August 2010
The lack of sufficient knowledge typically causes the person who feels this void to experience feelings sometimes of bitterness, sometimes of sorrow, and, in the best case, humility. This, of course, presupposes a certain intelligence and a respect for knowledge itself as a value.
The obvious consequence is that this person respects someone who possesses the proficiency they lack and, in the best case, fervently wishes to fill their knowledge gaps.
All this is logical and given until we approach the realm of art, where all the above is overturned. Here, the person lacking knowledge feels primarily that the domain of art has been invented (guess by which obscure circles) with the aim of diminishing him both socially and intellectually. In other words, art comes to replace, in the realm of inequalities, the aristocracy or, later, wealth, as a lever of class distinctions. For someone who has made a long journey and similar efforts throughout the last century to abolish the aristocratic pretensions of names and just as much effort and struggle in the past century to redistribute wealth, it cannot be that art in this century degrades him again. Elementary intelligence is no longer enough to protect him. And excessive intelligence is known to be rare.
The usual, and no longer self-evident, reaction in the above case is for the one lacking knowledge not to respect the one who possesses it, but rather, covertly always, to envy and, usually overtly, to compete with and undermine him. As for filling the gaps in their knowledge, there's no discussion, as this effort presupposes recognition of their inadequacy. Moreover, even the ignorant are ready to follow a specific educational path, provided it resembles the processes they already know and secures them the right formula and official certification of knowledge in the end. However, since even the ignorant realize that artistic cultivation is continuous, endless, uncertain, and not proven by diplomas nor guaranteed by recipes, they prefer either to exploit this peculiarity by pretending to have the necessary knowledge or to fully contest any such need for knowledge.
Things get much worse when we approach the field of photography and cinema. It has become customary to call these arts newer, although in the art world this term does not have a stable position because the dominant trend continually discovers even newer arts to replace them. These arts, however, as new or newer, do not have the privilege of respect that comes from the depths of time. On the other hand, they provide the illusion of familiarity through their daily presence in all areas of society, private and public. But above all, they are based on our most reliable sense, vision. If the people, as the ultimate expression of mistrust, "cannot believe their own eyes," how can one expect a viewer of an artistic photograph or film to admit something like this, which would also mean acknowledging ignorance?
There, sorrow gives way to rage. Intelligence disappears, and the desire to fill the gaps is not even addressed. One might consent to operate on their eyes, but not to cultivate their gaze. Ignorance has become rage. And rage always leads to absolute blindness of vision.
The only observation that might help someone caught in the vicious cycle of ignorance and rage is that the prerequisite for seeing clearly is humility, which comes with ever-deepening knowledge. Then perhaps one can also achieve enjoyment since absolute knowledge is, after all, unattainable.
Plato Rivellis