Art and Spirituality

[dwai]

My friend, who is an amazing visual artist, and I often chat about the nature of art and its association with spirituality. 

 

On the surface, it seems like Art is very easy to define, but really, what is it? Is art the outcome of the creative expression of an individual (or group)? Is it a symbolic representation of an idea/concept/emotion/feeling?

 

How would you describe Art? Some people have very strict guidelines for what constitutes art, such as, "A painting of can of tomato soup is not art", while a painting of a landscape is, and so on. But, I find that they are usually ascribing a qualitative value to the said entity (work of art) -- meaning, in their mind, a painting of a can of tomato soup does not qualify as "good" art, while a painting of a landscape does. The artist painting that can of soup, could have been as inspired to paint it as the one who painted the landscape. There might have been a motivation beyond just transferring a visual presentation of that can of tomato soup on canvas on part of the former.

 

But it seems to me that 'art' is not necessarily rooted in the human mind, so much as interpreted by the mind on to the medium of expression (martial. music, canvas, photography, poetry, literature, etc). And while artists might lay claim to what was produced as "my art", it really is an expression of an energetic/spiritual transmission (if I can use that word) that lies outside the realm of the mind. 

 

Art evokes feelings/emotions, but beneath that evocation, there is a deeper truth that can be exposed, if one stays with their experience (of a work of art) long enough. Someone might have a profoundly "spiritual" experience with it.

 

This is something my teachers often used to tell me -- when "doing" the taiji form, we should 'get out of our own way' and let the power/spirit perform the form. Let it be transformed from mental activity to the movement of energy. We can sometimes see that when a really advanced taijiquan practitioner goes through his/her form -- even on video. The sum of the process is greater than the individual parts that go into it. A great sense of tranquility is evoked in the viewer, as well as the practitioner. 

 

Abhinavagupta, a great scholar, aesthete, and spiritual master of the Kashmir Shaivism tradition wrote at length about this topic. 

The full article is here -- https://www.ikashmir.net/abhinavagupta/article4.html

Quote

Rasa--roughly translated: "as emotive aesthetics" - is one of the most important concept in classical Indian aesthetics, having pervasive influence in theories of painting, sculpture, dance, poetry, and drama. Rasa theory argues that the presentation of emotions is the proper object and domain of poetic discourse. Bharata in  Natyashastra his pioneering work on Indian dramatics mentions eight rasas and says  Rasa is produced when  ‘Vibhaava’, Anubhava and Vyabhichari bhava come together.

Vibhavanubhava-vyabhicari-samyogat Rasa nispattih (Rasa Sutra, Natyasastra)

Vibhava: A medium through which an emotion arises in an actor e.g. A child riding a stick and enjoying it as if he were actually riding a horse

Anubhava: All the physical changes arising due to the vibhavas e.g. changes in facial expression and body language

Vyahicari bhava: Transient emotions e.g. weeping with joy

The language of feelings is not a private language; it is more a system of symbols, a language game that is understood by those who have learned its conventions and usages. Emotions treated in a poem are neither the projections of the reader's own mental states nor the private feelings of the poet; rather, they are the objective situations abiding in the poem as its cognitive content. Rasa is understood as residing in the situational factors presented in an appropriate language. A poet chooses a theme because he sees a certain promise for developing its emotional possibilities and exploits it by dramatizing its details.

The adherents of rasa theory believed rasa, to be the meaning of the poetic sentence but they had different ideas about the definition of art.

Abhinavabharati a commentary on Bharata's Natyasastra talks about these scholars and comments on their  theories. Bhatta Lollata believed art to be an imitation of reality. His views were contested by Sri Sankuka who stated that art cannot be an imitation simply because it exists in a different place and time. Further he explained his point of view by giving the analogy of a pictorial horse (chitaraturaganyaya). He says when one sees a horse painted one doesn’t mistake it for the original horse but one sees it as the representation of the original horse and thus derives the aesthetic pleasure through this identification. Since art cannot imitate all the qualities of the original subject hence it is just an inference and not an imitation. BhattaTauta, Abhinavagupta's teacher, raised a valid question regarding the imitation of the mental state. According to him there is no way an actor can feel and react in exactly the same way as the original character. The actor presents his feelings i.e. how he would react if put in the original characters position. Hence art cannot be inferred but depends on the imagination of the spectator.

