A few days ago on Facebook (an excerpt from a conversation).
…..
D.P. – Conan has nothing to do with art. Neither high nor low art. The same could be said about 99 percent of all pulp fiction creations, both in comics and literature.
P.M. – Well, I “love” these kind of statements. They remind me of my youth…of any youth, which is often proud, bold, arrogant, naïve…I’m not saying it is true, or it is not true. What I want to say is that If we are using terms like high art and low art, we must first of all define what is Art.
So, what is Art?
Fortunately, my dear D. P., nobody knows it for sure. Many have tried to explain it, speculated about it, claimed to know – tried to prove it, intellectualized it, quarreled about it with those who thought differently, blamed and “crucified” each other for their differences. No explanation by so-called experts went further than more or less ingenuous conceptualization of the phenomenon. None of it gave us a final answer. One person might experience something as the ultimate Art, while the same creation may leave another totally indifferent. We simply cannot agree on that matter.
And you know why? It’s because no one was ever able to explain what is Beauty, what is Love, what is Spirit …What is Truth.
It’s not possible to grasp it intellectually because every explanation happens within the domain of intellect, which is always limited, conditioned, blinded by the confined personal, often petty experience and knowledge. Art belongs to the domain of Life phenomena which can be comprehended only through a direct experience, but it cannot be explained.
At its best, one can talk about Art in descriptive terms, but nobody can put a finger on it and say -That’s it! Even the Artist cannot do that. One cannot patent it, nor put a copyright notice on it. There is no mathematical equation, or formula that can summed it up.
Art can be experienced only when the limited and self-oriented, self-obsessed Ego consciousness – that which is usually called the “I”, that which claims to know something – is removed from the path, so that a wondrous “click” can take place deep within. Art appears, it discloses itself and becomes apparent in that magical moment when the “I” is removed from the eternal stream of Life, as fallen trees and stones are removed from the brook so that water can flow smoothly, be clean and clear again.
This withdrawal of the most famous, but also the most incompetent judge called “I”, makes a direct connection with the inexpressibility of the Wonder of Life possible, a connection that is unsoiled by the personal prejudices, concepts, ideas, desires, anxieties.
Naturally, the best way to have an insight in what Art is happens through a direct contact between the observer, or the experiencer, and the Artwork. However, it should be taken into consideration that Art is not to be found in the artwork itself (a symbol is not the same as that which is symbolized, or represented) but it unexpectedly shines through, it happens in the moment of Recognition… But one might ask – Recognition of What? Who, or What is being recognized?
That seems to be the real question – a tough one – and everybody has to find the answer for himself. Your answer will be slightly different from mine; mine somewhat different from John’s, his different from Mary’s, and so on. All eyes and heads are different, let alone hearts.
Nevertheless, all the answers, although seemingly different and personal, might eventually point out toward the one common answer, the one that is called the Truth.
Again, the Truth is inexpressible … but it can be experienced, tasted.
A sage once expressed it beautifully – There are three truths in life: my truth, your truth, and the Truth.
I think the ultimate aim of an Artist is to be the taster of this Truth through his own senses and means, beginning with his own truth, and as such to become a herald of the Truth. If he succeeds in revealing at least a tiny bit of It to himself, and then manages to convey it whether through comics about Conan, paintings of glorious sunset, poems about grandma Mary’s obsession with donuts, he has done a great job.
It’s not about the subject matter, it’s about how you approach it and what you do with it.
D.P. – It is not difficult to define what art is. It’s something that inspires you to see that Conan is a heavy crap, no matter how well-crafted it is.…..
I, for one, agree with what you say, and I think it is a shame that some people have such a strong need to express not only their dislike for something they don’t like (and perhaps don’t understand?) and at the same time try to discredit anyone who thinks differently by saying “you are wrong!”. I think the quote by the sage about the three truths is great, it shows humility. And another quote I think is valuable to remember is from art historian E. H. Gombrich: “There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists”
Staffan, there is no shame in expressing one’s own truth, which reflects one’s current level of consciousness. If something can be labeled as “shameful”, it is the consequences with which expressed personal opinion is sometimes met. The nature of these consequences is changeable for it depends on prevailing ideas, concepts, ideologies, beliefs, etc. Saying that somebody has to feel ashamed because he is expressing an opinion, including judgmental statements – which I perhaps don’t like, or think of it as being wrong, or even offensive – is not more then another way of being judgmental. Who is right, and who is wrong?…You see, that is exactly the point of the concept of three truths. His truth, my truth, and the Truth. How we are solving the problem that arises from this situation depend on how we approach it… I suggest an open and honest dialog, first of all with oneself.
