Emotions into art

Turning Thoughts and Feelings into Art – Might Could Studios

Artists are primarily thought of as makers. And yes, of course we make stuff. But we are also thinkers and feelers. We think. And we feel. Deeply. And I believe the thinking and feeling are the most important parts of an artist. More important than the making. Because our thinking and feeling is what spurs the making and leads to what we make.

That’s why I write these essays and that’s why I draw in my sketchbook. I have all these thoughts and feelings swirling around in my mind, constantly bumping into each other and trying to connect with other things. It can be overwhelming if we don’t have an outlet for all those thoughts and feelings.

Seeing Our Thoughts + Feelings

Often, as artists, our thinking can run over the other aspects of being human; actually, it can run over all the other aspects of being human. It can run over the being part. We can get so focused on doing, on making, on thinking, that we lose our awareness of what’s going on. I’ve realized now that art (for me, and maybe for you), is the key to becoming aware.

Making art isn’t a direct way to change our thinking or change ourselves. Art is a way of seeing ourselves. A way of seeing our inner world—our thoughts and beliefs, our feelings and emotions, our loves and aversions. Through making art we can learn about our inner world.

Sometimes we’ll discover mundane or silly thoughts like, ‘hey, mushrooms are interesting’. Other times we’ll discover something profound, like thought patterns inside us that we never knew were there. Sometimes those thought patterns are destructive, narrow-minded, and so habitual that we were unaware of them for years. Art can illuminate this inner side of us, and make us more aware of ourselves.

Turning Thoughts + Feelings into Art

The thoughts and feelings in our minds are constantly flowing and surging. It can be exhausting, and sometimes we get swept away. But making art allows us to stand, even for a brief moment, in the middle of that river and see what’s flowing around us.

And that seeing is key. If we’re able to see these inner thought patterns, they can begin to change. We can weed out destructive beliefs and habits to bring in more acceptance and love. We can see our thoughts as just thoughts, and we can use those feelings to make art, instead of allowing them to set up camp in our brains and take over.

Drawing each day, looking into ourselves each day, we can see those parts inside we may have otherwise not noticed. We can become familiar with how our mind works and how our hands create from it. And this process leads to satisfaction in our art and more acceptance and confidence in ourselves.

A Real Life Example

Yesterday, I went through this entire process, unknowingly and perhaps unwillingly. I had been feeling off all day but didn’t really realize it. I was just floating through my day in a general state of “meh”. I tried to break out of the funk: I took a nap, went on a walk, ate a snack… nothing worked. The funk was still there. It was one of those times when you just don’t want to do anything—not even draw. The only thing I could put my finger on was that I felt “meh”, and nothing more specific than that. I was floating in a river of thoughts and feelings but completely unaware of what I was thinking or why I was feeling this way.

And so, not wanting to do anything else, I sat down to draw. The theme for #MightCouldDrawToday this week, chosen this morning by me, is Villains. That choice should have given me a little clue to how I was feeling that day, but ya know… unaware. So I sat down on the couch with my Posca markers and sketchbooks, and within a few minutes of considering what to draw, it came to me—Cruella De Vil. Something about that character clicked and I instantly went from not wanting to draw at all, to a deep desire to draw this character.

And so, for the next good while, I lost myself in drawing. I dropped out of the outer world and dropped into my sketchbook.

As I was drawing Cruella’s facial expression, it dawned on me. This is how I feel. I feel like Cruella de Vil right now. And not just any Cruella de Vil, because there are many sides of every villain—I feel like THIS one. This one that I just drew. And suddenly, it was as if I had seen what was inside me. All the vague feelings of “meh” and the thoughts swirling so fast I couldn’t catch them… everything came into focus.

I now had an awareness of how I was really feeling in that moment.

To be clear, art isn’t magic. My Cruella mood didn’t immediately transform into happy-puppy-mood just because I became aware of it. Awareness doesn’t solve all our problems unfortunately. But the drawing gave me a breather from the rush of thoughts and feelings, a moment of clarity, and a step in the right direction. Like people speak about meditation, I believe experiencing awareness of our thoughts over and over can lead to big changes, both in our art and in our lives.

Try it Yourself

The next time you feel down, discouraged, or “meh”, try using art to look inside. Take some time to draw your thoughts and feelings, if only for a few minutes. Don’t go in with expectations of a revelation and don’t judge your drawing as it goes along. Maybe you’ll realize something profound, and maybe you’ll just realize you’re grumpy.

Whatever it is, just draw. And let it all come out just the way it is.

Join 10,000+ subscribers!

📖 Might Could Essays
✏️ Might Could Draw Today
📚 Might Could Make a Book

The Importance of Expressing Emotion through Art

The world is a strange place right now. Downright surreal even. And it’s hard to deny that there are a lot of emotions at play.

Interestingly enough, the Latin roots of the word emotion are e (out) + movere (move). In an ideal world, emotions create feelings that flow naturally. But oftentimes they get dammed up.

Whatever you’re feeling these days, it can be a lot to carry. Expressing emotion through art is an incredible way to release those feelings before they get too deep and begin to create other problems.

It Is Crucial to Release Emotions

Humans are hard-wired to express themselves. Just look at young children. Because they haven’t yet been taught to squelch emotions, they are at complete liberty to just let their emotions fly. It could be a scream of joy, an angry yell, or an immediate outburst of crying. (Sometimes all three in the course of two minutes.)

It would seem as though they have the inside scoop on the research.

