Examples Of Robust Knowledge

Robust knowledge, in the disciplines of history and art, requires both consensus and disagreement. What is robust knowledge? Robust knowledge will be defined as knowledge beyond any superficial means. Consensus and disagreement, act as the basis of knowledge for history and art. I will use personal examples of debate in history from my experience with textbooks from different cultures, and how they all have bias and different interpretations of history. I will also consider debate in art, examining a controversial theory existent in art. However, both consensus and disagreement have problems that arise. I will go in depth on the correlation between consensus and truth, and pose the question, does truth exist? And if so, is truth necessary

I will define it as knowledge beyond superficial means. It is knowledge to an extent where there is complete understanding, and depending on the area of knowledge and way of knowing, the definition may change. Many questions arise when considering what robust knowledge is, and how knowledge presents itself. For example, does a profound education, mean that the student possesses robust knowledge in the subject? In the subject of art, an uneducated individual hypothetically, can still be successful in the field. Perhaps they have a natural talent or have been self-taught. Therefore, education does not inherently equate to knowledge. There is something beyond learning through systemic education implied in the term “robust knowledge”. So, perhaps it is not only education, but the addition of a posteriori knowledge, that can lead the mind beyond superficial understanding. A posteriori knowledge, is knowledge that stems from experience or observations, made over time. Yet, this argument does not stand. A posteriori knowledge is based in oneself, which, while being extremely valuable, is not enough to create complete understanding. Knowledge, as I know it, is dynamic. It is ethereal and can only begin to be grasped by one person. A posteriori, or personal, knowing completely lacks a larger understanding, that can only be obtained through shared knowledge and many perspectives. There are infinite possibilities in knowing, and to restrict oneself to their

In my experience with art, I have always known that when I create my art, whether it be drawing, or writing, I am creating something for myself. I don’t believe in creating art for the sake of keeping others comfortable. A quote that resonates with me is “Art is either plagiarism or revolution” (Gauguin). This quote suggests that the very definition of what makes art valuable, is the extent to which it makes a society outraged. It is important, however, to also understand the bigger picture. Not every piece of art is going to drastically change society. Someone who is truly knowledgeable in the subject of art, knows that there is a larger picture, and is able to view art wholistic. Art may be objective, but it also important to listen to agreement, and understand what others see art as as well. As much as art is about one's own perspective, it is also about how others view and treat