Abhinavagupta though agrees to many of the suggestions put forward by Rasa theory also points at its various limitations. According to him art is not just  about evoking certain feelings but a real work of art in addition to possessing emotive charge needs to have a strong sense of suggestion and capacity to produce various meanings. This is where he refers to Dhvanivada. He says that for a work of art it is not enough to be having abhida (literal meaning) and laksana (metaphorical meaning ) but it should also possess Vyanjana the suggested meaning which has absolutely nothing to do with the other two levels of meaning. Thus an aesthetic experience cannot be experienced like any ordinary mundane experience. A true aesthetic object does not simply stimulate the senses but also stimulates the imagination of the spectator. Once the imagination is stimulated the spectator aesthete gets transported to a world of his own creation. This emotion deindividualises an individual by freeing him from those elements which constitute individuality such as place, time etc. and raises him to the level of universal. Thus art is otherworldly or Alaukika in its nature.

One of the major passage in which he dwells on alaukikatva is:

“When a man hears the words: ’A son is born to you’ joy is produced (through the power of denotation - abhida). But the suggested sense (rasa and the like) is not produced the way joy is produced in the above case. Nor does it come about through the secondary usage (laksana, gunavrtti, bhakti). But it arises in a sensitive man (sahrdaya - a man who is sensitive to literature )through his knowledge of vibhavas and anubhava, because of his hrdaya-samvada (sympathetic response) and his tanmayibhava (identification). It is vilaksana (different) from ordinary awareness of happiness etc. and it is not an objective thing”    Dhvaynalokalocana, p.79

In this passage he points out clearly that the vibhavas do not correspond to any karana (reason) in case of art like they do in everyday life. They make the relish of Rasa possible and hence exist at a different plane altogether.

Abhinavagupta turned his attention away from the linguistic and related abstractions which had preoccupied even Anandavardhana, focussing his attention instead on the human mind, specifically the mind of the reader or viewer of a literary work. The first step in Abhinavagupta's project involved the recognition that the theory of rasadhvani, could not be understood as a theory of abstract linguistic structure. Rather, it only made sense as a theory of the way people respond to literature. In other words, rasadhvani had to be conceived in psychological terms. According to this system the reader becomes the central focus of literary criticism. The aim of kavya is to give pleasure , but this pleasure must not bind the soul to the body.

Thus he attributed the state of divinity to arts and considered Shanta Rasa as the ultimate Rasa. According to him the pleasure one derives out of a real work of art is no less than divine pleasure. As one has to constantly struggle and detach oneself to reach the Almighty similarly a true connoisseur of arts has to learn to detach the work from its surroundings and happenings and view it independently, e.g. the feeling that might bring pain in real life is capable of causing pleasure in an art form. The great success of Greek tragedies can be attributed to the pleasure it aroused in the spectators and brought about the emotional Catharsis (purging out).

In his Dhvanyaloka Anandavardhana observes: “In the province of poetry (creative literature) obviously standards of truth and falsity have no relevance. Any attempt to find out or discover whether a poem (or any literary composition) is true or false by employing means of valid cognition leads to ridicule alone” Abhinavagupta comments on it: “Such a person will be ridiculed as follows: He is not able or competent to appreciate aesthetic experience or his mind has become (truly) hard by indulging in dry logic.” 

Thus he asserts that the “willful suspension of disbelief” is a prerequisite for enjoying any art form. The moment one starts questioning it or doubting it and looking at it objectively it loses its charm and status and becomes equivalent to any mundane object. One enjoys a play only when one can identify the character as the character from the drama and not as ones friend or associate. For the time that the drama goes on the character should take over the actor in a spectators mind i.e. the spectator should rise above the worldly connections and try to experience the supernatural aspect of art which has nothing to do with the worldly concerns.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by dwai

[natural]

Great art is like great porn.

I know it when I see it

One feels it, or not.

It creates thought, emotion, andpassion in an individual?

For better or worse.

 

I know personally what piques my interest.

Such a subjective topic...

Timeless in so many ways!

 

"Isn't willful suspension of disbelief" a big part of life?

By default, if not by choice by nature, from time to time?

 

The supernatural, or nature by default, is scary, no?

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 And while artists might lay claim to what was produced as "my art", it really is an expression of an energetic/spiritual transmission (if I can use that word) that lies outside the realm of the mind. 

 

 

I´m not sure human beings really possess anything in the end.  Artists work to become conduits of the artistic impulse, but what comes through does not belong to them or anyone else.  Art is that which cannot be possessed.  It stands apart, inviolate, independent, transcendent, much like spirit itself.

Edited January 30, 2021 by liminal_luke

[dwai]

28 minutes ago, natural said:

The supernatural, or nature by default, is scary, no?

Is it? Why?  

 

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Art is that which cannot be possessed.  It stands apart, inviolate, independent, transcendent, much like spirit itself.

That’s as beautiful a description as any I’ve seen. 

[natural]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Is it? Why?  

 

 

Because we have lost our innocence?

Burnt by the fire, etc...

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, natural said:

 

Because we have lost our innocence?

Burnt by the fire, etc...

Is it always scary? Nature is also beautiful and transcendent