The Alpha Seer understanding true art

February 7, 2010


Filed under: Citizens of Art Respond,Understanding Art — MASTER BEN LAU @ 10:10 am

Nothing is more effective as a pointer, or more nourishing to the soul, than exposing a child to calligraphic greatness before he can understand what artistic greatness is.

According to the academics, the “conventional wisdom” claims that a sense of beauty with regard to art is non-relative and non-objective. They claim that everything about art is so abstract! They claim that art is never specific, nor concrete.  Such “conventional wisdom” may indeed hold true if you don’t know who to ask about artistic greatness! At an academic setting, the art professor, who is essentially a blind man himself, — hee, …., of course that person cannot answer your question on artistic greatness,– the poor guy cannot even tell you what art is!
There is nothing more concrete in the world,– more relative or more objective, than true art ! For that reason, it is crucial for you to let the Alpha Seer crush the so-called “conventional wisdoms” into “conventional stupidity!”
It is important to shatter all superstitions and mental conditionings before one can rise to greater things, so one may safely conclude that one’s mind has been duly liberated!
Such is the magic of Alpha Seeing!
With the aid of alpha seeing here,–do challenge your professor,– or any academic for that matter,– (since not all professors are mediocre, ) who blindly preaches that art is absolute and subjective.
Stupidity is in all forms of mental conditioning!
Art is comparative, according to the Alpha Seer,– thus it is possible to establish the objectivity, relativity and concreteness in art,–which are not obvious to the blind.
Through this comparison, therefore, have your own “examination” of art by comparison as a first step….
Here are two of the greatest Chinese calligraphers of all times, Chao Mang-fu and Wang Hsi-chih. Let us assume Wang’s calligraphy is relatively greater than Chao’s as a first step, then with the Alpha Seer’s seeing as a guidance, allow your own critical sense to develop from there.
1. Wang’s art appears to have much greater variety, compared with Chao’s, in terms of composition, movements and balance.
2. Chao’s metaphors are extremely handsome, and his mastery of the brush, in coordination with the use of  ink, utterly superb. However, there is a constant self-consciousness in Chao’s calligraphy, which is hardly detectable in Wang’s, whose sublime wrist had moved like powerful whirlwinds,–anything within its influence cannot but obey and dance in the rhythm that it improvised.
3. The variety in the metaphor creativity,– with Wang,– it is so absolutely natural and unchallenged!
4. Neither Wang nor Chao resorts to a personal “style”, or any personal characteristic in order to appear outstanding. There is nothing particularly unique in appearance, nor anything outstanding in the styling of their metaphors,–but that casualness,– that simplicity, or primitiveness in appearance, one without cosmetic effect or artificiality, is precisely what has generated the pleasantness and deliciousness for the feasting eyes of spectators for thousands of years. While others rely on a certain trademark to announce their presence, by smartly demonstrating a streak of inventiveness, for example, — neither Wang nor Chao had left us anything with such artificiality or mental quaintness,–one really should be thankful for that!
Figure 1: The great calligraphy of Chao Mang-fu
Figure 2: The great calligraphy of Wang Hsi-chih
Needless to say, the examination you have just gone through is that of two attitudes of art. Now will you still insist, like the  academics, that art is not specific, non concrete, non relative, and subjective? — THE ALPHA SEER

Powered by WordPress