Art — Now and then
We all feel that art is important; my hypothesis affords reason for thinking it so. In fact, the great merit of this hypothesis of mine is that it seems to explain what we know to be true.
Anyone who is curious to discover why we call a Persian carpet or a fresco by Piero Della Francesca a work of art, and a portrait bust of Hadrian or popular problem-picture rubbish, ‘will here find satisfaction. He will find, too, that to the familiar counters of criticism — e.g. “good drawing,” magnificent design,” mechanical,” “unfeeling,” “ill-organized,” “sensitive,” — is given, what such terms sometimes lack, a definite meaning. In a word, my hypothesis works; that is unusual: to some, it has seemed not only workable but true; that is miraculous almost.
I have tried to make a generalization about the nature of art that shall be at once true, coherent, and Comprehensible. I have sought a theory which should explain the whole of my aesthetic experience and suggest a solution of every problem, but I have not attempted to answer in detail all the questions that proposed themselves or to follow any one of them along its slenderest ramifications.
The science of aesthetics is a complex proposition and so is the history of art; my hope has been to write about them something simple and true. For instance, though I have indicated very clearly, and even repetitiously, what I take to be essential in a work of art, I have not discussed as fully as I might have done the relation of the essential to the unessential. There is a great deal more to be said about the mind of the artist and the nature of the artistic problem.
It remains for someone who is an artist, a psychologist, and an Expert in human limitations to tell us how far the unessential is a necessary means to the essential — to tell us whether it is easy or difficult or impossible for the artist to destroy every rung in the ladder by which he has climbed to the stars.
Here I have identified a series of historical generalizations to illustrate my theory; and here, again, I believe in my theory, and I am persuaded that anyone who will consider the history of art in its light will find that history more intelligible than of old.
At the same time I willingly admit that in fact, the contrasts are less violent, the hills less precipitous, than they must be made to appear in a chart of this sort. Doubtless, it would be well if this article also were expanded into half a dozen readable essays; but that it cannot be until the learned authorities have learned to write, or some writer has learned to be patient.
Those conversations and discussions that have tempered and burnished the theories advanced and have passed on for the most part. I think, covets the doubtful honors of modernism. Surely whoever appreciates a fine work of art may be allowed the exquisite pleasure of supposing that he has made a discovery? Never-the-less, since all artistic theories are based on aesthetic judgments, it is clear that should one affect the judgments of another, he may affect, indirectly, some of his theories; and it is certain that some of the historical generalizations may have been modified, and even demolished.
Here is a link to my digital-art work: https://www.rameezqaiser.com
My Insta: https://www.instagram.com/sktcheristic/