Because studies show that whenever we repress, deny, or disallow an emotion to be what it needs to be, our network pathways get blocked. Pretty soon, they’re gumming up the works and the vital feel-good unifying chemicals that dictate both our biology and behavior are unable to flow.

Nobody wants that.

Expressing Emotion through Art

Sometimes simply stating what you’re experiencing isn’t in enough.

In order for emotions to move through us freely, they must be accepted and expressed. Doing so enlivens us and fuels our creativity. Fortunately, experiencing emotions directly through art is fairly simple – if you allow for the process.

This could be done drawing, painting, sculpting, music, movement, writing, drama, whatever creative means allows you to open up and bare your soul. You needn’t be talented or skilled at any of these either. They are simply a means for expressing yourself.

And each time you create a work of art, you’re sharing new ideas, as well as different ways to express yourself. This can certainly serve as motivation for others.

Steps toward Self-Expression

Sometimes getting started can be the toughest part. You don’t need to create an original masterpiece though. You’re just finding a way to let emotions flow.

Pablo Picasso once said, “Art is theft.” So while each piece of art is different, the inspirations are shared. At Arts Academy in the Woods (AAW), we encourage the following as you attempt to express emotions through art:

1. Do Not Hold Back

Whether it’s painting or poetry, music or mixed media, it’s easy to start feeling stifled when facing a creative medium. You may feel you don’t understand “the rules” associated with that medium.

Forget about the rules. You’re trying to create something that’s a reflection of you – not striving to attain technical mastery of the medium. Just allow yourself to feel. Fully and completely.

Allow your emotions to guide you on how you create the art. You will feel cathartic as you utilize the art to let go of damaging emotions that have been bottled up for too long.

2. Embrace Mistakes

One of the single biggest obstacles is fear of failure. It can cause you to give up before you even start. But the true failure is not trying in the first place.

At AAW, we remind students that failure is one of the best ways to learn. Of course, we’re not encouraging intentional failing. But everyone makes mistakes when creating art. View it as a learning experience and keep going. What’s important is that you’re letting your creativity flow.

If you’re obsessing over staying “safe” with art or worried about what others think your art should be, you will end up not revealing much about yourself. So just keep in mind that when creating self-expressive art, you can be comfortable in taking risks. You want the art to mean something to you – regardless of what others think.

3. Question Your Actions

When engaged with self-expressive art, you have to be brave and dig deep. Ask yourself why you behave in certain ways. Even if you don’t like the answers. Doing so is going to allow you to release the emotions around those behaviors while also giving you insight into your thoughts and actions.

4. Be Spontaneous

Spontaneous art is incredibly liberating. It’s one of the best ways to release emotions. So be impulsive. Throw some paint on a canvas Jackson Pollock style. Or explore some experimental sounds on music tracks like Björk. You don’t have to rely on preexisting art forms. Give it a try. You might be surprised at how free you feel.

5. Chill

Don’t put a bunch of pressure on yourself. And certainly don’t let other’s pressure you. Stress and tension will harsh your creativity buzz. And they’ll just create more negative emotions – which is counterintuitive to the whole process.

So seriously. Relax. Let the art be emblematic of you. Because it’s for you.

Art As a Necessary Part of the Curriculum

Art educators understand the importance of learning through art. At arts-integrated schools, they even teach math, science, and social studies through art. Beyond that though, you learn a lot about yourself through art too.

Self-expressive art helps you find new depths to your thinking you may not have realized were there. And you can apply this to so many other areas of your life. That’s what makes art such an important part of education.

Art allows students to release stress in a healthy way. It gives them an alternative way to express themselves – either through a shared experience, or one that’s more private. Yet stripping funding for the arts in place of STEM subjects continues to happen.

And it’s a true disservice to students – and future adults – everywhere.

Want to Find out More about Expressing Emotion through Art?

At an arts academy middle school/high school like AAW, students are encouraged to grow and flourish by expressing emotion through art in a safe environment.

They learn the value of art and how it applies to every aspect of life. And most of all, they are taught to forget about the naysayers and overcome the obstacles when it comes to self-expression; to always move forward and do what they love.

If you feel like AAW could be the perfect place for your middle school or high school-aged child to thrive, contact us today to find out more. Expressing ourselves is more important now than ever.

"Art helps a person to clarify their own emotions" • Arzamas

You have Javascript disabled. Please change your browser settings.

History
Art
Literature
Anthropology

I'm lucky!

February 13, 2019 Anthropology, Art

On February 14, the exhibition "Playing with Masterpieces: from Henri Matisse to Marina Abramovich" opens at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center. Exhibition curator Alexei Munipov talked with Andrey Zorin about what the history of emotions is and whether one can learn to feel art

— What does modern science think about emotions?

- I will not undertake to speak on behalf of all modern science, especially since it thinks differently. Let's say, when I became interested in the topic of emotions, I was not very interested in neurophysiology, but meanwhile, today it is neuroscientists who set the tone for the study of emotions. My research is related to the cultural-historical approach. As a historian, I am interested in the impact of the cultural environment, the history of the formation of cultural stereotypes and norms in the field of feelings. How should one perceive certain events, how do you understand and evaluate them, what types of reactions are expected to them. We are talking about the cultural mechanics of the formation of a person's emotional experience, about the norms that regulate emotions within certain groups of people that Barbara Rosenwein Barbara Rosenwein (b. 1945) is a medieval historian, professor at Loyola Catholic University (Chicago), a specialist in the history of emotions. called "emotional communities".

