While reading Lust for Life, I started wondering how on earth is one to define what art is. A small, succinct definition or description. This is significant because I read about how Van Gogh’s work was so not accepted in his lifetime and how so many years later, he came to be considered as one of the purest masters of his art. Likewise the so-called afficionados of classical music balk at rock, the rock enthusiasts can’t acknowledge metal as an art form in its own right, the *metal* guys scoff at hip-hop, the list goes on…
My definition of art is ‘an honest and uninhibited form of self-expression’. Period. Having said that, it is self-evident that any expression is open to interpretation. There is no right or wrong interpretation; they are just interpretations. Therefore, no interpretation is *better* than the other. If I love Indian classical music and someone else doesn’t, I have no right to classify him as a philistine simply because the love for classical music doesn’t qualify me as any better than one who doesn’t enjoy it. It is rather simple to fall into that trap because classical music has this esoteric quality to it which makes it rather elite to enjoy it. So much so that one can easily carry on an act of enjoying the music purely because it lends such a class flavour to oneself and one’s tastes. A truckload of crap, strictly speaking…
Appreciation of poetry, classical music, classic art and such has been made too much of. I do concede that to really appreciate these arts is not simple only because in their purest form, they don’t lend themselves to easy listening/viewing/watching. If you don’t follow Indian classical music, you may not really enjoy yourself at a concert. And if someone else does follow it and enjoy it, credit is due for the effort that the person has put in. But it ends there… There is no lesser or greater degree in appreciation, I think.
I am sure that sub-consciously, I also indulge in these *categorisations* inasmuch as I hate it. But I’m determined to try… To remove these ridiculous barriers from my head.
P.S. I think I know where these lofty ideas come from. The more *deep* and esoteric your interpretation sounds, the more impressive is your self-image. Therefore, if I watch Fight Club and don’t view it as a film on existential angst and duality, there must be something very commonplace about my imagination. Therefore, I flunk…:-)
tomlinsonian says:
as far as fight club is concerned , i flunked too..major time…:D
but lust for life…that is a different issue alltogether…and your definition of art, I agree with. Sufficient passion in anything is a good
enough reason for anything(Including decadence). And honesty kindles passion.
I’ve been meaning to suggest this book to you, if you haven’t come across it already. An interesting view point, at the very least.
Andre Gide – Fruits of the earth.
I chastised my flesh glady, taking more pleasure in the chastisement than in the fault – so intoxicating was the pride I took in not sinning simply.
Nathaniel, let me teach you fervor.
If you are not intoxicated by water, the fault is in your thirst.
October 31, 2004 — 8:31 pm
Lakshmi says:
I liked Fight Club. It somehow represented some kind of an urban angst (as lofty as it sounds!), the essential duality within the human psyche… but all these *hi-fi* ideals were completely lost on Pinch! In fact, I was even reminded of Steppenwolf… One book I loved!
Sufficient passion in anything is a good
enough reason for anything(Including decadence).
Reminds me of how kitsch is also an accepted art form.
What is the book about? I could, of course, google for it but would like to know what you think…:-)
November 1, 2004 — 5:43 am
kookygoblin says:
Actually I belive art exists everywhere, although I do agree that it is your interperetation that counts…
I remember seeing a couple sort out flowers near a traffic signal with their backs turned to the world….They seemed like an esoteric raaga wherein the singer was in his/her own private universe with the world as only onlookers….
PS : Very very bad example but I cant express it well 🙁
October 31, 2004 — 9:31 pm
Lakshmi says:
That is so true. I suppose for a true artist expression is the reward in itself and not the external accolades/appreciation.
November 1, 2004 — 5:45 am
99kanitas says:
The more *deep* and esoteric your interpretation sounds…
“Good Will Hunting”
In the bar – when the blond hippie guy’s trying to impress Minnie Driver by showing Ben Affleck to be ignorant. And Matt Damon steps in to save the show.
If one doesn’t work to appreciate it, one’s reading up on others’ interpretations and regurgitating. To “lend a class flavor to oneself and one’s tastes.”
October 31, 2004 — 10:32 pm
Lakshmi says:
I know this may come across as outrageous but I haven’t seen Good Will Hunting. Not just yet… *sheepish*
If one doesn’t work to appreciate it, one’s reading up on others’ interpretations and regurgitating.
Yes, I think you’re right.
November 1, 2004 — 5:46 am
99kanitas says:
it’s pretty good
The scene goes – Damon, Affleck and friends walk into bar (they live on the other side of the rails). Affleck tries to impress Driver – I was in your history class (at Harvard). Hippie butts in, sounds clever when he asks Affleck what he thinks about ______. Damon, the savant, clean-bowls the hippie with quotes from a another book, bhanda phod diya.
November 1, 2004 — 10:41 pm
fugney says:
‘an honest and uninhibited form of self-expression’
And that applies to all those creepy wall drawings I see in public bathrooms?
November 1, 2004 — 6:12 am
Lakshmi says:
Isn’t it? I think art exists for its own sake. Also, it’s plain art. Who’s to classify it as good or bad if it speaks differently to everyone?
November 1, 2004 — 6:16 am
fugney says:
I thought you might say that. I agree:)
November 1, 2004 — 6:30 am
lalunadiosa says:
I guess we are all snobs in our own way!!! consciously or unconsciously, we look down on people who don’t appreciate the finer things in life like we do….conversely we think people who appreciate the afore-mentioned finer things in life more than we do are snobs!!!!
November 1, 2004 — 6:25 am
Lakshmi says:
True…
November 1, 2004 — 6:29 am
oddan says:
i just stumbled across your blog and i hope u don’t mind me being here
while i agree with everything u said, ur definition of art sort of set me thinking, most of the art produced now, be it performing or fine, have a commercial ambition, very rarely do we see works of art made for the sake of art. So can we call ..say… music produced for commercial interests honest and uninhibited? probably no..but is it art? probably yes! So my view is that art is self-expression without any caveats
November 16, 2004 — 3:04 am
Lakshmi says:
When the desire to create is something stirred up by commercial interest, it doesn’t feel that beautiful or natural. My take, totally… I do understand what you’re saying. It’s tough to draw a line between these two facets today, I guess.
November 16, 2004 — 6:02 am