A month ago, I found myself on an uncomfortable receiving end with my professor in Humanities as what should've been a simple recitation turned into a debate. Humanities is a minor subject (I still can't get over the fact that they didn't offer Humanities and Rizal when we were in AHSE) so my classmates and I don't take it that seriously when we attend. But it's for the same reason that I told myself that I have to excel at the subject, for I'd be damned if it will be the one which will drag my GWA to the drain.
So we were given our first assignment. Our professor asked us to search for a definition of art and be able to explain it in our own words. I was kinda nervous the next day for he seems very discontented with the answers of my classmates. It seemed to me that boring a hole on people's head to make them understand and believe that they're the stupid ones and he's the smart one is an essential part of his everyday life. I can't blame him, really. He's a Graduate in Liberal Arts, Major in Philosophy and he'll lose his mind if he'll end up being debunked by students who do nothing but take vital signs and interview patients.
He was even at the verge of being arrogant when he started boasting his degree and belittling the one we're pursuing. He gave us this article entitled "Shakespeare or Petroleum" which pretty much sizes up art and science. He then told us that we study for practical reasons, while people like him does it to be "liberated" (that made me laugh, looking at him). He said that science is about boring, objective facts while art is for the pursue of truth. He went on and on that we told him that we will shift courses right away.
My turn finally came. I can vaguely recall my own definition, it goes like this:
"If art is a subject that affects beauty, and that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore is very subjective, then I'd say that art is the expression of feelings, emotions, principles and ideas in such fashion that it is open to the interpretation of other people."
I sighed a breath of relief when he stayed sitting without saying anything quiet. But as I move to take my seat, he told me if I he can ask me a question. I said yes, and he asked me if I really believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I take the saying as a cliche, but nevertheless it is true in every sense, so I said yes. He then asked me a question that made my soul leave it's body: what if the person is blind?
I literally turned at my classmate and muttered: What the fuck? I was really dumbfounded but I was able to gather my senses (for the sake of my sinful pride) and said that beauty can't only be appreciated through sight. He said that I didn't get his point; he was asking what this: what if the person is uneducated? He then said that it renders the person's idea of beauty invalid. Beauty therefore, according to him, is objective.
I was actually pissed. I found myself on auto-pilot as I stood several times to counter his ideas. I told him that there is no concrete standards and norms that defines the nature of beauty. No matter how hard a famous artist worked on a painting or how something is made from silver or gold means nothing if it will translate as insignificant to the perceptions of other people. He then said that if that's so, if beauty is really in the eye of the beholder, then why do we have a general conformity to what is beautiful?
I told him that we have a general conformity to what is beautiful because of our collective perception. I cited as an example that a typical person's idea of a beautiful woman is someone who is tall, fair skinned and curvy. When people who have the same perception come together (like in a society), the tendency is that their perception will become dominant and will make that of other people seemingly wrong. But it is a fuckery, for we will be committing a certain fallacy if we will be leaning on a certain idea just because more people believe and agrees with it.
He continued talking about his ideas for the next hour and even at the next meeting. But I really didn't care. I didn't even listen. Not because I'm not open to the ideas of other people. No. It's because his idea is parallel to that of conforming to what society sees fit and normal. And there's nothing more that I hate than that.
What will the world be if even the little things like beauty will be defined by a specific law? What is the essence of us being rational if we will be collared at birth and made to follow what society sees as fit and righteous? I'm no graduate in arts, but I believe that having a standard to what is beautiful and not will make Picasso and Modigliani rise from their graves to strangle whoever said it.
Whether it's Mona Lisa or The Girl with the Pearl Earring, artworks will stand as bland as an empty canvass if it will not stimulate a feeling of admiration and establish an emotional connection with a person. That itself is subjective, for nobody experienced the same thing in life; the things that pull an emotional string in people varies widely. People will call an artwork beautiful, some will not, and you can't force those people to change their minds because your idea of beauty is shared by a specific majority. You can't do that. It's like offering people in a restaurant a meal that they did not order. It's no different from giving them shit on a platter.
And I was definitely taken aback by the notion of uneducated people having an invalid perception of beauty. I don't think that you have to be able to see half of the world for something to be beautiful in your eyes, and without someone taking that idea of yours away. I sometimes even envy those people who knew little, for even the simplest things in life can bring joy to them while others turn crazy searching the world for complex things that they think will make their lives beautiful.
This is taking too long, when I can make it short. So here it goes:
"There's nothing more evil in this world than the poison of collective perception that is settling deep within most of us. It takes away our freedom, our rationality and our individuality. It turns us to machine that mimics the lives of other people, when we should be pursuing ours. And worst, it builds walls that hinder us from understanding people whose outlook in life differs from our own."
It's a struggle for I have to sit at his class for a few more months. But I'm an advocate and a fighter of my own cause, so it will be interesting.
XOXO
Jerome

