Very often, art of all forms is dissected, scrutinized in ways that heaviest of ideas and motives are bestowed upon it and its making. I imagine this has been done by critics and the casual observer of art since the beginning of art itself. Perhaps this is because there is an unavoidable divide between the maker and the viewer. Often the viewer, especially in the case of older, historical works, is separated from the artist and their reasons for painting, by many barriers, not the least of which can be hundreds of years of time.
While I believe that art can, and sometimes should, evoke strong feelings and insight deep thoughts and even debate, I feel that it can be a messy business to attempt to bridge that gap of viewer and artist and declare one knows for certain the motivation and reasons that an artist created a given piece of art.
One case where I have run into this recently, is in a book about Paul Cezanne and his beautiful still lifes. The book is interesting, insightful, and well written, but it seems almost desperate in assigning very heavy meanings behind why Cezanne painted the subjects he did, most specifically, his apples.
Maybe Cezanne really did want to show the dichotomy between the finite earth and the infinite nature of the universe with his paintings of apples, but I suggest there is a chance that he simply had really convenient access to a steady supply of apples. Maybe he really enjoyed the way they tasted. Maybe he was pleased at how long they lasted on his counter as still life subjects, allowing him the time to finish a piece without rushing; bananas rot too quickly, and potatoes just don’t have the same panache as a shiny red apple. Perhaps he was a big fan of their colors, enjoyed their shape, was moved by the way the light bounced off the luster of their skin. Not to mention they would also be a convenient snack when he took a break to ponder how his painting was coming along. Maybe he didn’t need the apple to be anything other than an apple. He may have just liked the apple for what it was; that it was beautiful.
Some artists, including Cezanne - and I would like to think, myself – certainly do have very meaningful messages to relay with their pictures. But I dare to say that some artists, also including Cezanne and myself, also just find joy in creating a pretty picture. They get excited about the way a shadow falls across a piece of fabric, or the beautiful shape of an animal’s head. Sure, these things can be metaphors for our connections with one another, with the universe, or social commentaries, but they are also just really nice things to look at, making the artist wish to preserve them.
I like to think that both of these reasons for creating a drawing or painting are just as valid and important as the other. I think it is important to remember that we can appreciate art for its beauty and the way we enjoy how it looks, how it makes us feel. And it doesn’t have to be any deeper than that. In this incredibly overcomplicated world, it is okay to take a moment to enjoy something for being beautiful and nothing more. It’s okay to let things just be as they are and take them as they come, letting them affect us in a way that feels special and genuine to us, without the need to make them more. The beauty of them is enough. The enjoyment of this beauty is enough. There is no need make something more complicated to be considered relevant or worthy of being enjoyed.
I hope that the next time you look at a piece of art, something in nature, a beautifully designed car, or the way the sunlight is coming through a window, you allow it to just be. Allow its beauty to wash over you without the need to be more. Resist the urge to make it more than it is, resist the urge to complicate it. Just appreciate it. Sometimes, we can find solace in the peacefulness of just allowing something beautiful to be beautiful.