The abstract that we run away from for we do understand the meaning of abstract as something that is attained through imagination and imagination for every indivdual is different from any other. So we run away from abstract whether it is art or computer science. And if we take into consideration beauty then we all know what we are talking about but fail to reach any consensus.
Something what is abstract attracts the society as an old acquaintance. The society plays with the frivolity of an abstract idea like an old overcoat of an actor. The abstract has something to do with the money the society is about to make from a frivolous idea of an abstract meaning.
Sinking knee deep into the abstract
finding the meaning of the art and love
to write letters to the patient of heart
as if love is a soldier’s abstract-
to kill the mockingbird and walk off
One rose was full of perfume that She fainted in her own arms
as if perfume had undone the airs of her form
She plucked the song from a twig of her perfumed memory
as if it was her sixteenth birthday stirring two decades
She hesitated with the thought inducing coffee
as if it was her two decades gone on cloud nine
She blew a whistle to dig out the unconscious mind
as if a thousand clouds like herself were hidden beneath the thought
She gave up the final chase of a pretty job
as if her hidden thoughts have found the little Buddha
She didn’t give up the Buddha then
Nature is the representation of reality that is the object of any subjective understanding of the Universe. In a matter of perception, the object of nature different from thinking being could be subsumed under nature itself. Then the question arises about human nature which is the instantiation of nature within the thinking being. So nature as being is present within the thinking being as an idea, the object of understanding.
Now is the nature more beautiful than the work of art which is the understanding of reality? So put in other words is the painting of Van Gogh more beautiful than nature as we understand than nature itself? The painting of Van Gogh deals with the meaning lent to nature which in general sense is meaningless. Nature, the study of which is though meaningless so when a Physicist studies nature, he is struggling with meaning, looking for finding meaning. The same is true of Van Gogh who lends meaning to nature. Now is this meaning beautiful than the meaningless nature? Indeed the sunset is beautiful but it is meaningless but when an artist paints the nature he lends meaning to it. Indeed meaning is more desirable than meaninglessness. So nature as painted appears beautiful than the sunset in reality.
A marriage of beauty with morality so that beauty could be tamed is the sole purpose of society at large. The basic instinct yields to us that beauty is far more superior to reason that you cannot find any reason for the thing of beauty to be beautiful. The society doesn’t yield to nature that beauty is the sole criterion of demarcation of reality and as such walks in the world of Physics, the study of nature whereby reason is made stronger than aesthetics.
Then society makes us moral. Why is there religion but to oppose the ancient myths of beauty that the ancient men found in Mythology? The Church thus is born. What the Emperor of Rome, Nero wanted to curtail was that beauty no longer belonged to the Church that he despised the church so much that he set Rome on fire for he feared the ghost of beauty would engulf Rome.
The will though denies beauty its claims to high society for the volition is jealous of the beauty as the church and gives rise to the demons in society. The whole problem of the mankind to apprehend its alter ego is the prejudice against beauty. Keats had said a thing of beauty is a joy forever, hinting the pleasure borne off a beautiful thing is almost eternal in its length. The church as thus wanted to overcome the will of man that it put in charge the morality as the safeguard so much that any appreciation of art or aesthetic judgment is considered as sin or the carnal pleasure.
The sole criterion for the religion to be present in the world is the beauty of nature which the religion has denied even though in terms of reason as was in the case of Galileo. The religion is there in retaliation to beauty as such it preached the immortality of the soul as opposed to the carnal sin of the body. The body is viewed as the source of appreciating beauty hence the originator of sins. The beauty of nature is likewise nullified by the religion for it inspires Romanticism that goes against the will of Church.
Thus the religion is there out of sole reason of curtailing beauty.
It’s the intellect and will that determine the taste we engender in terms of aesthetic judgements we form in society. The current Bollywood art doesn’t show much intellect as was the case with Avante-Garde Italian cinema where intellect significantly influenced the will to form a taste that would be an epitome of artistic endeavours.
As German philosopher, Kant would say about artistic experiences that they suggest purposiveness without purpose. In the Bollywood, there is though purposelessness but it is not with any purposiveness that we could consider the film as a work of art. The problem inherently lies in the Indian Vedic culture which though brilliant in its trappings but has hardly evoked an overwhelming response from the people to be comprehended since India became independent. Moreover, the Vedic system is rigid and unable to incite a spark among the film directors or actors that the intellect has receded in the films.
Likewise seeing dud Bollywood films which lack technique and execution of thought, the taste of the people has not refined enough to accept the films based on cataclysmic theatre like ‘Waiting for Godot’. Nor does the taste have refined enough to accept any ideology like Naturalism, Realism, Existentialism etc. This has been due to the fact that films are produced for the sole purpose of profit and as such the will is more objectified to recognize the universe as an entity that supports the matter to be endured and enjoyed rather than to be thought or discoursed about.
No wonder the bollwood is ugly art in retrsopect of the cinema influenced by Satayajit Ray which though was realsitic yet showed the poverty affecting India. There have hardly been works that required overwhelming subject matter and likewise, there has been hardly an oeuvre with a little effluent and extravagant treatment of the subject.
There is self-love that makes us want things for ourselves and this self-love might make us escape aesthetic judgements as to whether a certain person is beautiful or not. If he /she is really beautiful we might escape passing a judgement for we love ourselves. Self-love is an impediment to loving others.
In art, we attempt to define what is beautiful and we want to communicate that feeling of beauty to others. But what we might communicate is trivial and hence many beautiful works of art could belie the art itself as they fail to communicate what is inherently contained in nature, the love for others. It is self-love that we encounter which makes us fail to communicate anything significant. Why we would deny ourselves in the first place for we love ourselves more than is necessary. The works of art which fall under mediocre fail to communicate for the artist loves himself/herself more than the work of art could permit.
We cannot reason the work of art for we cannot compel the onlooker to like the work of art on other than merits that a work of art must constitute like fine execution, bold symmetry, empathetic choice of colours etc. By employing self-love as a tool in the art as propagated by cinema, is more like a phallus worship for it engenders love for the self rather than others so cinema is destroyed by a constructivist mind that wants to build a montage rather than a film.
The existence need not be dependent on any transcendence to take place so that it could find meaning. We could find meaning in any forms that might represent existence. The forms must be coherent shapes that must invoke a non-determinant or reflective judgement as to the aesthetic sense is concerned which subsumes the whole picture into a cradle of nothingness. Yes, we begin with nothingness in art till it acquires some volume of colour and tone of light to show what the artist needs to show an influx of emotion.
Transposing the existence through the immediate substance that lends its colour to the represented substance that artist wishes to explore. Could we negate the nothingness, to begin with, so that we could end up with some coherent form? We could move through the other way also by viewing the canvas as something and then negating it to be nothing and end up with a form that shows passive indifference like any existence.
So we have two ways something or nothing to view all art. The art could be a vigour force of life to show us meaning or it could be passive indifference to show us nothing. In either case, the art object is a complete work of art irrespective of the artist’s skill which has got more to do with execution and beauty than the thought and truthfulness that makes an object of art, art in the first place.
What in the end an art object is a familiarity with nothing or knowing or being of something. Both these elements exist in a great work of art leading art into undetermined. Both are the doors of knowing, the activity of thinking substance.