Considering that most of the fundamental ideas that underpin our modern society are rooted in beliefs dating back centuries, does true knowledge require standing the test of time? If a form of knowledge is new, is it less valid than an older form? When discussing the use of modern technology, people who are not accustomed to it tend to deny its validity on the grounds that it has not stood the test of time. Similarly, one might counter the claim that online news is less valuable than news through art simply because the Internet has not been around as long as art. To counter this, I read articles that considered the perspective that art does not influence real life and is unnecessary. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay An article by David Sable examined the reliability of art as a means of communication. Sable talked about European monarchs who had themselves painted to look like celebrities or even gods. In this way, these works of art do not communicate real life; Researchers looking at ancient art today to learn more about the past must consider that some pieces may alter or exaggerate the truth. While in my life I have heard people argue that the only reason for this change was the fact that art, in those days, was simply drawing, sketching and sculpting. While this is true to some extent, I believe this allows the artist to show the viewer their perception of real life. I related this to my personal beliefs about the connection between art and news during my childhood. As a child, I always admired celebrities and would buy any magazine that featured a celebrity I followed. Each photograph looked effortlessly perfect and blurred the way I saw my photographs, but I soon realized that each photo had gone through multiple artistic phases. Models were dolled up by makeup artists and stylists, photographed by professionals and then Photoshopped to look flawless. I had previously seen photography as purely a reflection of real life, rather than an artistic process of alteration and exaggeration. Having considered this, I saw that standing the test of time could have different effects, often depending on the difference between when the art was published and today. Artworks popularized today are often older works of art. Iconic pieces by Leonardo Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Monet and countless others were created in times when the visual arts were still developing. Previously this information had been communicated across generations through oral sources: stories, songs, and poems such as The Iliad, a long poem by Homer. It can therefore be argued that over the centuries the arts have preserved our past and told our future; being a capsule of information, artistic works capture moments and experiences from the past. What links artworks to the future is the idea that artists are ahead of their time. In cases like Van Gogh's, we can see that artists often gain fame after their deaths, indicating that the world was simply not ready for works of art at the time of their creation. Similarly, contemporary artists such as Damien Hirst - who receives a love-it-or-hate-it response from his viewers - can be considered ahead of their time. This also raises the question of whether being ahead of your time is simply an excuse not to gain fame. While this has been discussed on various platforms, there is no way to completely prove or disprove this theory. A piece of.