But there are other approaches to the emotional world of a person. Now we know much more about the physiology of the brain, very interesting research is taking place at the intersection of humanitarian and neurophysiological approaches. In general, the study of emotions is a rapidly developing field, it is only 30-40 years old. The entire behavioral economics is focused on the study of emotional, subconscious human behavior. And not only it, but a lot of different disciplines. There was even such a term as "emotional turn", referring to the study of the inner world, emotions, experiences.

- Science is so actively engaged in this, because the topic of emotions seems to us as a society more valuable than before?

- Partly yes, and this is due to the revision of the idea that a person is a rational being: he makes deliberate decisions, guided by rational interests. Moreover, this turn took place precisely in the scientific environment, the inhabitants never considered that a person is rationally arranged. And they were always interested in emotions, it was simply assumed that this topic was not for science. Writers, directors, artists have always turned to the emotional world of man, but historians were not allowed to make assumptions about the emotions of people of the past, this was considered tabloid. A novelist can, but a historian can't. The man died long ago - how do you know how he felt? But the techniques of analysis are being improved, and now we are cautious, with a due degree of skepticism, but we can say something about this.

- There is a popular theory that people at all times and in all cultures experience the same basic emotions. Of these, six or seven are usually distinguished: fear, joy, sadness, anger, surprise, disgust, sometimes even contempt. What do you think about this? Basic human emotions. Engraving from the book of Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon "General and private natural history". 1749 Art.com

- There is a radical way to say this - and a neat one. To put it bluntly, the theory of basic emotions, which was formulated and promoted by the American psychologist Paul Ekman, has nothing to do with serious science. I can carefully note that I belong to a different scientific school, which does not adhere to the point of view about the existence of basic emotions. From my point of view, there are no basic emotions. Every real human emotion is an infinitely complex combination.

Of course, you always want to reduce the complex to the simple, decompose it into elements, highlight the components. This is a normal analytical procedure. There is nothing wrong with trying to break down any emotional reaction or experience into its components: a little delight, combined with embarrassment or surprise. The bad begins where we assume that the basic emotions are indeed found in nature: pure surprise, pure delight, or pure fear.

- As far as I understand, two scientific schools have formed in the dispute around human emotions: one argues that emotions are universal, because they are caused by human physiology, and the other that they are shaped by culture and therefore they are different in each society.

Is the theory about basic emotions what universalists stand for?

- That's a different question. Talking about whether emotions are universal or culturally determined is not the same as talking about whether emotions are reducible to basics. The answer to the second question is very simple: no, they are not reducible. And in the debate about what shapes our emotions, each school has its own strong arguments.

I think we are dealing with a complex combination of the universal and the socially constructive. Well, do we somehow understand another person, despite cultural and social barriers? These barriers always exist and between everyone, not only when we speak of a resident of another country or a person from the 14th century. And some reactions that are universal for all probably exist. Of course, our understanding of the other is always incomplete and incorrect, but if we dealt with social constructions in their pure form, then it would be impossible at all.

Therefore, the suggestion that there is an element of universality in human emotions does not strike me as absurd. The question is which is more important. An active study of historical and cultural emotions began with anthropology: researchers found that the people they studied not only think, but also feel differently. And it was a completely unexpected discovery!

It was the supporters of historical and cultural anthropology who wrote back in the 1970s that part of the universal nature of man is his incompleteness. That is, a person is not born ready, he is completed in the process, and it is the completion of construction that is part of his biological nature, which distinguishes him from any other creatures. We receive a system of norms, taboos and prescriptions from the outside, from culture.

Of all living beings, humans are the least determined by genetic factors. Due to the cultural mechanism of differentiation, we are very different. And it was the ability to assimilate culture, to be guided by it, that provided man with his amazing bioevolutionary triumph. Once upon a time, a handful of naked, insignificant, defenseless and poorly adapted creatures roamed the East Asian desert, and now we are the masters of at least the globe. There are more than 7 billion of us, and we decide the fate of all other living beings on the planet.

It turned out that culture is the most important of the possible mechanisms that provide man as a biological being with dominance on Earth. Therefore, I do not see an insurmountable contradiction between the universal and social constructivist approaches. There is no discussion here between science and charlatanism, this is a discussion between schools that place emphasis in different ways.

— Perhaps the basic emotion theory is so popular because it resonates with the popular notion that people don't change? We can understand Shakespeare and Ovid, because people have always rejoiced, fell in love and fought - in general, they felt the same as now. Henry Fuseli. Lady Macbeth takes the daggers. Around 1812 Tate

- If a person is thrown out of an airplane, then he will be scared. There is almost no cultural component in this fear - pure physiology. Everyone will be scared, even the cat. There are instincts - reproduction, saturation, avoidance of death. They unite us with our animal ancestors, but the essence of man is that these absolute universals take real form only in a cultural context.

Take any sphere. Satisfying hunger? The sphere of food has always been regulated and is regulated by systems of taboos, norms and regulations. Satisfaction of sexual needs? Let's not even start. Fear of death? Many cultures have developed relatively effective mechanisms to mitigate or block it.

We do not have an analytical scalpel with which to separate in a person what is inherent in nature and what is invented by culture. Because culture is part of human nature. Culture in a broad sense is a mechanism of non-genetic transmission of norms, taboos, prescriptions, rules from generation to generation. And it is impossible to separate it from the natural.

