Essence of the Ideal

I guess what makes art Art is that it is a level above or below reality. It either enhances the image of the object to give more essence to its existence or the artist strips down ordinary things to make them look more ordinary. I think this what Aristotle meant by the "essence of the ideal". Whatever that ideal image is, it can only be seen or felt by looking at how and why the object was made. And by that he pertains only to the physical appearance of the object because the the truth itself can only be seen through its physical manifestation. He was trying to say that although we only imitate the ideal, the essence, even it is much farther removed from the truth as Plato claimed, is still within that object.

If that is the case then we should look at art as to how it is imitated. There must be something in a piece of work that we do not like that we must have overlooked. Just like what the director did to the story in the movie "Tuhog". To him the story is more appealing to the audience if he adds a little touch of "drama and excitement". The idea is to exaggerate. Real life can be so boring and full of routine and we don't want to see that do we? That is why we watch movies or read books because we want to get away from ordinary life. Art is our passport to that realm. I guess we just differ in tastes. For the director, sexy movies are more profitable than heavy drama - if he considered creating a movie out of the real facts of the story that is. Most artists too have to consider the income they will get from their work. Perhaps he made the right choice, why consider creating a sad story when there are a lot of people who would prefer those kinds of movies.

What Is Beauty?

People vary in responses and opinions on what is beautiful and not so pleasing to the eyes. Not everyone finds Brad Pitt attractive and not everyone likes dark skin. These judgments reflect familial, cultural, religious or political conditioning. But even people in the same background vary in their preferences. Most girls like me do not consider guns as works of art. Not everyone likes the sound of it. For most people it symbolizes violence, cruelty and death. But to me, they are no different from paintings or music or literature. So what do people look for when they judge its aesthetic value?

There are two things or categories that people use to evaluate objects. It can be what most would label the “objective” perspective where the person looks at the elements like lines and colors in a painting for example. The others try to attach meanings and compare them to experiences and memories of people, objects or events that appeal to the emotions.

It was this emotional part that Plato forgot (or chose) not to include in his work. He preferred to walk that path then so be it. If he prefers to look at the world that way, then he is free to do so. Our experiences determine who we are and what we choose to do. We are conditioned by our environment but we still have a choice. What we wish to see in an object is how we also judge it. I chose to look beyond the stereotypical idea of guns. Others stick to their own opinions. And often, it is not only the physical elements of the object we see, most of us attach emotional values to those objects thereby giving more meaning to its existence. Guns being the instruments in was is often associated with violence.

And so,questions like, “Should we consider Picasso's works as art ?” is unanswerable. Some people can only see the medium in a painting, the others see the symbol the artist wants them to look for. Everything is relative. Our personalities are colored by our upbringing. Even if we evaluate things “objectively”, there is always a tinge of bias because choosing to be objective itself is a subjective choice.