Reality lurking inside spaces
September 27, 2009

A friend and I had a disagreement about what art is. She said, “Art is not always about painting a pretty picture or giving people a pleasant tune. Art must be free to convey the gamut of emotions, including the ones that make us uncomfortable.” We weren’t really disagreeing about art, it was something else. But I was struck by this claim which one hears everywhere.
There is nothing controversial about what she said, so far as it goes. I think of Rembrandt’s Blinding of Samson. (Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.) But this oft repeated formula has morphed into something about which we should be very suspicious. That art is sometimes about “uncomfortable things” has developed an equals sign. It’s become serious art = edgy/shocking/uncomfortable/indecent/violent/fill in negative value here.
Umm, I just don’t think so. True, nature is sometimes tooth and claw, but it’s also fields of daisies and sometimes it’s hamsters. As I wrote in the previous post, mathematicians find that nature leans toward the aesthetic. When it became fashionable to question whether beauty was necessary, somebody forgot to do the math — which is to say, no one said, “hold on there, not so fast, since when is creating beauty easy? Indeed, are we sure we even know what beauty IS?”
I find that painting a pretty picture is so darned difficult — I want to ask what sort of thing beauty is — how does one recognize it? You can respond to beauty in things and have beauty resist you to the nth degree when once you attempt to catch its likeness. Beauty is still a high calling. It’s still a hard gig to get. Many try, few succeed. It’s Everest. It’s a mirage. It’s a dream that fades upon waking.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears; and sometime voices,
That, if I then had wak’d after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me; that, when I wak’d,
I cried to dream again–
Caliban does himself fit perfectly into the art=ugliness formula but his cry, his dream, that’s all gauzy beauty-and-splendor floating in one’s gaze. When I look at my koi, I am stalking beauty. I know it’s out there in the world somewhere. I intend to persist. I will relentlessly search. The fishes have hid it around the edges of their shapes and inside the spaces that separate them from each other. Sometimes it peeks out from the corner where one shape intrudes upon another. Sometimes it catches you between layers of paint, between this-that-was-a-mistake and this-that-I-painted-above. In the lines, in the color patches, in the differences between big and little, in the topography of ideas and forms, beauty lives.
Like a hamster hidden inside a pile of wood shavings, like the most commonplace flower, like the plain daylight streaming, like the gnats hanging in the air, like so many other quite ordinary and decent and indifferent experiences, beauty lifts its head and gazes out into one’s face. I’m still going out on a limb, and I’ll define “art” as the electric and ephemeral contact with reality that happens by chance and by desire. Before I lumber off in search of edginess, I will stake my claim on ordinariness.
It’s hard to accept that somehow we trump reality.

September 28, 2009 at 3:05 am
It is a strange to feel one must make an argument for beauty but I know the feeling.
September 28, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I knew you would know, Paul, because there’s so much beauty in your work. AK
September 30, 2009 at 1:47 am
What a great essay you have written and I agree. There is not only beauty in ordinariness but also peace and happiness. On our death beds we will remember those ‘ordinary’ days with loved ones sharing meals and having a laugh.
September 30, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Thank you, Gabrielle, and it’s hard to give ordinariness its due. Life is so rich.
October 1, 2009 at 1:13 am
While a cliche, it’s still true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I’ve seen works in galleries that have been called art and purchased by friends for boatloads of money that in a million years I wouldn’t want to have to look at in my home.
I think there are all different kinds of art. There is beauty in edginess, beauty in the ordinary.
This discussion will be forever. In the meantime, I love your Koi painting.
October 1, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Carol,
It is indeed true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this is also why sometimes it’s the beholder that needs to change. And, well, of course the beholder does change. (Try not changing.) There is beauty in edginess and in ordinary things. But to be able to respond to beauty means something, and the response is not a finite event but part of a journey. We learn and life changes as we live it, and awareness to beauty changes.
And the discussion goes on forever, which is good. Those, like me, who love to yack endlessly, really appreciate this fact! Thank you for your kind words about the koi. This is a detail of the painting I’m currently finishing.
Aletha