This is remarkably demonstrated by researchers who study humans in extreme situations. Read Lydia Ginzburg's book about besieged Leningrad: people are on the verge of survival, starvation is near, but they stubbornly write scientific papers and worry about how they are perceived by their colleagues. That is, the mechanism of self-affirmation continues to work even in this situation. Moreover, such a well-known cultural phenomenon as a death fast indicates that even the basic universal instinct “to eat so as not to die” is not compulsory for a person. A person may choose to starve himself to death.

— Is the desire to continue working during the blockade precisely self-affirmation, and not a way of psychological protection in an unbearable situation?

— Self-affirmation is a way of psychological protection. The desire to be recognized and appreciated by others. Ginzburg has a striking aphorism: a person, of course, wants to be better than others, but this is not enough for him, the main thing is to be no worse than others. It's amazingly accurate and very deep. The mechanism of self-realization in the environment, the feeling of being part of the human society are the most important things that to a large extent are able to block even such a fundamental thing as hunger. And it's not just self-defense in an unbearable situation, because then we might assume that as soon as the unbearable situation ends, these mechanisms will weaken. But nothing of the kind happens.

- Can we say that our emotional spectrum is steadily expanding over time? Boredom is a relatively new emotion, isn't it?

— My colleague Vera Sergeevna Dubina once dealt with boredom, this is a very interesting topic. For centuries, man has been completely absorbed in survival. Finally, people defeated nature relatively late, 200-300 years ago, when it became clear that natural disasters would not destroy humanity (more precisely, when such an illusion arose and became stronger). The idea was immediately born that nature should be protected, protected and loved. Rousseauism arises, talk about a return to nature, and this is an unmistakable symptom that nature has ceased to be an enemy, it has been defeated. And then you can idealize it, admire it, condemn the separation from it, and so on.

Of course, the love of nature is part of a refined urban civilization. Outside of it, nature is not idealized: everyone knows that it is dangerous, insidious, hostile to man, that it must be fought. But at a certain stage in the development of urban civilization, people have a new emotion - love for nature.

It can be assumed that boredom is also a historical emotion, arising when a person is freed from the need to continuously search for ways to survive. Then there is a need to somehow spend time, but boredom is connected precisely with the passage of time: how to kill it, to occupy it. In addition, a person always has an instinct to search for something new, changes, the whole development of science and civilization is based on this. I think boredom is generated by an imbalance between the ordinary and the new, the predominance of the familiar and the lack of the unknown.

- Many languages have specific names for various complex emotions that others do not have, from the Portuguese "saudade" to the Russian "longing". Can we experience an emotion if there is no name for it in our language? Lucas Cranach the Elder. Melancholy. First half of the 16th century Christie's

- This is a famous discussion, there are whole scientific schools studying the linguistic nature of emotions. The answer is more or less clear: yes, of course, a person can feel an emotion, even if it is not called in any way in his language. In addition, even if an emotion is called not by one label word, but by two or three, this does not mean that this emotion is blocked in culture.

But, of course, the presence in the language of a special word indicates that behind the emotion expressed by it there is a certain cultural norm and it is broadcast and dictated in one way or another. The presence of such a word forms expectations, creates a representable visual image, so that this thing is significant, although not unconditionally defining.

On the other hand, two people will not understand a single word in the same way, even native speakers of the same language. And I'm not talking about such complex and dimensionless concepts as love, but about seemingly obvious joy or anxiety. Even speaking in our native language, we always translate the interlocutor into our personal language - what does he mean, but how does he understand it? It is a continuous process of interpreting other people's statements.

— And how does art work from the point of view of the researcher of emotions?

- I started by saying that science began to study emotions quite recently, and art has been working with this topic since its inception. Artists have always known that man is not a rational being. That the appeal to the emotional life of a person is always stronger than to the intellect - to rationally conscious skills and interests. It took science centuries to come to this idea.

Even before I got into emotions, I studied ideology, and I was often asked: why do I say that decisions are made on the basis of political metaphors, because people always proceed from their own interests? Yes, but in order to proceed from interests, you must have a clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat they are, and this is a deeply irrational thing.

If you are a statesman, then your interest may be to expand the territory of your country, or maybe it is to improve the welfare of its inhabitants or implement some ideas, etc. And someone else's interest - in immediately drinking and falling. Or in saving a lot of money. Each person understands his interest in accordance with his own cultural ideas. In particular, art helps us to realize, understand and feel our interests.

Of course, it exists for more than just that. Any important thing is multifunctional, even from an ordinary glass you can drink water, or you can punch your neighbor in the head with it - what can we say about art. But one of the most important functions of art is that it helps a person to clarify his own emotions. It provides a mirror through which our emotions become clearer to us. We get images of the feelings we experience, we see how they can be experienced, what is regulated and what is not, what is good and what is bad. We can evaluate ourselves and see our emotional world from the outside. And for this you need to look into the emotional world of another person, in which we are looking for reflections, parallels to ourselves. People who know how to go into their own world to a great depth get the opportunity to say something to another about his world. Due to this, the most important artistic effect arises - identifying oneself with a character, hero, author, projecting oneself into the world of a work of art, allowing one to perceive certain emotions that are contained there.

Gustave Courbet. Despair (Self-portrait). 1843-1845 BNP Paribas

— If we perceive art as a language through which we are taught to feel and understand ourselves, then it is obvious that this language should be understood by the viewer. But contemporary art seems to many to be hermetic, completely incomprehensible language. How does it work in this case?

- First, of course, contemporary art works for a certain circle of those who understand it. It leaves behind a significant part of those who will not perceive it, and creates an institutional layer of interpreters. In addition, contemporary art, starting with modernism, has a romantic idea that the creator goes ahead of the consumer: what today is not clear to anyone but an artistic genius, tomorrow becomes clear to many, and the day after tomorrow - to everyone. And if you look at how much Van Gogh and other unrecognized art used to cost and how much it costs now, it turns out that in the end these social mechanisms worked.

