For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what

cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Theory of Knowledge

May 2023

Word Count: 1528

For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

“Don't play what's there; play what's not there.” My trumpet teacher gave me this advice

one day after I was struggling to come up with unique Jazz improvisation. He had heard this

quote from Miles Davis, one of the most influential Blues artists. I interpreted this quote to mean

that often during improvisation we are too concerned with being exact, while instead we should

be pushing the bounds of what is previously explained or expressed by the musicians before us.

I believe that the ideal of pushing the status quo, central to the mentality of the most influential

Jazz artists, demonstrates the nature of the arts and its relationship to the production of

knowledge. In both the arts and the sciences, what has previously been explained and what

cannot be explained are equally important.

In the arts “what can be explained,” refers to previously, expressed, or commonly

understood techniques of composition or performance. What “cannot be explained” refers to the

unquantifiable or intangible aspects of the arts. Artists carefully balance employing explained

phenomena with incorporating their own personal style. To what extent should musical

performance depend on explained phenomena and standard practices? In the natural sciences,

“what can be explained” refers to how clearly quantifiable an observation, phenomena, or new

knowledge is in accordance with the scientific process. Natural scientists are concerned with

acquiring and applying knowledge that has previously been explained in order to generate new

knowledge in the form of discoveries or observations. However, their intrinsic motivation

behind their studies and work is to explain what “cannot be explained.” How dependent is each

scientist on knowledge that precedes them and why do they pursue the sciences at all?

1
For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Artistic works are nearly always left open for interpretation by those that view or listen to

them. Thus, knowledge produced in the arts is never fully explainable. By extension, artists are

more concerned with what cannot be explained. Artistic expression can mean different things to

different people viewing or listening to the same work, as interpretations are highly dependent on

the emotion felt when experiencing an artwork. For example, Pablo Picasso’s artwork, The Old

Guitarist, can be explained in various different ways. The painting was made during Pablo

Picasso’s Blue Period, a time in his life that experts believe he suffered from depression. During

this time, Picasso depicted and interpreted what he saw traveling around Spain including painting

beggars, prostitutes, drunks, and the destitute. Sigulert Magazine interprets The Old Guitarist as

a reflection of “Picasso’s place in society, feeling isolated and impoverished, and finding

comfort in his art.” (Tara Lloyd) However, other art experts suggest that in addition to potentially

being a form of self expression, the paintwork was a critique of conventional Spanish painters

(Art In Context). Thus, there can be multiple interpretations of the same work, and various

conclusions can be drawn about the art and the artist. The fact that interpretations are subject to

difference indicates that knowledge in the arts is not exact. It is likely that Picasso’s process of

producing art was not driven by logical thought and extensive planning. In fact, advanced digital

scanning technology shows that underneath The Old Guitarist painting was an old sketch of a

woman’s face. I believe this speaks to Picasso's impulsive nature, revising a work after he had

already begun. Picasso once said “Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand

the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers, everything around one, without trying

to understand them?” This quote indicates that he believes that artists do not produce art for the

intention of others explaining their work, rather they create it to simply be experienced. Needless

to say, art does have structure and basis, and is dependent on what has been previously

2
For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

explained. In contrast, Picasso also once said “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them

like an artist.”

Artists are also concerned with what can be explained. For example, musicians will spend

years studying in conservatories or under mentors. John Coltrane, one of the most influential

Jazz saxophonists studied music theory and composition at the Grandoff School of Music

(Britannica). This foundation in theory and composition is what allowed Coltrane to compose

some of the most recognizable jazz songs. His piece, Giant Steps, is notable among Jazz

musicians for its chords. It shifts between the keys of B, G, and Eb, the artist repeatedly playing

the ii-V-I progression, This progression is significant as it is based on a musical theory tool

called the Circle of Fifths. The circle is a way in which all 12 chromatic pitches are organized in

a series of perfect fifths. This ratio, and thus the resolution from the V - I chords, is considered

“perfect,” and has been employed for centuries in Catholic religious music, according to my

teacher. In Giant steps, the keys of B, G, and Eb are each a perfect fifth apart. Giant Steps shows

that Coltrane relies on knowledge of chord progressions that were already “explained,” to base

his unique composition. In fact, all successful musicians require some type of knowledge of their

own instrument. Without it, they are simply producing meaningless noise. Artists spend years

learning and mastering technique and theory, as ultimately without a basis, they cannot progress.

Thus, it is fundamental to them to focus on what has previously been explained. Similar to the

arts, scientists rely on what precedes them to generate new knowledge.

