This picture has been somewhat intriguing to me. It has a particular aspect: it places the observer’s point of view in extreme evidence. The river water is almost at the level of the observer’s eye. In this sense I find very important the tuft of grass in the lower left: it is the grass that enters the field of view of the observer who is there, sitting on the grass. I mean, that grass tells me “You are there, you are sitting there, you are part of the landscape, because you are inside it”. It may also be because I spent long hours of meditation in similar environments and what I saw was very similar to this: the tuft of grass entering the perspective from under the eyes, inadvertently, the placid elements, the water almost at eye level. I would say that the real object of this painting is not the landscape, it is the observer. This painting is almost a mirror for the viewer. Other landscape paintings have the landscape as object, they are like postcards; here the landscape refers entirely to the subject, to me watching.
Another aspect that I notice is that in this picture no element makes a fuss, that is, no element imposes itself to our attention. The sun above looks shy, as to say that it doesn’t want to disturb us. The saplings express modesty, they do not intend to capture attention with flashy branches or particular shapes. This is what is called balance and is one of the qualities that is most difficult to achieve in any kind of artwork. Instead, I find the reflections accentuated, compared to what one would expect from a painting inspired by reality; but here I see a play on words, as if the artist was telling me: thinking is important; the reflection refers me to my unconscious, to what is under and within water.
I also see a vague presence of the dark, of evil, but very disguised: the mountains on the right are mountains from a rational point of view, because they are on the ground, but in the way they are kneaded they look like clouds swollen with angry bad weather; but our rationality does not notice it, because it sees that they are at the bottom and therefore considers that they are mountains. It is no coincidence that they are opposed to the timid sun, as evil is opposed to good.
Two main colors stand out: the green of the vegetation and the orange, which can be of sunrise or sunset. The green is quite unbalanced towards a dark warm that connects to the orange of the sunset; even the orange is not very bright: we have colors here that do not intend to be invasive, they don’t want to draw attention, they have all intention of contributing to silence.
The clouds at the top, despite being actually light in their color, in their shape, in the impression they give us of running downwards, towards the head of the spectator, look like threat, they seem ghosts coming out of an unknown world to bring bad news.
The complex, however, appears to be soothing, especially for that allusion down there, far away, who knows what lies beyond that curve of the river, certainly hopes, possibilities of other unknown silences.
Additional notes
A particular reference to the subject, that is, like bouncing a ball back to the one who threw it, can be found in Jesus. Frequently, in the Gospel, the essence of what he says he says is “Look at yourself”. For example, there is the law that says “Certain things have be done this way”, but the law does not save you. Look at yourself, you are interpreting the law. There is the sacred, there is the sacrifice, but you are the one who is making the sacrifice, look at yourself. This is attention towards the subject, that is to say, as if there were a journey through the whole world, through history, through the universe, which little by little discovers more and more the importance of directing attention to the one who thinks, to ourselves, to the one who is looking at things, rather than to the world, how it is made, how it works, how things are.
We can find an opposite tendency in nature, because, if we observe nature, especially from a scientific point of view, we can notice that it is based on strength, the law of the strongest, the law of survival, and therefore nature seems to aim more at objectivity, because it is objectivity that gives you strength, it is the analysis of the situation that allows you to prey, to catch the victim and feed on it.
At this point, one could say “Yes, okay, I understand, and now what to do, now what do I have to do?”. We can notice that this very question “What to do?” can be unmasked as a question that again refers to objectivity and therefore distances one from oneself, because “doing” means identifying something objective to do, something material, something that I put in front of myself, I do it and I say “I have done it”. Therefore, we cannot even ask ourselves “What to do?”. The question would arise “But what to do, precisely, if we cannot even ask ourselves what to do?”.
We can add another observation. I myself, who am writing these things on subjectivity, I am already objectifying it, I am making it a topic to talk about and therefore I am in a certain sense betraying it. Those who respect subjectivity a little more are the artists, who do not talk about subjectivity, but they present it as it is, through a much more subjective and much less objective language, because an artist tells me how they see things and invites me to consider how I see things. However, there is not a formula, there is no stable solution, we cannot say “Do this and the subject will be respected”, precisely because that doing would actually be an objectivation.
What is the way then? We can consider that, in any case, objectification, the mentality of Greek philosophy, can no longer be eliminated, because we carry it with us. So, rather than orienting ourselves completely towards the subject, we need to identify the best ways to create a synthesis, to establish a dialogue, to relate subjectivity and objectivity. I believe the best way is a dynamic way, that is, a journey to continuously find the best ways of relating subjectivity and objectivity.
What have we discovered now, where have we arrived? We have arrived at having increasingly identified the work to be done. The work to be done turns out to be this one: to cultivate within ourselves the best contexts, to follow the best paths, to relate in the best way subjectivity and objectivity, or exchange between subjects: I give you my subject, as it is, and you give me your subject; there is also an exchange of objectivity, because we also make use of reasoning. Spirituality, with its way of being, has a lot to say, because, if, for example, there is this way of reflecting, trying to approach the subject, as I am also doing while reasoning, there is a context for reflection that can be created. That is, not all ways of reflecting are the same. There is reflection done in contemplation, in silence, in concentrating, meditation, and there is reflection which instead is with blinders on, unilateral, which wants to dominate, etc. Spirituality, being critical and self-critical, suggests that creating these contexts helps the best dialogue between subjectivity and objectivity. This is the path of art, another great teacher, to educate us not to lose sight of attention to subjectivity, without dragging us into deceptions that actually objectify, such as the question “What to do?” or many other investigations, which are also philosophical, but still objectify everything.
Leave A Comment