Now we see another type of art. Modern artists often strive to make their art as clear as possible. Graffiti, actionism, instant, quickly readable art - all this is a reaction to the modernist cult of artistic genius, to the notion of a genius-medium, extracting from the depths of the subconscious meanings that are incomprehensible today, but someday will become the property of mankind.

— Our exhibition is built on the assumption that modernist art is not necessarily understood.

It can be felt, because it primarily refers not to the intellect, but to the emotional sphere, and many modernists, from Picasso and Matisse to Rothko and Pollock, have said this directly.

- I am not an art historian, but for me this hypothesis is quite convincing. Modernist art is characterized by the rejection of narrative, figurativeness. Instead, it is proposed to appeal to the deep emotional layer of a person, which does not require rationalization. Expressionism is all about this, it is a visual expression of the power of feeling that unites the creator and the viewer in a single emotional field. So I would agree with your interpretation, unless we are trying to reduce this emotional charge to a well-understood formula, to the notorious basic emotion: this picture expresses fear, this one expresses anxiety, this one expresses delight.

We are always dealing with a very complex emotion that can be experienced, read into it. Of course, a person cannot experience someone else's emotion. But he can imagine the emotional state that this work gave rise to, that is, go from the text to the reflected emotion. Of course, this will be your personal emotion, since the author's emotion could be completely different, but due to these mechanisms of translation and mutual understanding, you will be able to put yourself in the place of the author.

— In the process of working on the exhibition, at some point we tried to sort the works by emotions, that is, to literally collect a hall of joy, sadness, fear... And, of course, we encountered the fact that art does not work like that. There are no paintings that evoke only one bright emotion, it is always a complex spectrum. And for everyone he is his own.

- Art doesn't work that way, of course, because human experience is a constellation of complex experiences. As Tolstoy said, there is not enough ink in the world to describe the impressions of one day. If the proverbial basic emotions really existed, why create new works of art? These basic emotions would have been reflected a hundred times already, and all their combinations too - and it would be possible to close the shop. But each time we are dealing with an absolutely unique alloy. Of course, the author has his own, and the viewer has his own. But the viewer can get into resonance, react to something, feel something stronger, and something weaker.

— If this system of conveying emotions is so complex and unpredictable, how exactly does the artist translate what he wants to convey?

— There is art, and there is a lot of it, which is designed to replicate ready-made emotional models. It does not produce something new, but works with ready-made stamps that are already in the culture. This is not just epigonism, it is a necessary component of the artistic process: people have always had and will need such models. Techniques, emotional prompts, ready-made sensual repertoire. It is important for people to live in such an environment, to know that your emotional patterns are sanctioned, recognized, reproducible. Therefore, everyone loves Hollywood films so much, which broadcast a fairly standard emotional set.

But at some point you feel that this is not enough, that it does not convey the full complexity of your emotional experience, that it is more complex, more difficult, more incomprehensible and does not fit into common patterns at all. Hence the need arises for something absolutely specific, unique, new, because only in someone else's uniqueness can you recognize your own uniqueness. Your own unique problems and experiences.

- You are studying how emotional patterns are conveyed in literature. And there are clear mechanisms for this - the hero, the plot, the author's explanations. And how does this system work in art and, in particular, in painting?

- Good question. I am not an art historian and really analyze only narrative tools - stories, plots. It is obvious, however, that in a huge number of paintings there is also an easily understandable plot. How does, say, a historical canvas work? It selects the main moments from the story and broadcasts to the viewer how to react to them correctly. This method has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you immediately get a visual image - this is more than what the text has to offer. And the downside is that the presence of a visual image blocks or at least limits the mechanisms of implantation. In the book it is easy to imagine yourself in the place of the main character, but in the picture he is already drawn, and this is obviously not you.

And genres without a clear plot can also be analyzed. Take, say, a landscape. It is clear that it is easy to read the meaning into it: eternal rest or Russian space there. Or a portrait - there is also no plot, but the life lived by this person, ideas about his character are read. Art is always suggestive. Even a story told in detail never tells everything: you have to think of something, set it up, reincarnate.

Kazimir Malevich. Three figures in the field. 1928–1930 Collection of Valery Dudakov and Marina Kashuro

But the situation when visual art completely breaks away from the narrative series and appeals directly to the emotional layer is a rather new phenomenon. Maybe modernist, abstract art affects us so strongly precisely because it destroys the distance of alienation. I cannot identify myself with the drawn person, because he is not me. Or I can, but with great difficulty. And when you look at an abstract picture, you begin to imagine the creator absent from the canvas or that image of feeling that they are trying to convey to you and which somehow corresponds to your feelings. And there is the possibility of direct contact.

After all, communication is not only linguistic. It is transmitted through visual images, through sound, through gestures. When one person pats another on the shoulder, he tactilely conveys an emotion to him, that is, he seeks to evoke an understandable emotion of another person. And language comes relatively late, it's one of the most complicated ways, there's too much of everything: words have their own meanings that can be manipulated, there are grammatical norms, and so on.

— Even seemingly primitive drawings of cavemen have a very powerful emotional charge.

We don't know anything about these people, but we definitely feel something.

- Yes, we certainly feel something, it is only important to get rid of the idea that we feel the same way they do. This is impossible!