You misunderstand me, when I wrote “I think it is a shame…” I did not mean the person expressing his opinion here should feel ashamed. In this context the expression could be changed into “it is a pity”, as in it is a sad fact that in this world some people have a need to discredit what is valuable to another, and stating it as being the one and only Truth, instead of their truth. This I think is detrimental to our living and breathing world full of variety. But of course the person should not feel ashamed for voicing his or her opinion, that is their right! I hope I made myself more clear this time!
Yes, Staffan, you expressed a bit of your own truth clearly. 🙂
Thank you!
Petar, I love reading your articles about mythology and art. Though, if we can’t define Art, then maybe I should just say painting or image creation. I like the way you search for “why painting happens.” I like the direction your thesis goes in respect to image creation being a way of seeing Truth and being a way of conveying something intangible that is otherwise “unconveyable.” (I hope I’ve understood you so far to be able to make that last sentence relatively accurately.)
However, I would like a further explanation of this line:
“It’s not possible to grasp it intellectually because every explanation happens within the domain of intellect, which is always limited, conditioned, blinded by the confined personal, often petty experience and knowledge.”
It appears to me that from that sentence, nothing is graspable intellectually. If an intellectual grasp is limited by one’s personal experience, then it would seem that an intellectual understanding of anything is always limited and faulty. I wanted to know if this larger implication is intended, or if there is something about Art that makes it intellectually impossible to grasp, while other things are more graspable by the intellect. I ask this because I often find the position polarized. Non-artists like to try to quantify art to an almost mathematical definition. Artists tend to say art serves a non-intellectual purpose (either for pure emotion, or for some grasp of truth that is beyond or different from the intellect). In reading the different positions, I often find the non-artist philosopher trying to quantify in an intellectual way everything he sees, while the artist philosopher (either intentionally or not) tends to say things that completely dismiss intellect for comprehension of anything. My instinct is that each (the intellectual realm and the . . . shall we say . . . pure comprehension realm) has their own proper place and can fill what the other lacks.
Speaking of sages, another one once said that Art is the process whereby human actions bring about some purposeful end (paraphrased, I don’t recall the exact wording, and besides it wasn’t originally written in English). This would align with what you’re saying in that the painting is not the artwork, but that the artwork is just the final manifestation of the thing called art. However, this way of looking at art would allow both sides to fall under art: an intellectual grasp of Truth in those cases that are graspable by intellect, and a more experiential grasp of Truth in things that are graspable by experience. That seems like a more general use of “art” that is commonly meant by the term in normal conversation.
Full disclosure, I think a lot of Truth can be arrived at through reasoning and experience only facilitates the reasoning process, but is not necessary or essential for it. But at the same time I think a lot of Truth cannot be attained through reasoning, but either must be experienced first hand, or be attained through the guidance of that thing that is colloquially known as “art.”
Finally, I would agree that the judgmental opinion quoted in the article is not really shameful. But I would come down and say that closing the door to something under the reasoning that “it can’t teach me anything” is unfortunate and liable to cause the one expressing this to miss things in the world around them. In that respect I would even say the opinion is wrong in the same way that a child is wrong when they cover their eyes and think that in this way they cannot be seen by others. I believe this can be said in a non-judgmental way but in the way that we might all agree that one is wrong if one says “I will not fall if I step off this cliff.”
Thank you for the time you spend to write these articles. I find them immensely rewarding.
-Nathan
Thank you too, Nathan, for taking the time to write such an elaborate and interesting comment!
You have touched a few very interesting things and issues in your comment, and I guess a proper reply would be to write another post, which I might do sometime in the future. Therefore I will now mention a few things hoping to cover at least some of your questions / remarks.
First of all I think we have to make a distinction between the Mind and the Intellect. One can say with confidence that everything we know of the existence happens in our Mind, while the Intellect, our rational part, is just an aspect of it.
Secondly, and in order to avoid a potential misunderstanding, I am not dismissing the importance of Intellect, I just want to point out that rational, intellectual intelligence is not the only quality we possess. Relaying primarily, or sometimes exclusively on that aspect of the human Mind can be very limiting, and also quite inefficient when it comes to dealing with other areas of Life which are non-intellectual in character. Surly, everything has its purpose and its place in Creation. Likewise, everything that is created has its limitations.
It is impossible to experience the fulness of Life through thinking. This is achieved only through the direct experience of Life – means being fully aware of the movements of consciousness. Therefore, one can easily see that the more we think (the more we are in our head, wrestling with all sorts of thoughts), the less we Live – means the less we are aware of Life happening to us, internally and externally.
But if we want to build a cathedral, or to make a shoe, of course we need to think.
