Saturday, April 23, 2005

On Art-appreciation

Blogger’s Note:- I’m currently reading, inter alia, Durant’s Story of Philosophy (yes, I know I should’ve read it much earlier, so sue me), so pardon the spillover effects of OD’ing on philosophical stuff, such as the boring-ass-sounding blog title and the accompanying brain-dump.


So I was in the thick of the section on Kant discussing esthetics, when my mind went off on a tangent about the bewildering variance from person to person, in the allure of different art forms. More specifically, it got me wondering whether one is born-with/wired-to-like the type of art form(s) that one finds appealing. In some cases, it is readily apparent: for instance, one needs a refined palate to become an oenophile. Not so apparent with others that one might pick up much later in life, as is the case with me and my passions – books (didn’t touch one until I was 14), movies (discovered my voracious appetite for them as late as about 3 years ago), and more recently, photography (months-old). The way I see it, it’s a curious concoction of mental-makeup, the experiences that shape it, and the timing of the introduction.

Obviously, I am not referring to the ones one gets sucked into by peer pressure. Or maybe those too – one might be wired to be part of the herd. But what I am really fascinated by are the ones that are, like I said, Passions – things you would/could seek joy in, despite all else. Despite the individual variance in tastes, I see a surprising similitude not only in the behavioral manifestations of various passions but also in the underlying patterns governing them. Typical -phile qualities include any/all of: a well-honed discerning instinct, a constant recognition of the life-affirming qualities of that particular art-form, an almost conceited disdain for popular tastes in the same, and an insatiable appetite for related trivia. On the other hand, all art-forms are characterized by a resolute refusal to be pinned down by the exacting influences of science. Every one of them is a unified and evolving duality of static (rules/science) and dynamic (creativity). And it is probably this enigmatic duality that makes its -philes idolize it as the basis/philosophy of life, in the first place. Like pieces of a hologram, each of them is an exact likeness of the life they imitate.

Just the other day, I was trying to explain to a friend why I loved the movie ‘Sideways’, so much. She obviously hated it. Among other things, the movie’s about an oenophile throwing a week-long wine-tour of a bachelor party to a friend who’s getting hitched soon, through California’s wine country. Watching a chap animatedly elaborating on his passion(s) is quite a joy, I must say. And I think it is that underlying likeness among arts and the ways in which we appreciate them, that helps us identify with him so readily…

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why a person gets passionate about something. I hate getting conscious about my passions. Any comments oh sire.

11:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home