- But we were brought up in the idea of the universality of art: we can feel the Scandinavian saga or the ancient Chinese landscape, feel what the artist felt.

- No, we can't. But we can imagine the world of this person, then imagine ourselves and try to understand what emotion I could experience if I were in the place of the author. This is a complex and sophisticated procedure, but it happens quickly and almost unconsciously.

Even Adam Smith, who lived in the 18th century, emphasized that our sympathy for another person does not mean that we feel the same as him. Our ability to emotionally imagine ourselves in his place is at the heart of art. But we cannot literally feel what he felt. I myself have spent many years trying to get closer to the world of feelings of long-dead people, so, obviously, I do not consider this activity completely meaningless. But Lotman also noticed that even if in some incredible way we learn everything that a person of another time knew, we still won’t be able to forget everything that he didn’t know, which means we won’t be able to relive his feelings.

A complete understanding of a foreign world is impossible: we still bring ourselves there. We are immersed in a world invented or described by someone, without ceasing to be ourselves. And if we could completely stop being ourselves and become someone else, the whole procedure would be absolutely useless. For what? What will it give us?

Viktor Pivovarov. Dedication to Pasha. 2004 © Viktor Pivovarov

— Is there a difference between how a child perceives contemporary art and an adult? Is it possible to say that a child, for example, looks more directly?

- The meaning of the word "directly" is not very clear to me. A child is just as loaded with cultural clichés as any other person of any age. By the time the child begins to read books and go to museums, mom and dad have already given him a lot of things. No, there is no unmediated feeling.

Of course, children and adults have different cultural experiences. The child saw less, does not know so well that all people are different, but on the other hand, he is much more ready to find out, this is part of his bioevolutionary program - to learn, to master new things. The mechanisms are different, I just wouldn't use the word "directly".

- But perhaps they haven't really taught him yet how to react correctly, and therefore it's easier for him?

- They might not be in time, but still he saw some pictures, and the reaction of adults or other children to them, that is, he has some idea. Yes, many adults have not been taught either. I would say that most adults have not been taught how to react to a work of art. It's just that they already often think that they know what art should look like, so they have a feeling of confusion when they see something different. But the child does not yet have this feeling, he does not yet know that portraits, landscapes and still lifes should be shown in the museum, and he should be surprised or indignant if he stumbles upon something else.

By the way, many modern artists are happy to work with this deception of expectations. So you came to the museum, you have to look and not touch anything with your hands. And then again, an installation that you can climb into, ring the bell, twist the handle and hit the board. Of course, children are delighted, but many adults also like it.

You might say that this turns an adult into a child, but in fact we are offered a different type of communication with art. Previously, you were taught that in a museum you look only with your eyes, and all your other senses - hearing, smell, touch - have nothing to do with this. It is not so easy to get rid of this knowledge, and, having climbed into a modern installation, you will still look around all the time to see if they are going to arrest you. And the child has fewer of these stereotypes, although they are absorbed instantly. If he was yelled at at least once in the museum, he will be just as afraid of everything.

— Is it possible to learn to feel art?

— Of course you can! And this is done in the same way that a person learns everything else - by continuous use. The only thing it takes is motivation.

A person masters his native language unconsciously, because he needs to understand those around him. But learning a foreign language requires will, effort and understanding why you are doing it. Grammar helps, textbooks help, but the best way to learn anything, in particular a language you don't know, is to use it continuously around native speakers.

Art is no exception. To master the language of art, you need to use it continuously: draw something yourself, produce something, live in this environment. If your parents are artists and you are immersed in conversations about art from birth, then you will simply absorb it with mother's milk. This does not mean that you will love it - on the contrary, you can hate it, but it will happen as if by itself. If not, then you need to spend some effort and time - if you think that this will make your life richer. Why else? Life is short, we don't have much time and energy. You can spend them on something else.

— In one of your lectures, you told how your student told you that she didn’t understand the meaning of the word “love”: for her generation, this word is too abstract, there are many different models of relationships, and they just can’t fit in her head in one box labeled "love". That is, we are talking about the fact that "big" emotions are fragmented, become more special, and they may have new names. How to talk about emotions with a modern viewer, if even the most familiar words are no longer clear to him what they mean?

- In the modern world, instead of one "love", many different ones appear, and it is obvious that emotions will be much more diverse, fractional, variable, helping a person understand how to feel correctly in completely different situations - and designed for a much shorter life span. The authors who previously wrote about love proceeded from the idea that love is unchanged in all eras. Of course, we can conduct a historical analysis, figure out who, from what and when this image was assembled: these are very different feelings that were once tied into one bag and written on top: “Love”. The creators of the love we are accustomed to once invented exactly what it was, although they themselves felt themselves not inventors, but pioneers; people who described a continent that has always existed.

The creators of the current models understand in advance that these are temporary structures and their use is limited, they are not designed to last for centuries. At the same time, they are much more diverse, there are more of them. It is clear that even a small fraction of them is enough for one human life. But due to the much lesser durability of these models, our emotional repertoire has expanded incredibly.

The emotions themselves change, the attitude towards them changes. Entire blocks of emotions soldered together are destroyed. For example, romantics came up with a model of childhood as an ideal time when you feel the absolute fullness of existence. A person once lost this fullness due to original sin and can approach it only in childhood and later, when he falls in love. And, for example, the most important feeling of nostalgia for culture began precisely as nostalgia for childhood. This whole complex - nostalgia, longing for childhood, growing up, the search for love, the thirst to find the fullness of being in it - is now greatly undermined.

