Before I present my views, let me make it clear that although I can be in awe and savour the aesthetics of reasoning (which actually is more gratifying), I am delving into the other realm of aesthetics which is primarily dominated by senses and the ‘gray areas of the gray matter’!
Casually many a times in my interactions I put forth a point,
“To sustain interest, intrigue is mandatory; Absolute comprehension is ruthlessly disconnecting!”, or something on these lines, correlating the amount of comprehension with the interest on subject.
Take a minute, dwell on this idea, and read on 🙂
Irrespective of you being convinced or not, the point I am trying to convey here is that aesthetic sense (previously interest) needs a dose of obscurity to attain the ‘tending to irrationality’ sensations it renders, for its grandest impact. I am not contradicting my previous discourses about reasoning and logic; if so, let it seem so, for now!
Analysing art and photography should give us a good test case, and it shall be a very personal outlook of the debate and I do not intend to take it beyond; nonetheless if one feels coherent – feel free – tag along!
Art as in creative painting is what I mean in this context.
Painting is purely creative. Everything on canvas flows from the mind of the artist, even if inspired from reality – I as an observer has not seen the reality, and I am more than glad to look through the artist’s prism. While being immersed in savouring a ‘good'(by my perception) painting, the sea of emotions unleashed by the painting could be varying from anything that is euphoric to morose; personally, these experiences would have little explanations, or rather I wouldn’t want to pursue it, because it would burst out the bubble of that profound sensation!
I’d rather leave the comprehension away in this case, and let myself be lost in the sensations of aesthetics.
Talking of photography, yes, photography is art. But the amount of impact it would have is lesser than that via artisitc painting. The ‘obscurity gradient’ inherently is lesser here! In a photograph ‘the moment’ has been frozen – it is quite remarkable and all. But my mind knows that it existed as it is there, and it is only the perspective that has been altered. Reality is never all that exciting to the aesthetics- it needs something beyond reality – fantasy, something beyond the realms of common sense and that is what is aethetically pleasing to the mind!
And painting, or music churn out things which weren’t already there! They create and render the influence of the artists persona and that confluence is what makes all the difference. Surreal!
Take for example that Picasso one above, and imagine a deeply saddening picture of a malnourished kid in African countries (which have been more than adequately photographed). Both make me sad. But I know the reason for the latter – there’s a logical chain my mind is already thinking on – famine -govt apathy – policies -exploitation -…. I can explain my sadness here – empathy.
But, the painting I don’t know why! It is still inexplicable to me.
The post is not about disregarding the mind boggling skill that photography is,but only analyze in relation to artistic painting. Even in photographs, the perspective offered by the photographer conveys beyond what the reality is.
For instance in this one by me (not a great pic, but the purpose seems to have been conveyed)
It is my perspective and not the reality itself. You would still be seeing it through my perspective, but I haven’t created the reality there – it somehow lessens the thrill is my argument.
Both art and photography quench the lacunae of daily life by filling us with inspiration, joy, agony, awareness, love and beauty; No ratification can balance out the emotions, it can only mellow down some of the impact.