​Wednesday evening at LSE, a panel consisting of Professor Matthew Kieran, Dr Alexander Massouras, Kathleen Soriano 
and chaired by Dr Vid Simoniti, questioned and discussed ‘Art as Knowledge?’. The event brought forth the notion of art being used as a tool to generate important ‘life’ questions and relay knowledge. 
The influence that art holds has not been agreed upon throughout the ages and through the pages of philosopher's thoughts. As the abstract to this event highlighted, Plato and Hegel did not value the usefulness of art, unlike Aristotle, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche who did.
Professor Matthew Kieran started the discussion conveying the skeptical and non-skeptical views one may have towards art in relation to it’s communicating knowledge. He revealed that “in science and history, there is a domain of truth” art does not proclaim that, however “art makes you think not just about the subject, but gets you in that experience”. Art might not provide “new knowledge but new experience”, it’s a “visual metaphor” and “the experience of art might remind us of an experience we have already had”.

Interaction with a work, as Kathleen Soriano communicated, is also the work of a curator, bringing to life and making available the meaning behind an art work for a visitor to a museum or gallery. She highlighted the idea of "not just explaining in words" with texts and sub texts next to the works of art. She noted the importance of the art's placement, how "to create a sense of focus" in a room and "play with the lighting". Nevertheless, she underlined that "there should always be space for the real meaning and the meaning you make [...] there needs to be room for the personal but also room for you to find the meaning".
Furthermore, she pointed out, some art works, like Kandinsky, though are "full of meaning" are sometimes responded to aesthetically. The debate around meaning versus aesthetics in art, led to Vid Simoniti posing the question for the sake of the discussion, "does beautiful art have to be denigrated to the role of kitsch?" The question advanced the dialogue to art being a market driven force. Although true, as Kathleen Soriano later indicated, a value of an art work is also when the audience sees it and thus its meaning can exist.

Just like the interaction with an art work, a member of the audience brought into the forefront of the discussion the notion of Edward Said's post-colonial theory on art.
In relation to that comment, one can say that the visual in 'Orientalist' art can lose some literal meaning. In other words, one may understand the meaning of the realistically painted visual, but the visual may not carry truth, or only carry a perspective. In other words the artist's vision. Therefore the visual cannot always just rely on a realistic approach to portray true meaning. What we literally see may not always be true.

'​During the discussion, Kathleen Soriano, had expressed the dangers of forcing art works into a narrative of an exhibition and Alexander Massouras highlighted the notion of art into its context. In regards to the exhibition at the Tate Modern 'World Goes Pop' he pointed out, that Pop Artists were said of as "capitalism realism [...] the pop art does not have the same edge in a communist country, it would mean something else".
The meaning of an art work may be taken into different directions and an art work may carry several meanings. As Matthew Kieran noted, in relation to Art History "we don't know where we are, only in retrospect can we see", nevertheless as he stated, progress in art does not make past works irrelevant.
The discussion ended with Alexander Massouras disclosing in regards to the future, "since everything is done by machines, we could have a society with just artists and academics".
Maybe by then, another discussion on art as knowledge will be needed.
​Wether art provides 'knowledge' and makes one think of 'life' questions, is down to the individual interacting with the art work. As viewers wether or not we respond to the visual or agree or not with the 'knowledge' we are being made to think about, art as a medium is a powerful tool that can be used to project ideas and notions. Art will never carry a 'yes' or a 'no' answer and looking at certain times in history, art has been used by some to push certain thoughts to the forefront, and in turn at certain times pushing the viewer to think a certain way. However, when the art work is seen to be a perspective and a snap shot of an idea and as viewers we look for other perspectives, art can hopefully, even if just aesthetically beautifully, make one think, and if not think, then feel.

Important symposium this weekend at the ICA for the anniversary of Mirage, 20 years on.
The 1995 project of Mirage: Enigmas of Race, Difference & Desire curated by David A. Bailey in collaboration with INIVA, examined the importance of Frantz Fanon's writings and protesting the absence of diversity in art. On the anniversary of that project, the symposium highlighted the questions and notions that were posed then, to consider them in relation to today. Looking at the practices of art and institutions according to decolonizing culture, identity and race. Asking, how to bring about more diverse representation and avoid the traps of a monoculture.
Art, and today the digital world, are and have been used as tools, to push boundaries, and create forms of resistance. 

The speakers in order of appearance :

The symposium at the ICA brought about for the anniversary of Mirage 20 years on, raised some important notions and questions. Such as, has social media created a shift in postcolonial theory since 1995? Technology has enabled all people if not most to have a voice, a space to say what one thinks, however who's listening, how many people can we each reach? In relation to creating a piece of art, a film, as Greg de Cuir mentioned, a film can be made, and brought to screen but "how do we bring the bodies into the cinema?" 
The panel finished the day referencing Fanon's relevance today, after some discussion, it was generally agreed, that, though the circumstances during Fanon's time have changed, the notion and ideas behind his writings are still prevalent and important. As a man named George from the audience expressed "Thinking with Fanon different to following Fanon".