The lack of adequate knowledge usually causes emotions of bitterness, but also of sadness and, at best, humility, in the person who feels this void. Of course, this presupposes an elementary intelligence and a respect towards knowledge itself, as a value.

The obvious consequence is that this person respects those who have the competencies he lacks and, again at best, the continual desire to fill in the gap in his knowledge.

All this is reasonable and given, until we approach the field of art, where all the aforesaid is reversed. Here, the knowledge-deprived person feels first of all that the field of art was invented (by who knows what obscure circles) in order to diminish him, both socially and spiritually. In other words, in the field of inequalities art replaces the aristocracy or, later, wealth as lever of class discrimination. For someone who in the nineteenth century made considerable effort and came a long way towards abolishing the aristocratic prepositions of names and in the twentieth century even greater efforts to redistribute wealth, art cannot come to degrade him once again in. Basic intelligence is no longer adequate protection. And it is a known fact that excess intelligence is rare.

The usual and no longer self-evident reaction in the above case is for the person who lacks knowledge to disrespect the knowledgeable one, but rather to envy him and usually blatantly to compete with and undermine him. And there is no mention of filling in the gaps in his knowledge, since this would imply that he acknowledges his inadequacy. In addition, even the ignorant is ready to follow a specific educational course, provided it resembles the procedures he already knows and in the end ensures the right recipe and the official certificate of knowledge. However, since even the ignorant understands that artistic culture is continuous, endless, uncertain and not evidenced by certificates or guaranteed by specific recipes, he prefers either to take advantage of this peculiarity by pretending to have the necessary knowledge, or to doubt completely the need for such knowledge.

Things are even worse when it comes to photography and cinema. It has become common practice to call them contemporary arts, even though in the art world this term does not have a fixed meaning because the mainstream tends continually to discover new, that is even newer techniques, which will replace them. However, these new or newer arts do not have the privilege of respect that comes with time. On the other hand, they give the illusion of familiarity through their daily presence in all areas of society, public and private. But above all they are based on our most reliable sense, vision. If people “do not believe their own eyes” as an ultimate expression of disbelief, how can we expect, the viewer of an artistic photograph or film to admit this, when it would mean inter alia an admission of ignorance?

There, sorrow gives way to rage. Intelligence disappears and the desire to fill in the gaps is not even addressed. One may agree to have his eyes operated on, but not to cultivate his gaze. Ignorance became rage. And rage always leads to absolute blindness.

The only observation that might help someone entangled in the vicious circle of ignorance and rage is that the precondition for someone to see clearly is humility, which comes with ever deeper knowledge. Then perhaps one can also attain pleasure, since absolute knowledge is impossible anyway.