Uniformities In 'Arnolfini And His Bride'

Before addressing the prompt, I must first define key terms. “Uniformities” are consistencies throughout an area of knowledge, something that holds true in one place and must therefore hold true in another. And to assume the existence of said uniformities is to go into the construction of knowledge, believing that a phenomenon holding true in one circumstance can be accurately applied to another circumstance. Within the area of knowledge Art, the construction of personal knowledge is largely derived from sense perception and emotion; it does not require the assumption of uniformities because it does not need comparison to knowledge of anything besides the piece itself. However, constructing knowledge of art in context requires the assumption
of uniformities associated with a period’s style, culture, and historical background. In the area of knowledge Natural Science, on the other hand, in order to draw conclusions and gain scientific knowledge, there must be assumptions of uniformities in the scientific method and the application of an experiment from a small scale to a large scale. Therefore, uniformities are required to an extreme extent to gain knowledge in science, but only to a moderate extent to form artistic knowledge.
In Art, certain knowledge can be derived without the assumption of the existence of uniformities.
My personal knowledge comes largely from my sense perception and emotional response to an art piece. If I have no knowledge of art, I can look at “Arnolfini and His Bride” by Jan Van Eyck, and construct personal knowledge of my perceived beauty and value of the piece using sense perception and emotion. Since my perspective, background, and artistic preferences are unique to myself, and, as a result, I will not assign the same value to a piece as anyone else, uniformities in personal artistic knowledge need not exist. When I look at the Arnolfini Portrait, I am struck by how the oil paint on the panel creates a smooth, glossy finish. I find the convex mirror in the portrait alluring and mysterious; it draws me in and captivates my attention. To me, the clear depiction of different textures, from the wood of the bedpost to the the fur on the trimmings, demonstrates the incredible skill of the artist and helps me assign it value. My sense perception of the artist’s skill and visual components of the work help me construct my personal knowledge that what I am looking at is beautiful, and therefore valuable to me. It does not matter if the piece of art is made in a manner that employs uniform materials or techniques as other painters, or if others respond to the painting in the same manner, one does not need to look b eyond the painting itself to construct personal knowledge of its
perceived value or beauty. My construction of artistic knowledge is inherently personal, so in art, personal knowledge can be constructed without the assumption of uniformities.
However, though it is unnecessary to assume uniformities to construct personal artistic knowledge, uniformities do exist in art — certain techniques that are commonly employed, specific meaning behind symbols, et cetera.
Using my knowledge of early Netherlandish art, I can construct meaningful contextual knowledge about the Arnolfini Portrait. Using my understanding of the meaning of symbols, and by assuming that Van Eyck’s intent was uniform with prevailing symbolism of the time and beyond, I can know that the dog in the bottom of the painting represents fidelity. My construction of knowledge comes from analysing and applying the uniformities of art symbolism. Using the assumption of uniformity of artist’s intent, and looking ahead to Italian Renaissance, I apply the same uniformity of art symbolism to know that the dog at the feet of Venus in “Venus of Urbino” by Titian also symbolizes the “importance of fidelity in marriage.” Without the assumption of uniformities, the dog is a mere pet instead of symbolizing a strong and honest relationship. I know that early Netherlandish painters used symbols to depict a variety of themes and that, throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, dogs continued to symbolize fidelity. Without the assumption of the existence of uniformities of artist’s intent, I cannot construct knowledge about the meaning of a piece. I have to assume that Van Eyck and Titian’s intents were uniform with other painters of the time, and I must also assume that
subsequent artists shared the same intent in order to construct knowledge. Without the assumption of uniformities, I cannot use the art piece to gain insight as to why components are depicted in a certain manner. The construction of artistic knowledge, in the context of symbols and artistic movements, requires the assumption of the existence of uniformities.
In Natural Science, on the other hand, uniformities must be assumed to construct knowledge. Without the assumption of uniformities of conclusions in an experiment, we cannot construct knowledge in Natural Science. For instance, we cannot test every rat in the world to draw a conclusion, we have to assume that the sample size is reacting in a manner that exemplifies a universal norm. We rely on inductive reasoning, the use of previous patterns to predict the future, and assume that these patterns are uniform and indicate events to come. By assuming that past events are a sound method of predicting subsequent events, we assume the existence of uniformities to construct scientific knowledge; we cannot extrapolate without the assumption of uniformities. For example, L. Jozsa et al conducted an investigation on the the effect of tenotomy and immobilization on intramuscular connective tissue. They conducted their investigation using rat calf muscles, immobilizing the legs of rats, and holding them at fixed inflexion angles at the knee and ankle. Despite testing a sample size of only 61 rats, their conclusion states that “in general, both tenotomy and immobilisation had more effect on the loss of capillaries in soleus than in gastrocnemius,” and is applied to all rats. In order to have made this claim, the experimenters must have assumed the uniformities of rat response in order to make the conclusion that their findings go beyond the immediate scope of their investigation. Furthermore, these findings, despite being based on rat musculature, are applied to humans as well. And, in order to apply animal experimentation to humans, we must assume that the experiment has ecological validity, namely, that there is a degree of uniformity between the musculatures of humans and rats. In order to apply the findings of a Natural Science investigation to a broad conclusion, one must assume that if an experiment holds true in one circumstance, it must also hold true in different circumstances. Without the assumption of the existence of uniformities, no scientific knowledge can exist.
However, one could argue that the existence of anomalies in science indicate that scientific knowledge can be constructed without the assumption of the existence of uniformities. But even anomalies, deviations from the expected scientific outcome, only indicate knowledge when they are uniform. For example, in my Biology Internal Assessment investigating the effect of soil type on the growth of Ejote silvestre, I had five pots for each soil type: potting soil, sand-soil blend, peat moss-soil blend, compost-soil blend, and compost. One of my plants did not grow in the sand-soil blend; however, as the others grew, there was no uniformity in this one off anomaly and the piece of evidence was thrown out as it indicated fallacy. Had four of my five plants not grown in sand-soil blend, there would have been uniformities in the response of Ejote silvestre, and I would have been able to construct the knowledge that sand-soil is an ineffective medium for bean growth. However, I have to assume the existence of uniformities in plant response to construct scientific knowledge, and because only one plant did not grow, the single anomaly is not uniform and therefore not reflective of plant growth in sand-soil blend. For anomalies to indicate that a current theory is untrue there must be uniformity in response in order for a paradigm shift to occur. It is only when we see the anomaly enough times that we begin to question the validity of the existing theory. For example, the paradigm shift from humoral theory to germ theory required not a single anomaly, not a single antiseptic surgery that went off without infection, but thousands of surgeries and additional pieces of evidence to challenge the prevailing ideology. In order to construct scientific knowledge, we must assume the existence of uniformities to construct scientific knowledge and for anomalies to indicate knowledge they must be uniform.
Uniformities are often necessary for the construction of knowledge. However, certain circumstances, like my construction of personal artistic knowledge, are largely emotional and reaction-based and do not require the assumptions of uniformities. But without the assumption of uniformities, there is a limit to the knowledge I can construct. Outside of my perceived beauty and value of the piece, I cannot construct any meaningful knowledge about art’s purpose or context without the assumption of uniformities. Understanding art in context requires the assumption of uniformities within different artists and eras. In Natural Science, uniformities must exist because science is based in fact and uniformity. In order to construct scientific knowledge, we must have faith in the consistency of the scientific method and measurement devices, we must assume the existence of uniformities to apply the outcomes of an experiment to society at large. Though it is possible to construct some personal knowledge without assuming the existence of uniformities, the vast majority of knowledge cannot exist without uniformities.