Art in its own terms is a whole different genre. We just can't confine Art into the limitations of just a subject. The importance of Art differs in everyone's context, that's for sure, but we cannot deny the concept of assimilation of Art into our everyday life. We knowingly or unknowingly are addicted to one form of Art or another. The vastness of Art as a term is itself so huge, that to even try to comprehend it or summarize it seems like a daunting task. Now when we talk about teaching every thing, every skill, every shred of knowledge we possess has been taught to us either by people (be it parents, teachers, friends etc.) or by nature or by our social surroundings. Even our reactions to circumstances or situations are not our own, but the learnings or perceptions we develop over time from everything we encounter. Similarly Art is something we form a fascination for and then try to learn it. Art diversifies into many various forms like Performing Art, Fine Art, Performance Art, New Media Art etc., but the thing i am addressing here is Fine Art.
Even when we use the term Fine or Visual Art it is to broadly categorize the numerous types that falls under Fine Art. Art has been a part of our living since the starting of the time, as long back as we can trace human life. There are multiple proofs of Art in one form or another in various caves, temples, architecture. Art is something which has travelled along with some things from the starting of mankind till date. But what makes Art even more interesting is the fact that it came even before language. Art gave early man the medium to communicate much before the languages or a proper verbal communication was developed. As time progressed Art also progressed along with every other thing. The progression in culture and societies worldwide brought revolutionary artists who then trained other pool of artists, with every Artist learning from his/her teacher and surroundings formed more new techniques and styles. But is it justifiable to say all this happened with ease. We need to understand that when we talk about Art we are not just talking about pretty paintings, sculptures, prints etc. Art is a mixture of skills along with the Artists perception of his/her surroundings. The major factor can be socio-political environment for some, it can be nature for some, it can be family and friends for some or it can be just their thoughts for some. But one teacher cannot control such perceptions of his/her students. Skills can be taught, not perceptions. A good teacher can help you decipher your perceptions or guide the way you understand everything but can't simply put such perceptions in your mind.
I come from India, home of one of the oldest civilization and home to the oldest ancient texts on Art. The way we perceived Art was very different from Western Culture. Western concept of Art was very rational and materialistic in nature, whereas Indian concept was very spiritual in nature. Of course with the modern technology nowadays, we have access to many historical texts and biographies of Artists which has led to amalgamation of thoughts and approach between Western and Indian Art. But with respect to teaching, Indian concept was very much reliant on spirituality and soul, as much of our Art was done for glorification of temples or worship places. We gave the world an idea of Art which was not just based on skills but on spirituality, a need to find a connection within which guided our path, which stressed upon making the Art as a medium to display your inner soul. So how could we achieve such spiritual knowledge to travel this much. That's why when we are talking about teaching Art its not just about teaching how to hold a pencil and draw. Art may not be comparable to other subjects, but teaching has some similarities. Remember how we are taught grammer for languages, similarly to teach Art skills, Art grammer is required which is a certain set of rules implied on Art. That understanding of Grammer is necessary as it involves understanding of colours, forms, shapes, textures, spaces and much more. But again that grammer can help us to tone our skills but not to connect to our soul and understand our perceptions.
See, we can find numerous definitions of Art in various books or online, with some saying one things and some saying other. But Art is not just bound in some statements or set of rules which can be stated just true and perfect. In maths/science we have formulas, theorems etc. which defines the whole purpose of subject. In languages we have lipi/scripts and grammer within which lies complete essence of a language. In computer we have codes and digital language systems to define its working. But when we study or teach Art we not only teach how to hold a pencil/brush or how to mix paint or how to hold a chisel or how to hit a stone, we are also taught how to feel that brush/pencil stroke, that chisel hit, how to search within and create Art which comes from our understanding, experience and perception. It might not sound as practical as a maths theorem solving real life problems or science helping to create medications or code running behind a computer program, but it is one of the few things which makes us feel lively, connected and empathetic.
I would love to hear everyone's views and take on this, so that we can try to build a healthy dialogue around this topic. It is not a necessity that only persons who pursue Art can talk or comment on this topic.
Even when we use the term Fine or Visual Art it is to broadly categorize the numerous types that falls under Fine Art. Art has been a part of our living since the starting of the time, as long back as we can trace human life. There are multiple proofs of Art in one form or another in various caves, temples, architecture. Art is something which has travelled along with some things from the starting of mankind till date. But what makes Art even more interesting is the fact that it came even before language. Art gave early man the medium to communicate much before the languages or a proper verbal communication was developed. As time progressed Art also progressed along with every other thing. The progression in culture and societies worldwide brought revolutionary artists who then trained other pool of artists, with every Artist learning from his/her teacher and surroundings formed more new techniques and styles. But is it justifiable to say all this happened with ease. We need to understand that when we talk about Art we are not just talking about pretty paintings, sculptures, prints etc. Art is a mixture of skills along with the Artists perception of his/her surroundings. The major factor can be socio-political environment for some, it can be nature for some, it can be family and friends for some or it can be just their thoughts for some. But one teacher cannot control such perceptions of his/her students. Skills can be taught, not perceptions. A good teacher can help you decipher your perceptions or guide the way you understand everything but can't simply put such perceptions in your mind.
I come from India, home of one of the oldest civilization and home to the oldest ancient texts on Art. The way we perceived Art was very different from Western Culture. Western concept of Art was very rational and materialistic in nature, whereas Indian concept was very spiritual in nature. Of course with the modern technology nowadays, we have access to many historical texts and biographies of Artists which has led to amalgamation of thoughts and approach between Western and Indian Art. But with respect to teaching, Indian concept was very much reliant on spirituality and soul, as much of our Art was done for glorification of temples or worship places. We gave the world an idea of Art which was not just based on skills but on spirituality, a need to find a connection within which guided our path, which stressed upon making the Art as a medium to display your inner soul. So how could we achieve such spiritual knowledge to travel this much. That's why when we are talking about teaching Art its not just about teaching how to hold a pencil and draw. Art may not be comparable to other subjects, but teaching has some similarities. Remember how we are taught grammer for languages, similarly to teach Art skills, Art grammer is required which is a certain set of rules implied on Art. That understanding of Grammer is necessary as it involves understanding of colours, forms, shapes, textures, spaces and much more. But again that grammer can help us to tone our skills but not to connect to our soul and understand our perceptions.
See, we can find numerous definitions of Art in various books or online, with some saying one things and some saying other. But Art is not just bound in some statements or set of rules which can be stated just true and perfect. In maths/science we have formulas, theorems etc. which defines the whole purpose of subject. In languages we have lipi/scripts and grammer within which lies complete essence of a language. In computer we have codes and digital language systems to define its working. But when we study or teach Art we not only teach how to hold a pencil/brush or how to mix paint or how to hold a chisel or how to hit a stone, we are also taught how to feel that brush/pencil stroke, that chisel hit, how to search within and create Art which comes from our understanding, experience and perception. It might not sound as practical as a maths theorem solving real life problems or science helping to create medications or code running behind a computer program, but it is one of the few things which makes us feel lively, connected and empathetic.
I would love to hear everyone's views and take on this, so that we can try to build a healthy dialogue around this topic. It is not a necessity that only persons who pursue Art can talk or comment on this topic.
