Nature is no art without a man's vision

The Oxford dictionary defines art as, “an expression or application of human creative skills and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” The precedent lines here mention the term “appreciation”, meaning an art is an art only when it is appreciated by human eye. Does that mean had nature not been appreciated by someone in the past, it would not have been a work of art in the present or in the times to come?

Art requires a vision. It is the product of human’s creative skills, a thought process that goes behind creating and comprehending an art form, unlike nature. Needless to say that art is subjective, nature serves as an inspiration for artists too. However, nature and art are not entirely a separate entity. There is a correlation that exists between the two. It is the human eye that makes anything worthy of admiration. Maybe if someone from the past would not have appreciated the colors of the butterfly, patterns in the snowflake, the sound of the waves of the ocean, the birds chirping and the vibrancy of a rainbow, it would have just been an ordinary component of the mother earth. So, the question is would nature still be an art without human eye?


50 views4 comments

Recent Posts

See All