work. We, who are His creations, are finite and very far from omniscient, to mention but two shortcomings. In the delicate case of God, there are classical questions, the result of His highly idiosyncratic nature. Can a finite mind grasp any attribute of an infinite one, can an attribute of an infinite, all encompassing, omnipotent and omniscient entity be finite, partial, with limited power and knowledge and so on. Part and Whole are PHYSICAL definitions, the results of physical observations.
We have demonstrated that whenever an abstract concept intervenes (particle, wave, mind), duality results. This is also the case with art forms. The relationships between an artist and his work are much more complex than those prevailing between a part and a Whole and cannot be reduced to it. In the most important aspects, a work of art is not a part of the artist, at least not in the classical sense. Rather, their interrelatedness is more akin to the one between background and Image. The decision which is which is totally arbitrary and culture-dependent.
Different people, coming from different cultures and having different vocations and avocations will reassign the roles. Think about a frame carpenter. When confronted with the Mona Lisa - what, for him, would constitute the image and what - the background? Naturally, he will pay much more attention to the exquisite wooden frame than to the glorious painting. The wooden frame would be his image, the mysterious lady - the background. This is largely true in art: artist and art get so entangled that the distinction is, to a large degree, arbitrary and depends on the predominant culture.
The work of art teaches us nothing about the artist that is of enduring value - but it is, irrefutably, part of his definition (the same way that background and image define each other). So, there are two ways of being "a part of": in the classical, deterministic way (the part is smaller than the Whole, etc. ) - and by way of definitional relationship (the part defines the Whole and vice versa). We started our article with this tautology and we end it with it. "Part", "Whole" do seem to be language conventions, tautological, dualistic, not very practical, except on the most basic, functional level. Wherever and whenever abstracts are introduced, concepts (wave, particle, mind) - duality results. This is a sure sign of the breakdown of a conceptual system of thought.
It is also probably a sign that "part" and "whole" are no more than language conventions and do not carry any real information about the world. They are, however, practical distinctions (on the basic functional level) and help us in the delicate act of surviving.
Free research essays on topics related to: work of art, art work, particle, wave, influences
Research essay sample on Work Of Art Art Work
