art articulated

When it comes to art, I always have been in the dark.

We had 'art' as a subject in school. We were forced to draw/paint themes chosen by our teachers and our submissions were graded. It was just like any other assignment in school. It didn't really give me any pleasure. It didn't stir profound thoughts my head. In the end, we would compete with each other wondering whose 'drawing' or 'painting' was the best. To us, the best paintings were those that most closely mimicked reality. Mine had never been the best. Except in a second standard colouring competition where I let my imagination run wild. When I won the first prize, I had no clue why I did. I liked my friends' colourings better.

It was the same when it came to music. I learnt music for 6 years not knowing why I did so. I just sang songs and played the harmoniam. 'Good' music appealed to my senses and I can say that occasionally, I connected to music at an emotional level.

It NEVER occurred to me then to understand what art meant. In fact I have really never spent much time thinking about art until very recently.

Intuitively, I knew it had something to do with the senses, but never thought about it as having too much to do with the mind.

Maybe again it boils down to the question of separation of the body from the mind. How much is a person's emotional/mental experience dependent on his sensory experience? This question presupposes an answer to another question on whether sensory experience is indeed essentially different from the emotional experience. I believe that they are mostly connected at some level. I shall not delve into justifying my belief in this post.

I only understood what it meant to emotionally bond with a work of art when I saw a picture of David Munch's 'Skrik'. It had a direct impact on me, visually and emotionally; I could relate to it philosophically. But I couldn't make sense or articulate what I felt then. The colours and the distorted, flowy background had an effect. The greys melting into the bright oranges. The expression. The unheard scream. Dissolving into the background. The overwhelming sense of helplessness. Of not being heard. People far away. A disconnect. Of not making a difference. Fear. Of just being there and then going away. Pointlessness. Only when I went and read about it, did I understand that it made sense for me to have connected to it. Never underestimate the happiness you get when you connect to something so weird and inexplicable! To know that you aren't alone feeling this way.

This brings me to other questions. Why can't I appreciate all art equally well? At least other famous works of art? Am I tasteless? Emotionless? Unrefined? Have a low IQ? A genetic defect? Or is it just my near-nil exposure to art? Then again, does it take experience and exposure to appreciate art? Does it require reading about art and knowing art enthusiasts to appreciate art? As I mentioned before, I wouldn't have appreciated 'Skrik' as much, had I not read about it, in spite of the very obvious effects it had on me.

In any case, henceforth, I would go ahead and read about art, look more closely at it and analyse my reaction to it, whenever possible. I wouldn't want to miss out on other 'skrik' experiences. :)