Appreciation

A visual process

Life cannot be commented upon unless it is lived through. Similarly in the case of art appreciation. How does one go about appreciating art? First of all, one must possess an ardent desire to live with the piece of art. Its companionship may thereon help establish that essential internal connection with it. Only when a piece of art feels like one's own is true justice done to its essence. In order to accept it, one has to first surrender to it with an untainted mind. Preconceived notions about art have to be forgotten (at least put aside, if possible). A prejudiced observer is the first barrier that stands in the way of true appreciation of art.

Effectively, the piece of art itself determines the 'route' by which it impinges upon the viewer's mind. It may stir him to delight or, on the other hand, fail to make an impression at all. This 'route' might be a gradual step-by-step one or one that immediately captures the heart. Alternatively, it may even be like a sedation that steadily seeps in and takes over while one is unaware. Whatever the process might be, it is only when the piece of art amalgamates with the self that the original visual dialogue reaches conclusion, and is thus transported onto an intellectual, psychological as well as spiritual level. However, prejudices are to be avoided. They may not only corrupt this dialogue but perhaps even prevent it from being initiated in the first place.

While a viewer savours art, he perpetually employs the principle pertaining to the process of 'visualizer-visual-vision', and has to prove to be the flower-bed of this process in order to be a true aficionado. However, certain misconceptions about this process have to first be sorted out. Under no circumstances is this process ever restricted to any particular 'ism'. It is because prejudiced yet prestigious buyers patronize such 'isms' that they become temporarily popular among viewers as well as artists.

Certain fundamental factors contribute intrinsically to the framework of an artist: his sensitivity, his attitude, his values and morals, his inspirations and aspirations. Based on these, contemporary art may be broadly categorized into three tendencies: (a) One that maintains a 'visual' commitment to the apparent image while depicting it; (b) One that transforms the beauty around into 'intellectual' elucidation while utilizing a traditional pictorial language; (c) One that reinvents an 'internal' interpretation while exploring the visual as well as essential fundamentals. The first two are more or less bound to the 'outer, apparent' forms of nature (including the human world). However, the third one attempts to explore nature's 'embedded elements'. The first and the second tendencies, at their own level, pursue the outer appearance while the third attempts to impart form to the unexpressed.

It is not difficult for a viewer to associate the first two tendencies with a 'meaning'. There are several elements in the visual world that he experiences which contribute to clarify this meaning. Forms pertaining to this meaning have already been imprinted into his visual encyclopedia, in bold font too. The viewer even carries with himself age-old traditions in art, his individual tastes, comparisons and conclusions based on previous experiences. This advantage is not available to him in the case of the third tendency. The associations born of this tendency might receive permission to enter the viewer's mind. But they do not find a location there. Thus these pieces of art turn out to prove 'random' and 'undefined'. Sometimes the viewer might even be able to vaguely draw inferences, but since no previous hypothesis that throws light upon this meaning exists in his personal 'dictionary', he finds himself at a loss to understand them.

Let us consider two individuals of the same intellectual caliber who know a common language. They have to engage in an extensive dialogue before they get to know each other thoroughly. At times, instead of language, other ways of communication have to be adopted. And yet, ultimately, they might seem ambiguous to each other in spite of all their efforts. In the viewership of a piece of art, two vastly varying personas – that of the piece of art along with the viewer - have to engage in communication. They have to go through and beyond introduction, camaraderie and then step into the realm of an eternal companionship. These are the inevitable stages that they must traverse.

In fact, a true aficionado of art must simply overcome all limits of religion, language, nationality and embrace the piece of art as his true love. It is in the cavernous depths of his mind that he must accept it. Only if he successfully achieves this does his presumptuous 'dictionary' collapse. Now, simply 'vowels and consonants' are allowed to remain in his mind along with their original infinite capacity for meaning.

At the same time one must consider a recent trend that has been made popular lately. It is that of reading a piece of visual art instead of viewing it. This trend itself thwarts the process of understanding as well as of experiencing a piece of art.

Most often, it includes unyielding and narrow methods of interpretation. Thus, any piece of art that cannot be deciphered by such rigid methods is dismissed as 'ambiguous' or sometimes not art at all! The responsibility of contributing to such an unhealthy equation is shared by many: artists, critics, viewers with their knowledge or ignorance, with their honest or blind faith, conclaves with their plots and schemes. But that of course would be a separate topic of discussion altogether.

When a piece of art defies all standards, methods, rules and regulations or simply avoids them and speaks to the mind independently, it reaches its true potential meaning. A viewer might depend on aesthetics but a piece of art never does. It does not need to because that is what it already is. It is us who impose theory on the piece of art. A work of art however neither accepts nor protests any such limitations. It simply continues to stimulate purely at a visual level. It gives up all that it possesses to the viewer and yet remains self-sufficient. Therefore, in the company of such a creation, each corner of our mind feels nourished with joy. When we experience such a balanced awareness of our entire existence, we begin to exist 'naturally-effortlessly'. Only in this effortlessness can we experience satya (truth), shiva (holiness) and sunderta (beauty) in its pure form. It is when such an experience is lived through that we may confidently presume to be in the company of a truly complete piece of art. Anything else is a result of superficial 'ritualistic' viewing. There exists no timetable that indicates when and where and how we may come across such an experience. So, all that remains up to us is spending time consistently in the company and solace of pure art, and witness ourselves blossom in a creative and artistic atmosphere.

Under such conditions, our five sense organs no longer remain shortcuts to our mind but become 'meditative paths' that are born of our mind. Thus, when a piece of art seems 'ambiguous', we will not immediately dismiss it, but will have the sense to question the purity of our own perception. It is this 'understanding' that a genuine aficionado must attempt to achieve.

Therefore, whether the argument is about creating a piece of art or appreciating it, spending quality time in its companionship is of utmost importance. Only then does the next natural step follow: that of studying the science behind the thought and action. If we can successfully adopt this kind of unprejudiced learning through solace, simplicity and salvation not only in schools and colleges but even in our own individual lives, I believe that along with the piece of art, life itself will prove to be substantially more meaningful as well as fulfilling.