This specific area is of course science. One can often become lost in art, in a never ending series of inquiries as to how such a sculpture or painting could be physically possible. Although, science will reassure us as to what is possible and what will remain limited to a picture, or expression of thought or questioning. To evaluate Braque's claim one must look to art, and the aspects thereof, that defy and upset nature and natural science. Next, the process by which science can reassure 'what is', as opposed to a representation of the artistic. And last, what the reassurance of science, as well as, the nature of art entail in their representational and informative nature.

Art itself has proven throughout time to confuse many, all of the thoughts by the creators seem to be in the slightest way manipulative of that which every person would think scientifical

The same is true for the impossible triangle developed by Roger Penrose, son of Lionel. It is in a shape that makes it physically impossible to create in the three dimensional world. The beams of the triangle simultaneously appear to recede and come toward you. Yet, somehow, they meet in an impossible configuration. It is difficult to conceive how the various parts can fit together as a real three-dimensional object, and yet it exists in the art of humanity. Some would say that these works of art are explainable through dimensional theory and extensive analysis, but this still does not deny how upsetting the concepts these pictures present. The mere fact that you require such an explanation to understand these models only supports Braque's position on art, and shows a problem surrounding the ways of knowing when it comes to the area of the arts. The explanation of art is what we see as most reassuring, even if it takes a method that is not traditionally associated with the arts. Science is not usually in the forefront of one's mind when viewing a work of art, yet there is explanation for some of art's implications through science, and refutation of some of the implications of art, on reality. With the example of the impossible triangle, one could understand the reason behind why we interpret it as impossible, or what the constraints of our visual system have if it is explained scientifically. The triangle exists in the second dimension, but when placed into the third dimension (which is what our brains try to do once it is viewed) simply can not happen when realistically applied. Moreover, our visual system is constrained by how it interprets two-dimensional pictorial images into three-dimensional mental representations. It is with the help of such constraints that your visual system assigns depth to each point in an image. Furthermore, it is more important for your visual system to adhere to these constraints than to violate them because you have encountered something that is paradoxical, unusual, or inconsistent. This kind of scientific explanation shows the reassurance that only can be offered by science itself, rather than a confusing image produced by an artist. Not only is the science of biology part of this explanation, but dimensional theory as well.

Furthermore, even if the intent of the art work is to

Some common words found in the essay are:
Roger Penrose, North America, Pablo Picasso's, , Japanese Noh, Isaac Newton, Lionel Penrose, Dance Theater, Frida Khalo, visual system, science reassure, natural science, nature art, constraints visual system, third dimension, viewing art, art upset, form art, dimensional theory, quantum physics,
Approximate Word count = 1573
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)