When Love happens, you don’t think of Love, you just Love. When you encounter something truly beautiful, you don’t think why it is beautiful, you are struck, elated, taken by a particular emotion, or sensation….. so much so that, for a period of time, you stop being aware of Yourself (the thinking “me”). You become thoughtless, speechless. There is no awareness of “me” as the observer, there is only the observed…and its Beautiful!
Does any kind of intellectualization of what happened adds something to the beauty of that moment? Does it make it more extraordinary, more special? The answer is all too obvious – no!
I hope you will forgive me, but I won’t go further into explanation and intellectualization. I guess the main point is to find the right “tool” for the right “job”. Or, to switch “tools” (thinking mind, senses, intuition, etc.) when the situation askes for… But in order to recognize that moment, one needs to be aware, alive… not lost in thoughts. That is the real problem of residing too much in the thinking mind.
But because most of us are so identified with our thoughts, we hardly can see this. It really starts to open up when you realize that YOU are not your thoughts…
I better stop now…I am afraid I am drifting away from our main subject…More on Art and relating subject matters in another post…Thanks, Nathan!
Petar, well thank YOU for such a considered and thoughtful reply to my comment! Yes, I agree that very quickly this conversation could go “off topic” for a while. But I find that tends to be the way of conversations that inspect how we know the Truth of the world around us.
“Therefore, one can easily see that the more we think (the more we are in our head, wrestling with all sorts of thoughts), the less we Live – means the less we are aware of Life happening to us, internally and externally.”
I agree with this, if by thinking, you mean some kind of rational process which in its nature excludes Life around us. But indeed, without trying to reason more beauty or more appreciation into the beloved, may I not at the same time, through thinking, recognize the effects that beauty and the beloved have upon me and thus add to my understanding of life? Thinking in this case would not be confined to the technical side of constructing artifacts. Is it not through thinking that I can correlate experiences and draw from them conclusions even about myself? For example, I find certain kinds of landscapes deeply moving. They inspire in me a yearning that I doubt could be satisfied here for do not know exactly what I yearn for. But I recognize it as yearning since the feeling deep in the pit of my stomach is similar in character to feelings of homesickness or loneliness when my family is away. From this I say that landscapes can inspire a yearning in me and not just a general deep emotion sometimes sweet, mostly bitter. I think I did this through thinking, by matching this unexpected emotion to similar ones in situations that I understand better.
But perhaps that is not what you meant by thinking. Or would you say that the thinking performed there is not related to experiencing life? I would say it increased an understanding of Life happening to me internally. But is that understanding so separate from the direct experience of life happening to me, that it does not add to the experience? At least not in the moment in which the experience occurs? I would agree with that.
For I absolutely agree that no intellectualizing of beauty or the beloved can increase the pleasure or add to the experience in the moment. I think, as you indicated, that beauty is much closer to Love than it is to, say, math or intellect. I’m using intellect here, as you said, meaning the rational part of our mind. I think this — that intellect cannot add to beauty — is shown both in experience and in the existence of art as its own thing that had to be named. What I mean is, while I find it vaguely interesting when people explain reasons for why this proportion is more beautiful or that ratio in a composition is better, I think this train of thought leads more to a symbolic kind of art that resembles pretty algebra at its essence rather than its own . . . thing (for lack of a better word). This seems to remove from pictures any sort of communication proper to themselves and instead says that pictures are just another form of words. Which does not line up with my experience of words, math, and pictures.
And if that were true, that pictures were just another form of words, why would there be generations upon generations of conversations about pictures and art disagreeing and exploring what it is?
I guess I should stop too. Thanks again! This is a topic very dear to me (I suppose you may have noticed) and I love pursuing it with people who have put years of thought into it as you so clearly have. I suspect I still have much to learn from your work. Thanks once more!
-Nathan
Hi Nathan – In reply to your last comment, I will copy-paste my answer from a conversation on Facebook that was initiated by this same Muddy Colors post. I hope this will offer a background for better understanding of my statements which, although clear to myself, can be confusing and somewhat inarticulate to others.
