I find this particularly interesting, firstly and foremost because I really appreciate and can personally resonate with the sentiment. But also, because it offers a challenge. You explicitly define what is Art/art. Some folk have different definitions (between Art and “art”) and believe the distinction is completely different or a matter of preference, even social or cultural.
What threshold then does it require for a (average?) person to “enter a world?” Sure, a magnificent painting of a sunset invokes the viewer to imagine such. But what of something much simpler? A seemingly blank white paper that was actually meticulously painted to depict a wall where a great king was held in captivity and dead against peacefully. To the average person, absent of context, it’s just a blank canvas, for the most part. Is it not? If so, does this not require fundamental if not novel poking and prodding at our rudimentary visual sense to simulate and invoke anything of discernible value?
A complex mathematical equation that offers those who can understand it to “enter a world” or otherwise learn how to, say, unlock nuclear fusion, is nothing but gibberish and graffiti on a chalkboard to those whose minds are not able or willing to comprehend it, a sheer and utter waste of space that could otherwise display something pleasing to their rudimentary minds, such as a kitty cat or picture of a dog playing fetch.
We see what we want to see, and avoid what we either do not or are otherwise unable to or remain ignorant of seeing. Is that not correct?
Good question. I think it is down to each individual audiences or viewers of the art. There must be something which an art clicks with a viewer or audience. It would be something hard to explain because it is subjective nature. It could be the viewer’s personal experience or imagination, which clicks and get absorbed into the art.
Once that happens, he/she keeps visiting and seeing and feeling the art until some imaginary stories or visions spreading in the imagination and intuition like in the movies, in one’s own imagination and mind. I suppose that is how it unfolds.
It happened to me once when I was keep looking at Van Gogh’s paintings. I felt I was living in the paintings at times. I also tried to paint the replica paintings by myself. It was great fun.
Just my opinion. The object doesn’t matter. What matters is the will and actions of the “artist”, the one doing the framing. The object in the frame then conveys a message: I noticed this, it means something to me, figure out what it is that I found interesting here. You create a mini puzzle, the viewer is engaged to rack their brain and emotions to decode your message without words. Such stimulating activity. It may take a second or start a movement. If done cleverly and if engages enough or the right audience, it can aquite monetary value and be put in a museum and declared “real” art.
Define hole. Is the opening of a bucket not, itself, a hole? A bucket without a hole in this sense is no bucket at all, but just a cylinder. It is the emptiness of the jar that makes it work. We are speaking now of the nameless tao.
The Dao, for some, is a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. I don’t pretend to know what you’re talking about. I’m more of a 2 + 2 = 4 typa guy.
I do recall a stanza about the hole that makes the vessel useful. It’s interesting that it doesn’t apply to food or water or many other odd things.
Someone sold a banana taped to a wall for $6 MiL, someone else bought an “invisible sculpture” which was literally air for $18K. Beauty isn’t the only thing that’s subjective you’re onto something!
you’re onto something!