On art
Art is a language. A language that allows to communicate things that ordinary languages don’t. Here’s how it works.
Alex is feeling something. He wants to communicate his feelings to Brian.
Alex is trying his best to describe his feelings.
However the only thing he manages to achieve is creating an idea of the feeling in Brian’s head. Brian does not share the feeling, does not feel the same. Instead all he has is a good description.
No matter how hard Alex tries, the feeling just does not spark in Brian’s heart. Even the most skilful descriptions don’t do the job. Mission failed.
Human language is an excellent tool to communicate thoughts and ideas, but using it in the same way to communicate feelings and emotions does not lead to the same great result.
Art bridges that gap by establishing a new line of communication – heart to heart. ■
P.S. Reddit fun #
There’s a post on Reddit – to be precise, hundreds of posts, but they are all really just one. The post shows a skilfully made, preferably a photorealistic, painting, next to a suprematist piece, most commonly Black Square. The caption next to the photorealistic thing says “This is Art”, and the one next to the Black Square says “This is not” (or “And this is crap” or similar).
These posts imply that skill is required to make art, or in their stronger form, that art is skill.
Partially, this is a definitions question. People are free to define “art” as “skill” if they wish. I’m talking about a different thing. If I go to a museum, to a concert, to a theatre – I want to feel something. I want to get what artist had to say without words, not analytically but emotionally. Of course, I admire the execution skill, but for me no feeling = no art.