First of all, I appreciate your point of view and your input, Nathan, I really do!… As mentioned in my post, there are three truths in Life: my truth, your truth and the Truth. The only thing I can add to this discussion is that which is a part of my own experience – ones the process of incessant thinking and intellectualization has come to a hold, a whole new world (that was always there) starts opening up. The perception changes, it widens up. One becomes more aware of Life. One discovers Present Moment and its wondrous implications. The need for Choiceless Perception present itself naturally. It really feels like waking up, or at least the beginning of it. One realizes, perhaps for the first time in one’s life – I am not my thoughts! They come and go; I stay. What am I then? I am the observer… And that is just the beginning of a truly wondrous journey. One starts using the Thinking Mind more productively, constructively – one is not anymore used, or dominated by the Thinking Mind. As one progresses along this new path, one realizes there is no need for denial of anything – everything is allowed, accepted…Even one’s own insufficiencies and imperfection. Love and compassion increases and enriches one’s life (perhaps making the Life of others slightly lighter)…It’s not to say that the struggle stops – on the contrary – but everything becomes lighter and more bearable because there is more meaning to it….. As for Art, it gets its righteous place within the Whole. It is not glorified, nor depreciated. It is seen as one of many expressions of the Wonder of Life.
This change is not merely intellectual, but actual, experiential. It is felt as the truth. My truth, which I am humbly putting next to yours….Nothing else.
However, I must stress that this is indeed a heavy and at times quite perilous and lonesome journey ( which you already might have discovered for yourself). Therefore, one must be very motivated to set out on this road. It is often a form of serious suffering that provides the motivation, the final push. In my case it was the loss of a dearest person.
We, as humans, are social in nature.
As obvious as the newborn can’t live without the help of it’s parents we can’t grow without the contact we share with the others.
In my opinion art is a form of communication that serve to express feelings, emotions and spiritual concepts through a specific language (wether it be music, sculpture, theatre or in this case painting).
The reaction we have in front of an art piece defines who we are, or who we think we are.
But we frame ourselves not only with what we love but most importantly with what we hate.
Art and culture in general serve a purpose of creating groups (which helps people to connect into these groups) and separate people at the same time (group vs group).
each time i see these explicit hate to what’s called pop culture i can only see the contempt against the people who love this specific form of art and also the desire from the critic to separate himself from this group (or class) of people.
disclaiming “higher” tastes in art is not only elitist, it’s also a proof that you can only think in absolute (good vs evil, right vs wrong).
I much prefer people who says that they love specific things without putting these into an invisible ladder of worthiness.
It’s perfectly ok to feel negative emotions in front of a conan movie/painting/song, it’s part of what you are.
But please don’t put yourself into this specific upper class of “better people” who think they are so much more than that.
If you think you’re better simply because you look down on others then how much better are you?
Hi Johan – I hope you are not talking to me personally (I refer especially to the last two paragraphs). Because if you do, then you have misunderstood the point of my post.
oh no of course not Petar, i drink your thoughts each time you write an article.
I was just thinking about this very first phrase of your article as it repeated in my mind:
“Conan has nothing to do with art. Neither high nor low art. The same could be said about 99 percent of all pulp fiction creations, both in comics and literature.”
I always have a very visceral feling when i hear things like this because it touches me at a deep level.
Probably because coming myself from a family not that interested in art in general i found this cultural background and build myself arround these “pulp fiction creations” .
i apologize if it sounded aggressive thoward you Petar, it wasn’t the point and i hope to get more clear next time 🙂
I was not sure, Johan, so I had to ask… You see, it is me who almost misunderstood You, not other way around. 🙂 … Thank you for making it clear!
you’re welcome, and as always thank you for putting very interesting thoughts behind your work or simply putting things in perspective.
This is the reason i’m always happy to read you almost as much as looking at your wonderful paintings :).
Have a great day!
Oh no, Johan, Thank YOU, and thank you to the people like you who are kind enough to stop by, read and comment. Without you guys, I am afraid I would have stopped posting.…In fact, many times during the past few years, I was very close to quit this business of posting for various reasons. But I see now (also thanks to Facebook) that there are more and more people who are sharing the need to go deeper and beyond the established confines. So, thank you Johan, Nathan, Staffan and others for your support, and most importantly for communication and interaction!
Just have to chime in here as well, that I definitely understand that sometimes you might have doubts about continuing to post. Feeling like it doesn’t matter is one of the worst things that can happen when you share something, but on the flip side, when someone reflects and interacts with what you’ve shared, that is one of the most fulfilling experiences! So I also want to thank you again Petar and everyone else who posted for sharing, I read through it all, very interesting conversation.
Thanks again, Staffan!
I agree with Staffan. I also imagine that Petar’s articles have touched more people than just the ones replying here. I’m glad you continue to post your reflections, Petar. I find them deeply interesting and inspiring.
On that note, I’m extremely grateful for the group here at Muddy Colors that take the time to share their lives and thoughts with the public at large. Dan Dos Santos has carved out a really wonderful corner of the internet.
To paraphrase Howard Pyle, art is not what you do, it is how you do it. Anything can and has inspired art and artists, from the plays of Shakespeare to the back alleys of Paris.
Quite right, Steven.