- What about the emergence of such a term as "emotional intelligence"? Now business coaches are teaching that being smart, that is, having a high IQ, is not enough: you need to feel people, train empathy, otherwise you will not be successful.

- This is what William Reddy, in Navigating the Feelings, called emotional management. Emotional intelligence is the ability to control and properly organize one's own emotional world. How was it considered before? A person controls everything with the intellect and, of course, must pacify his feelings. But real feelings are not controlled by the mind. This is a sign of their authenticity. You are overcome by rage, love or compassion, passion boils up like a wave, and the mind turns off.

Actually, the idea of the need to manage emotions appeared at the same time when people lost faith in the model of rational behavior. The idea of emotional intelligence is based precisely on the rejection of these ideas. It turned out that our behavior is always a complex combination of the conscious and the unconscious. And you can only manage your emotions to a certain extent. This is a complex art, and it is not clear whether one should strive for this at all. Because there is more to lose than to gain. Emotional intelligence in a person may turn out to be more rational, some things are much easier to feel than to understand.

- You are researching the cultural history of emotions.

And how often are you aware of your own emotions?

- Good question. I’ll note aside that I don’t plan to deal with this topic anymore, I can’t drill one hole for a long time: when I get to something, I immediately want to turn off the equipment, go to another place and start working there. But studies of this kind help to avoid the naturalization of one's own feelings and experiences, that is, the idea that they are such by nature and there are no others. This is a very important intellectual skill, because without it you cannot understand other people. My scientific activity helped me to some extent. Of course, this problem cannot be completely solved. You still measure people by yourself; to expect that it is possible to get rid of it would be arrogant. But at least a little distance from your loved one is possible.

On the other hand, the study of a person's emotional world always involves an outside perspective. It is impossible to qualitatively explore your own emotional world, just as it is impossible to see your own head without a mirror. But it is possible to ask yourself some questions. After all, I am also subject to various emotional matrices, but where did I get them from? This is an interesting intellectual exercise. I would not print a study on this topic, but you can occupy yourself with it before going to bed or while traveling in transport.

Ulai and Marina Abramovich. AAA-AAA. 15-minute performance for television. Liège (Belgium), 1978 © Ulay / Marina Abramović; Courtesy of the Marina Abramović Archives

For example, in conversations with my granddaughters, I often find myself in the role of an old curmudgeon, muttering: “Well, the youth has gone!” And this, of course, is a venerable cultural model with a long history. One of its important components is nostalgia (I was young too), as well as envy, the burden of life experience - well, of course. But God forbid you try to divide this model into basic emotions: it is too complex and at the same time lives for centuries. Everyone knows this beautiful quote: “Today’s youth are accustomed to luxury, have bad manners, scorn authority, have no respect for elders, children argue with adults, greedily swallow food, harass teachers.” As if it was said yesterday - either it's my grandfather talking, or I myself, and this is Socrates. Each next generation says something similar about the previous one, and this should mean that humanity is degrading endlessly. But it seems that this is still not the case. So doing science helps us to be a little more modest and not to absolutize our own experience.

— And, probably, to understand not only others, but also yourself?

- To a certain extent. I try to work without anger and passion, but you cannot treat yourself impartially. Well, how is it? Impossible! Obviously, it is much easier to understand another than oneself, precisely because of a certain distance. Especially if this is not your loved one, but some person of the 18th century.

This is also true of one's own culture and history. How to remove yourself from it? You can and should try to understand everyone, but am I ready to dispassionately read books where such an understanding is manifested in relation to fascists or Stalinists? Yes, not very much! I just seethe with rage. That is, a moral assessment overshadows everything else. I'm afraid that it takes a thousand years for the shed blood of the slain to stop standing before our eyes and we begin to understand what happened to us. We can already talk calmly about the Egyptian pyramids, although we know how many lives their construction cost.

Once I was writing a script for a historical documentary, and my friend, the director, called me for a voiceover. It was about Venice of the 18th century, the actor read the text with all the actor's clichés, and the director all the time had to remind: "Calm down, calm down, everyone died a long time ago!" It didn’t help, but I remember the phrase, I often remember it. Recently I even saw a history book with an epigraph: “History is when everyone died.” Professor Zorin. So, until everyone is dead, we can hardly impartially evaluate ourselves and others.

At the attraction exhibition for children and adults, you can see the works of Kazimir Malevich and Francis Bacon, Roy Lichtenstein and Viktor Pivovarov, Natalia Goncharova and Marina Abramovich, Alberto Giacometti and Bridget Riley, Anselm Kiefer and Niko Pirosmani. The Masterpiece Game: From Henri Matisse to Marina Abramović will be open from February 14 to April 14.

Images: Thomas Rowlandson. Exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts. Around 1815
Yale Center for British Art

Daria Pyrkina

Head of the New Creative Workshops of the New Tretyakov Gallery, Candidate of Art History, Head of the Department of Educational Programs of the State Tretyakov Gallery

Art and our inner feelings

— What role does art play in recognizing emotions? How does it help you understand your feelings?

- Art primarily evokes emotions, not "recognizes" them. Certain colors, plots, ways of building a composition - all this evokes an emotional response in the viewer. And at the same time it is a tool for expressing feelings and experiences, especially when we move on to our own creative practice. But even when we act as spectators or listeners, at different moments of life we turn to different works, and often our choice depends on the emotional state.

— Is it possible to learn to feel art? And what you need to do?

