While many accomplishments build on existing knowledge, many significant breakthroughs result from those who have completely broken with tradition. Clearly then, significant breakthroughs do not always build upon existing knowledge
By the mid-20th Century, Abstract art was at its acme. At the same time, many critics felt that the artists had all but exhausted themselves in terms of innovation. To be unique one had to be random and chaotic—silly even. It was little surprise that many crowed about the imminent demise of Abstract art. Into this intellectual milieu, the artist Jackson Pollock came to prominence. Seemingly random and chaotic—though anything but silly—his work had no clear precedent. He would throw paint at a canvas on the ground or propped up against the wall. Though many dismissed him as a madman and a crank, eventually his work was hailed as that of a genius, and that work did much to reinvigorate the movement of Abstract Art. Had Pollock tried to simply build off of the existing art he very well may have fallen victim to the prophecy that the Abstract art movement had become effete and moribund.
Improve your GRE score with Magoosh.
Whereas Jackson Pollock created seminal work by totally breaking with tradition, Copernicus questioned tradition, specifically the assumptions underlying the Ptolemaic version of the universe. At the time, the geocentric model of the universe was considered gospel: both the church and the scientific community (at that time the two were heavily interrelated) endorsed this view because it put man at the center of the universe. Even then, it had the stamp of scientific legitimacy in Ptolemy, who had centuries earlier “proven” that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Using advanced math and his observation skills, Copernicus was able to determine that the earth revolved around the Sun. Just as importantly, he was able to challenge the orthodox view, and instead of building off of it, exposed the shoddy foundations upon which this view was built.
Of course both Jackson Pollock and Copernicus are not the typical in the sweep of human endeavors. It is true that many breakthroughs result from somebody building off of or simply improving the way in which something is done. Henry Ford, with his use of the assembly line, made the process of manufacturing goods far more effective. Then there is our modern day visionary, Steve Jobs, who took existing technology and simply made it easier to use (and prettier to look at).
Yet, as Pollock and Copernicus show, there are certain instances in which thinkers are able to completely break with tradition. Therefore, not all significant breakthroughs result from those who build upon previous knowledge. But in those instances in which a thinker has challenged age old wisdom, or come up with a radical form of art, the world surely takes notice.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-04 | Yashwanth 98 | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 752, Rule ID: BUILD_OFF_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'build on'?
Suggestion: build on
...stract Art. Had Pollock tried to simply build off of the existing art he very well may have ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, may, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, of course, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.4196629213 16% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2225.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 438.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0799086758 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85156070037 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.563926940639 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.2478081174 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.136363636 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9090909091 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210963994657 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580276921919 0.0831039109588 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0898233941869 0.0758088955206 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116508008077 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0787857484188 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 11.8971910112 46% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.