What are we looking for when we view art?
If a child were in a gallery and two walls were covered by paintings. One side has the works of Rothko, Mitchell, Miró. The other Eyck, Veronese, Rembrandt.
Which side would they be attracted to?
The engagement to art results the valuation.
Each genre requires its own engagement, which can be regarded as a mode of experience. And experience is unbearably rich.
What I find enjoyable in abstract paintings is meaninglessness. I hope the work tells me nothing; I want free-quality of colour and shape; aesthetics without reference.
But I know the beauty of a Rembrandt is not in Rembrandt. It is in the source- the viewing person. The Rembrandt is a stimulus which evokes. Proof: many are indifferent to paintings.
Now think of nature. It has a similar engagement-requirement.
"Nature...is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest."
One can extract aesthetic sense from a mountain, a beach, a Pollock, while another cannot and will not because they're not able to affirm, or do not even have, a secret to play with.
Imagine you could form one sentence to communicate the reality of beauty experienced.
“That for which we find words is something already dead in our hearts...”
And why do people buy millions worth of paint hazardly splattered on a canvas?
It's an investment like real estate. Don't think too much of it.
Mark Rothko - Blue, Orange, Red - 1961
Joan Mitchell - City Landscape - 1955
Joan Miró - Ciphers and Constellations in Love with a Woman - 1941
Jan van Eyck - Madonna at the Fountain- 1439
Paolo Veronese - The Wedding at Cana - 1563
Rembrandt van Rijn - The Storm on The Sea of Galilee - 1633
Literature, art, science, travel. Writing fiction, non-fiction, poetry. Always wrestling with language.
View all posts by sonny