There is no doubt that Photography is an Arts.Albeit saying what an art is or better what it is not does not seem as easy as the concept states.A three-lettered word. Yet not asking the question about what art is seems to be a very difficult thing not to do when practicing it.I think this is because of its spiritual nature. There is a lot of good research on arts ( arts history , arts techniques , arts consumption, arts practice, philosophy , psychology, sociology, anthropology of arts) , I will not mention or rather I will do as much as possible to be innocent with respect to this savoir.The reason for this attitude is because of the essence of Arts.
In my view point Arts is intimately linked to the life world and psyche of the artist.It is in a Freudian sense , the id , the ego , and the superego of humanity of the individual. I know I said I will do efforts not to be scientific while doing arts :). Experientially , I can affirm that all forms of mental productions obey a certain pattern unique to the individual producing it.Arts is anything a person produces using his or her senses and other external media with the intentional or non intentional desire to communicate with the other, and/or to experience pleasure.It is a first order knowledge.So is science.Because Arts is associated to beauty , naturally, at times seems not scientific.The artist's art work or mental productions is his blue print.A print which follows the patterns of the structure and organization of the person's mind. Therefore arts is science because of its logic , its methods and methodology.The very paradox , ambivalence , contradiction arts poses is inherent to the way in which we see the world.
My encounter with photography (a type of art) was from the onset imposed unto me by circumstances but gradually it permeated my soul and with time I merged with her to form one and the same thing.It took time for me to be conscious of my love for her but it became clear when I realized I could not live without her.Are my saying that a measure of love is the capacity of been capable of loosing one's life for the object of love? What do you think? In all cases this marriage is out of love and nothing else.My love for photography , for her, and Arts, has no boundaries.Why should photography be female? And her mother Arts? I do not know why I am asking these questions,perhaps an inherent scientific nature.Determinism , the scientific spirit.Explaining my love for photography and arts is in itself a mating process with Arts.The creative process and the exposure to the creative processes of others, artists. There is no marriage if both parties do not consume it by their physical union, which in most cases is materialized and evidenced by the coming of an offspring which resembles ( a child is his parent, for the child is the father of man) his parents.Thus our ( photography and I) offspring are everywhere and are coming in numbers.Arts is complex and as soon as you take one of her daughters you cannot resist the rest.She is so beautiful so are they too.I am still discussing with Arts to see if I can marry a few more of her daughters.Arts is so rigorous on this issue.Giving life to the inanimate , showing other sides of the same thing, probing into the essence of things, going beyond the appearances , stretching to the sublime are just a few of my artistic objectives. There is no arts without science and technology.Therefore , all is a monism interestingly.Thus a deep source of insight for everything possible.
In sum this is just a prelude to my live experiences with Arts , and Photography.I was wondering while writing , which word in any language expresses the fact that a man is in love with the Mother of his wife so as with his wife too.Is this a moral issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment