of thoughts in ebb and flow

Art e`sense’

That’s what I like about modern art. It gives both the artist and the consumer a sense of involvement and accomplishment. And you can never be `wrong’. So I can get away with expounding on how the soul of the artist is seeking freedom through the random unfettered brush movement. While the artist goes out to buy  replacement colours for the bottles his five-year old unfetteredly (artistic licence if you will) dropped onto the canvas in a burst of imagined freedom of movement in Dad’s workspace!

“What’s the trip?” I say to the Monet’s and Manet’s of the world, these artists who labour to re-create and contain nature in their puny canvas. Why choose God (or the electron-neutron-boson- whatever colliding machine for the atheists out there) as your competitor? Give me a treat for more than just the eye. If your medium constrains you from involving all my senses at least involve my mind!

My professor from back in college was a genuine artist. After a particularly long, completely meaningless burst of CP (class participation) from a student he would pause for a decent interval, seem deeply appreciative and say `OK. Therefore what you are saying is….’ and proceed to say all those points that he deemed necessary for the progress of the case to the next level of analysis. That’s what I call sheer artistry. Professor happily moves on. Student CP artist nods sagely and sits back pleased that he has made such an intelligent contribution and that he can close his CP account for the rest of the semester. The rest of the class continues their mental excursions without being stressed.  Perfect example of win-win if I ever saw one!

What’s the connect? Where is this post going you say? Well. Nowhere. It is like modern art. It will be what you make of it. Come, come. Surely you have a responsiblity towards making sense of what you read?!!!

Comments on: "Art e`sense’" (4)

  1. This post is not modern art – it’s actually ancient art, I’d say. This post is more like the Gita – i.e. say a bunch of semi-connected, profoundish statements, and the reader is bound to find a few that resonate with him. 🙂

    But seriously, I think of modern artists as being similar to scientists. They are doing work at the edges of the state of the art, and it takes an expert in the field to even understand what they’re trying to achieve, or even to understand the significance of some of their breakthroughs. It is not meant for your average person. In fact, some breakthrough by some artist/scientist might eventually find its way into things seen/consumed by average people in maybe one or two generations, and even then, they might not know or recognize that contribution.

    So, let the experts appreciate modern art. The rest of the world can exist without having to try hard to appreciate it.

    • Aah! The Gita you say? So all those hours we spent interpreting and re-interpreting the Gita have impacted my writing style huh? Or maybe it is just the cadence of my thoughts … profoundish or nonsensical as it runs this way and that in semi-connected fashion 🙂

      In a less bantering tone than the post was written in, the difference between art and science lies in their basic purpose. To my mind the basic purpose of science is to answer the question how and use the answers to improve the quality of life. And the basic purpose of art is to communicate and in communicating create/alter thoughts, feelings, emotions. Art, I feel, is an expression of the artists soul and born of an attempt to CONNECT with others. And from that point of view all reactions to the art are a feedback to the artist on whether to and how best to refine the language she speaks in so that `connectedness’ is achieved with the targeted audience.

      That being the case, any piece of art made available for public consumption would benefit from the opinions of the experts and the rest of the world. Whereas science would be best benefited in it’s research stage by being limited to experts.

      • Not convinced.

        I think that most of the “masters” were not so much interested in connecting with the average man in the street. They were probably interested in advancing the state-of-the-art in art – i.e. figuring out what techniques work on human psyches in what ways.

        Show Guernica to 100 average people, and I think 99 would go “Huh?!” and only 1 will think that this is a “perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace.”

        It is a mistake to think that a) Guernica was even targeted towards those 99, or that b) Everybody should be trying hard to convince those 99 to understand Guernica

      • I agree that nobody needs to try hard to educate the 99 on how to understand Guernica. It is for Guernica to figure out how to make them understand if he wants them to! Quite possibly, as you say, the 99 weren’t his target. In which case he would decide not to modify his art in ways that would reach out to them. If they were he would.

        Possibly his art did not speak to them at all or spoke to them at some level which was not the same as intended by the artist. But thats all right. It does not, in my mind, mean that it should not be experienced by them at all or that they should not react to it at all! Figuring out what techniques work on human psyche in what ways is figuring out how best to communicate .. to who you wish to connect with. Now what exactly are we trying to convince each other about?!! Rewind, re-postulate called for?

        Rewind, rewind.. what are you not convinced about? That art and science are

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: