Man,
it is often said, cannot live with food alone. It doesn't, however mean that he
can live without food. Similarly, he cannot live with "thinking" alone.
Nor can he live without "thinking". If a man lives only with thinking,
he could at the most evolve into a "rationalistic-analyst". But he cannot
acquire rasanubhuti - the art of experiencing the beauty of artifacts.
It means, if a man had only "intellect and knowledge", his ability to
experience ananda - "bliss" - remains dormant. He, therefore,
remains "incomplete". It is only when the ability to "think logically"
and the ability to "experience beauty" are in equilibrium that the man's
living becomes samagra - "full".
It
is from this samagra - "fullness of life" - that the acumen of
man for creation surfaces. And the "perfection" that emerges thus in
whatever creation that man attempts, becomes art. That's why Thomas Aquinas said:
"Art is simply a right method of doing things".
Art
is created by man. And man is also a social creature. Therefore art, to a great
extent, is the outcome of the society. But society is the creation of man as much
as art is the creation of man. Doesn't it therefore mean that society is the output
of art? Whether it is true or not, one thing is certain: art for its survival
and growth relies on the society as much as the society relies on art for its
sustainability. |