— Yes, you can learn to feel art. To do this, you need to learn how to look and analyze works. Today, in our daily lives, countless visual images flash before us, but most of them are arranged in such a way as to quickly understand the message embedded in them. This message is most often unambiguous: go there, buy this, wear that. Art is multilayered and multifaceted, and one must learn to look at these facets and distinguish between layers. It's like expensive wine or haute cuisine: you also need to be able to properly evaluate.

— But how do you learn to immerse yourself in art "multifaceted"? Maybe there are some exercises to get closer to this?

- You need to look at everything down to the smallest detail: at details, inscriptions, secondary characters, features of applying paint or surface treatment, if we are talking, for example, about sculpture. You can try to count the shades of colors. Ask yourself questions: what tones are more, what feelings does each of them evoke? And what could these or those elements of the picture (open / closed door, mirror, animal, object) mean, what associations do we have with them?

— Do you think it is normal to feel negative emotions from any job?

— Absolutely normal, of course. The world consists of different emotions, not all of them are positive. Art in many ways reflects the world around. So how can you do without the spectrum of emotions that exist in reality? Even the ancient Greeks designated the concept of "catharsis" with the help of art as purification through suffering. The Greek tragedy evoked and continues to evoke very strong elevated emotions, but they can hardly be called pleasant.

— How to understand the artist and his feelings? And is it always necessary?

- I don't think it's always necessary. First of all, you need to understand yourself and your feelings that you experience when looking at this or that work. Although sometimes, at some stage of thinking about a work, it is curious to think about what the artist felt at the time of creating the work. And you start to dig into his biography, find out what was happening in his life when he created it, did he know the people depicted in the picture, etc. But this is only part of the process of perceiving the work. You have to start with yourself.

How to start feeling contemporary art

— Why is contemporary art often so incomprehensible? For example, it is often difficult for people to recognize their feelings when they look at modern art objects, performances or paintings.

- Unfortunately, stereotypes still exist in society and too much emphasis is placed on the formal side, and not on the content of the statement. If oil on canvas is art. If there are no generally accepted “signs of a work of art”, then this is not art. Although, in fact, anything can be smeared on canvas, and such an “oil painting” does not necessarily become a work of art. And contemporary artists talk to the modern audience about the problems that concern both sides. They live in the same world: it is much easier for them to understand each other than for today's viewer - a master who lived several centuries ago in completely different realities.

— Yes, people are often afraid of what they don't understand. So it is with contemporary art. Can you try to dispel the stereotype that contemporary art is not art?

— The question is what is considered art. If an exclusively figurative image that captures reality as accurately as possible, then almost any photo in my or your smartphone will be the best work of art. But it's not like that. The meaning of art is not only in technical skill. From the circle of artisans, artists stood out back in the Renaissance. Since then, a lot of controversy has been going on about what art is and why it is needed. At the same time, what received derogatory marks from critics a century and a half ago, today has the status of recognized masterpieces.

— What do you think it takes to understand and begin to feel contemporary art?

- First you need to stop looking for "signs of art." And just try to see what is in front of you, what kind of objects, images, what they could mean, what they are associated with, what feelings they evoke.

A work of art works on associations, feelings, emotions, sensations, it is not always amenable to accurate and logical deciphering

It is very important to let ourselves feel what we observe. And, returning to one of the previous questions, these will not always be necessarily positive feelings.

— Where do you think you should start your acquaintance with contemporary art? Which museum should you go to? What to see?

— Of course, go to the New Tretyakov Gallery to watch the historical avant-garde! The curator of one of the world's most popular exhibitions of contemporary art "Documenta" Roger Buergel in his project proclaimed that "modernism is our new Antiquity". Then, in 2007, when the project was implemented, this phrase appeared with a question mark, but then took root as a statement. It was the era of modernism that became the basis on which all contemporary art is based, just as the previous artistic tradition was based on the ancient heritage.

Child and art

— Is the way art is perceived by a child and an adult different?

— Yes, a child does not yet have the baggage of life experience that an adult has — a child can see far from all the layers of a work. At the same time, it is children who perceive works emotionally, and adults include a rational component.

— In the "New Creative Workshops" you teach to look at art in a new way, understand art and be open to it. For inspiration, you can go to the halls of the New Tretyakov Gallery, right? Tell me, which works from the 20th century collection are closer to a young audience? And why?

- I would say everything. Because there is no single “young audience”. There are different people who are united by age, similar life experiences and one area of interest - art and a museum. But within this group there are many different subjectivities. Someone can sit for hours at Kandinsky, and someone will go to read Prigov. It is important that everyone has this opportunity. And the keys to understanding both.

— Why is it important from an early age to enter into a dialogue with art and open up to it?

- This expands and enriches life experience, forms a useful habit and skill, creates a multifaceted personality. This is the development of horizons, replenishment of information about the world, about people, about historical eras, about feelings and experiences. And then, it's just nice. Watching works of art is a pleasure! You should definitely share this with your kids!

— What if the child does not want to understand art and finds it boring?

- Pause. Stop persuading. But with enthusiasm to go to exhibitions and museums on my own, and then with enthusiasm to discuss what I saw at the family table. After some time, offer to keep you company. And, of course, choose the right place where they know how to show art in an interesting way.

How to develop emotional intelligence through art

Go to museums and exhibitions, theaters and concerts.
Watch, feel, analyze, discuss, bring relatives and friends, discuss with them, discuss at home and away, come again, and so on — an infinite number of times.
Write down your emotions, thoughts, sensations.
Return to already seen and described works and compare your attitude towards them at different moments of life.
Learn more