Is bias inevitable in the production of knowledge? 

People may gain knowledge by defining objects that exist in the world. Understanding the unique features of a particular entity allows distinguishing it from others and fitting a new image in a regular worldview. However, this procedure of determining an object deforms and, in fact, confines its essence. In other words, an attempt of knowledge acquisition inevitably provides us with bias.

As an object for this mini-exhibition I have chosen a bouquet of flowers. This is a birthday gift that my friend presented a few days ago. It is clearly seen that that is not a regular bouquet; it is made of marmalade. The blossoms are creatively twisted “Chupa Chups” stripes, the type of candy I find very tasty, and pedicels are made of “Tinuka” marmalade stripes which are, unfortunately, not that delicious. Stems are represented by thin wooden skewers.

I was truly amazed when my friend introduced me this object. Cambridge dictionary defines a flower as “the part of a plant that is often brightly coloured and has a pleasant smell." In this case, the flower concept is bounded by several categories. If this statement is a legacy of a knowledge acquired by our ancestors and the essence of a flower is determined, does it mean that given marmalade pieces can not be called flowers? They do not have natural origin; they are not plants. So, that may be a parody of an existing image of a flower that was based on visual imitation. However, it remains uncertain where is the borderline of a flower & non-flower dichotomy, and from which perspective the criteria are identified. It leads us to a conclusion that any attempt to gain knowledge unavoidably “manufactures” a by-product which is bias.