Scientists are concerned with “what can be explained” as understanding of the natural

world and the ability to make new discoveries is dependent on a strong basis of previously

3
For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

acquired knowledge. The discovery of the accurate phospholipid bilayer structure exemplifies

scientists focusing on what can be explained, and constantly revising their theories to ensure

accuracy. The current model of this structure is known as the Fluid Mosaic model. However,

previous to this discovery, the widely accepted structure was the Davson-Danielli model. It was

believed that proteins coated and did not permeate an internal lipid bilayer. Based on the

technology of the time such as electron microscopy, the early model seemed substantiated.

However, “it did not account for the permeability of certain substances.” (Microbenotes) Thus,

in 1972, seeking to explain the drawbacks of the model, scientists revisited the model of the

structure. Using innovative techniques such as freeze fracturing, Seymour Singer and Garth

Nicolson demonstrated that there, in fact, were transmembrane proteins, partially invalidating the

Davson-Danielli model, while keeping the elements that were accurate. The Fluid Mosaic model

would not have been created without the more primitive ones. We often find that scientists are

concerned with revising what has previously been explained to be as accurate as possible. This is

done through the scientific method, as in order for a hypothesis to be widely accepted its

outcomes must be replicable and its assumptions must be fully substantiated. When

inconsistencies are discovered, new testing must be conducted, and the hypothesis must be

revised. Without previous knowledge any advancement or discovery is impossible.

There remains a balance in the natural sciences of the importance of what has been

previously explained and what is to be explained in the future. Many scientists spend their

careers working to make new observations about the natural world and discover new knowledge,

serving society. This sentiment is best expressed by Niel DeGrasse Tyson, a world renowned

astrophysicist, whose own motivation has been to understand the role humanity plays in the

4
For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

world; “Like no other science, astrophysics cross-pollinates the expertise of chemists, biologists,

geologists and physicists, all to discover the past, present, and future of the cosmos—and our

humble place within it” (Niel DeGrasse Tyson). Scientists like DeGrasse Tyson focus on what

cannot be explained by building on past knowledge to predict the “future” and “present” state of

the universe. One can assume that their motivation is curiosity to understand and even advance

humanity. Focusing on the unexplained may not result in a complete explanation in the short

term, but along the way, the process leads to new discoveries. The quest for the Fluid Mosaic

Model led to discoveries that will potentially drive advancements in medicine, saving lives

(Science Direct). Within the sciences themselves, there is a differentiation between the

theoretical and the practical. While some scientists seek to explain the natural world for

advancement of technology, others thrive on explaining the unexplained. An individual scientist

may have a preference, but for the scientific community overall, both are important.

In regards to the question “For artists and natural scientists, which is more important:

what can be explained or what cannot be explained?,” the answer is clear: neither is more

important. Both what can be explained and what cannot be explained are critical to the arts and

sciences. Regardless, for both disciplines, the individual actors, artists and scientists, seek

novelty in their disciplines. They seek to utilize the knowledge of their predecessors to generate

new knowledge, whether it is a new genre, technique, discovery or theory. While the motivation

behind pursuing the arts or sciences varies from individual to individual, the fact remains:

without study of what has been explained, one cannot begin to express what “cannot” be

explained.

5
For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Works Cited

Alvarado, E. (2022, March 18). 38 Picasso quotes about the meaning of life and art. Spanish Mama.

https://spanishmama.com/picasso-quotes-about-the-meaning-of-life/

artincontext. (2022, March 18). “The Old Guitarist” Picasso - Analyzing Picasso’s guitar painting.

Artincontext.Org. https://artincontext.org/the-old-guitarist-picasso/

Aryal, Sagar, et al. “Sandwich (Davson–Danielli) Model of Cell Membrane.” Microbe Notes, 24 Sept.

2022, microbenotes.com/sandwich-davson-danielli-model-of-cell-membrane/.

Lloyd, Tara. “Pablo Picasso's Blue Period and The Old Guitarist.” Singulart Magazine, 29 Oct. 2019,

blog.singulart.com/en/2019/10/29/pablo-picassos-blue-period-and-the-old-guitarist/#:~:text=The

Old Guitarist is one,saw when traveling through Spain.

“Phospholipid Bilayer.” Phospholipid Bilayer - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics,

www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/phospholipid-bilayer.

“Science Quotes.” Science Quotes - Neil DeGrasse Tyson,

www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/quotes/science-quotes.php#:~:text=The value of science is,as a

data-taking device.

Srivastava, J. J. S. S. (n.d.). AIC: The Old Guitarist – by Pablo Picasso.. And.. What lies Beneath!

Retrieved December 11, 2022, from

http://www.publicartinchicago.com/aic-the-old-guitarist-by-pablo-picasso-and-what-lies-beneath/

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1999, May 4). John Coltrane. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Coltrane