I agree that the title might be infuriating or even offending because of the mildly bold statement. I should clarify, right at the outset, that I'm only talking about the famous three art-forms i.e., music, dance and painting, disregarding the rest of the 60-odd art forms. I know nothing about them, nor do I claim mastery in any of these. I'm simply a silent spectator of the musings of various artists and fartists alike. I'm just de-abstracting my impressions of these. That, I hope, qualifies me to rant. That and having a blog of my own.
Music, to me, is as simple as a succession of pleasing sounds. I might have to add that each individual sound needn't be pleasing at all. The notes on the higher octave of a violin are nearly as grating to the auditory system as an old printer trying to burn some ink onto a paper. It is in this sequence that the beauty lies. This idea is shared in the form of a raaga, which is a set of rules on the sequences of the notes and not the notes themselves. This, to me, seems to be the only art form which requires no prior knowledge of it, though a basic understanding can only enhance the euphoria it might create, in a sense that there is a better cognizance of what is to be paid more attention to.
I've been forced to attend the dance programs of various famous artists by parents and friends. Dance, to me, is a representation or portrayal of a scene. It is not an abstract set of attractive limb convulsions. The scene being described should be subjective to the perspective of the dancer. Thus a perfectly reasonable assumption that the same song or setting can be danced to in several ways. An inverse mapping on this leads to the condition that, the movements have to be understood to understand what the happenings are. This does sound like domain knowledge to me. This seems to be main reason for me to losing interest in that field.
Painting! Oh god! Someone please explicate (ELI5) what the hell happened to painting after the 19th century. No, seriously. That is not a rant, albeit a genuine question. I don't seem to understand what the mopping of colors onto canvas that usually results in a pukish looking montage of various shades of semi-random colors is supposed to mean or show.
Again, let the hatred flow!
Music, to me, is as simple as a succession of pleasing sounds. I might have to add that each individual sound needn't be pleasing at all. The notes on the higher octave of a violin are nearly as grating to the auditory system as an old printer trying to burn some ink onto a paper. It is in this sequence that the beauty lies. This idea is shared in the form of a raaga, which is a set of rules on the sequences of the notes and not the notes themselves. This, to me, seems to be the only art form which requires no prior knowledge of it, though a basic understanding can only enhance the euphoria it might create, in a sense that there is a better cognizance of what is to be paid more attention to.
I've been forced to attend the dance programs of various famous artists by parents and friends. Dance, to me, is a representation or portrayal of a scene. It is not an abstract set of attractive limb convulsions. The scene being described should be subjective to the perspective of the dancer. Thus a perfectly reasonable assumption that the same song or setting can be danced to in several ways. An inverse mapping on this leads to the condition that, the movements have to be understood to understand what the happenings are. This does sound like domain knowledge to me. This seems to be main reason for me to losing interest in that field.
Painting! Oh god! Someone please explicate (ELI5) what the hell happened to painting after the 19th century. No, seriously. That is not a rant, albeit a genuine question. I don't seem to understand what the mopping of colors onto canvas that usually results in a pukish looking montage of various shades of semi-random colors is supposed to mean or show.
Again, let the hatred flow!
No comments:
Post a Comment