In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.

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.

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.

Average: 1.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, 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, while, 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 : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2394.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 462.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18181818182 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93897949886 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538961038961 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 704.065955056 103% => 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: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => 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: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7221853251 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.086956522 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0869565217 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65217391304 5.21951772744 70% => 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 : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.0210792571623 0.243740707755 9% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0079503646522 0.0831039109588 10% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0193339749925 0.0758088955206 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0145356183154 0.150359130593 10% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0144397511968 0.0667264976115 22% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?

It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.

Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.