dan94kra

One more? : In any type of human endeavor it is impossible to make a contribution without being influenced by the past events connected to it. Most of the great innovators were characterized by distinctive insightfulness and pragmatism. They could therefore notice opportunities, which other people would miss. Additionally, they had enough luck to find themselves in the right place and at the right time. Many of them had also great understanding of the history and traditions of their subject matter. It could happen that in their arrogance they opposed their subject’s tradition what in result led them to unexpected and ingenious discoveries. A great example of such situation is a Spanish artist Pablo Picasso. At his time traditional schools of art taught their students to paint and sculpt in a the same way they did hundreds of years ago. They were expected to base copy the old masters in order to possess their skills and create their pieces in similar manner. Pablo Picasso questioned this model of teaching by turning into artists’ individual perception of the world and trying to reflect it in their art. Past events may teach us romantic stories about people living before us, but in order to resolve problems of the present innovators need to focus on analyzing current situations. Steve Jobs was a famous inventor in the field of high technology, who introduced a number of disruptive innovations to the market. At the same time he did not finish formal education in any type of engineering and did not study history of computing. Nonetheless he could successfully find applications to the devices his friends designed, because he could predict what his costumers wanted and needed. He did not look at history of IBM corporation or how MIT came up with their first computer algorithms, because he was needed to be comply with the needs of his times. On the other hand some field of human activities are conservative and stagnant to the extent, which can only provoke total revolution, that is revolution in a completely opposite direction. Le Corbusier was a famous architect living at the beginning of the 20th century. He opposed formal way of teaching architecture, which at his time was based around the Baux-Arts schools. Focus was put on decorating architecture with references to one of the historic architectural styles, rather than on analyzing its spatial structure. His firstly controversial and eventually acclaimed ideas of abandoning past styles and searching for new architectural language brought revolution to the way we build our buildings. Known as modernist school of architecture was firstly seen positively by appreciating its merit of contrast to architectural tradition, after some time became ordinary and dull. In aftermath architects came back to their past and started leaning towards vague contemporary architecture, which still searches for its final expression. The revolution started by Le Corbusier could not however occur without the architect’s strong understanding and in result his dissatisfaction with the past. Being an expert in a subject matter does not guarantee insightfulness for making great contribution. Knowing the past however may allow for taking more decisive standpoint to the present situation and has led many great men and women to initiating revolutions. In the field of technology people with great discernment have managed to make significant contributions even without being familiar with its theories. Instead by recognizing opportunities behind their application were able to popularize them and therefore contribute to their development.

12:01 – 12:28 (writing) – 12:37 (checking) – 12:44 (adding conclusion) We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all. The statement assumes that learning occurs only when somebody has hands-on experience, instead of analyzing theories. Good example supporting this idea can be found in the field of humanities or arts. Many politicians, especially in the developing countries were poorly educated and gained their position either thanks to militaristic successes or by having powerful friends. Although lack of formal education, through which they could learn about theories on how to lead a country, they have learnt it from real-life experience debating with their opponents and making discussions with their advisors. The statement exaggerates the results of learning only from theories. It claims that nothing can be learnt from them. On the other hand, history has showed that in royal dynasties princes had to undergo a very strict formal education, which in aftermath made them successful leaders. This situation differs from the one described above with the level of certainty that royal dynasties enjoyed as opposed to, revolutionary guerrilla leaders who had to struggle to achieve their positions. Example that substantiates this idea can be found in the difference between the monarchs of XVIII century Germany, that is the Frederick I and Frederick II also known as the Great. Frederick the Great was a direct successor of Frederick I and differed considerably from his father. Frederick I who was poorly educated focused during his reign on militaristic expansion. Although his son did not stopped this strategy he used also diplomacy to support it and in result enjoyed much greater success. In addition he brought prosperity to his nation, by supporting local economy and arts. It can be inferred that much of his successes were brought from the fact, that before he became the king he was formally educated and prepared for his function. Education in academies of fine arts is also focused on learning through doing. Analyzing arts is especially hard, because contemporary art lacks any universal system. Nowadays artists are allowed to do almost anything and many critics are troubled with determining what is and what is not valuable in a piece of modern art. Pablo Picasso was well-known for his errant way of working. At the time when traditional art was still popular and most of the painters focused on emulating the old masters, Picasso created pieces made with little reference to the history of art. Furthermore his influence brought many artists even further to create pieces of art without any reference to reality. Abstract artists like Kandinsky withdrew from any formal system towards learning art directly from practicing it. Formal education can be on one hand source of wisdom, on the other hand in some situation it becomes merely a distraction. In well-established countries people enjoying stability and being able to determine their future career, formal education is an opportunity to become a more perceptive and insightful individual. However, many artists and people, whose subject matter refers to particular fields of humanities may benefit more from experiencing their profession instead of analyzing it. In addition to that revolutionary leaders often enjoyed great triumphs without being formally educated.

12:01 – 12:28 (writing) – 12:37 (checking) – 12:44 (adding conclusion) We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all. The statement assumes that learning occurs only when somebody has hands-on experience, instead of analyzing theories. Good example supporting this idea can be found in the field of humanities or arts. Many politicians, especially in the developing countries were poorly educated and gained their position either thanks to militaristic successes or by having powerful friends. Although lack of formal education, through which they could learn about theories on how to lead a country, they have learnt it from real-life experience debating with their opponents and making discussions with their advisors. The statement exaggerates the results of learning only from theories. It claims that nothing can be learnt from them. On the other hand, history has showed that in royal dynasties princes had to undergo a very strict formal education, which in aftermath made them successful leaders. This situation differs from the one described above with the level of certainty that royal dynasties enjoyed as opposed to, revolutionary guerrilla leaders who had to struggle to achieve their positions. Example that substantiates this idea can be found in the difference between the monarchs of XVIII century Germany, that is the Frederick I and Frederick II also known as the Great. Frederick the Great was a direct successor of Frederick I and differed considerably from his father. Frederick I who was poorly educated focused during his reign on militaristic expansion. Although his son did not stopped this strategy he used also diplomacy to support it and in result enjoyed much greater success. In addition he brought prosperity to his nation, by supporting local economy and arts. It can be inferred that much of his successes were brought from the fact, that before he became the king he was formally educated and prepared for his function. Education in academies of fine arts is also focused on learning through doing. Analyzing arts is especially hard, because contemporary art lacks any universal system. Nowadays artists are allowed to do almost anything and many critics are troubled with determining what is and what is not valuable in a piece of modern art. Pablo Picasso was well-known for his errant way of working. At the time when traditional art was still popular and most of the painters focused on emulating the old masters, Picasso created pieces made with little reference to the history of art. Furthermore his influence brought many artists even further to create pieces of art without any reference to reality. Abstract artists like Kandinsky withdrew from any formal system towards learning art directly from practicing it. Formal education can be on one hand source of wisdom, on the other hand in some situation it becomes merely a distraction. In well-established countries people enjoying stability and being able to determine their future career, formal education is an opportunity to become a more perceptive and insightful individual. However, many artists and people, whose subject matter refers to particular fields of humanities may benefit more from experiencing their profession instead of analyzing it. In addition to that revolutionary leaders often enjoyed great triumphs without being formally educated.