日曜美術館　日曜美術館　マネ 最後の傑作の秘密〜フォリー=ベルジェールのバー〜

This is my favorite picture. (Now it’s also the wallpaper for my computer.)

Both NHK and Tele East worked hard to explain the “mystery” of this picture. That’s good for understanding the picture, but does the picture have to be explained? Also, can it be explained?

A how-to book that is “I don’t know if it’s a lie”. Apparently we are used to being “taught”. Sometimes I think what I’ve been taught is “I see,” and sometimes I say, “I don’t know, so let’s believe what a great person says.” Also, on the Internet, you may believe an opinion that is close to your own idea without questioning the facts. I want to believe it, because I can rest assured. Because my heart calms down. On the contrary, I am very anxious if I do not understand.

So, when there is a person who drew it, you can get an explanation from that person. I don’t know if the explanation is true or false, and if I can understand it. I may also be asked to explain at the exhibition. I don’t want to explain. We do not answer questions such as “what did you draw” or “what do you mean?” You can answer “Did you draw with Nani?” (Material and technique). This is because it is an “thing” that exists objectively.

Basically, the work leaves the author’s hand when it is announced. So is the novel. The rest is left to the reader and viewer. I don’t like being told “I have to read this” and “I have to watch this”. Then I think I don’t need to read it. The novel is made up of sentences. You can see what is drawn in the concrete picture. However, when you explain it, you often think “Is that so?” I often want to read the “commentary” of a paperback book when I have something I don’t understand after reading a book (sweat). There are many books that need commentary. I don’t know what the abstract painting is, so I refer to the title (untitled, often Untitled). The commentary always includes the subjectivity of the commentator. It’s like looking at something through the eyes of others. In that case, it is important to be aware that you are looking through the eyes of others. Even TV is watched by photographers and directors.

It makes sense for a novel (letter) to exist objectively. How about the picture? Was the person who painted the Lascaux mural asked for an explanation? Did you explain, “This is a cow and a person”? I think it’s different. You just have to speak by mouth to explain. I think it was beyond human knowledge and was a human creation. At that time, humans and nature were not separated. Creation was neither self-alienation. It became an object, and it became possible and necessary to “explain” it after the subject was formed as a reflection (reflection) of it. The conceptualization of subjects / objects, self / others, humans / nature, and possessions derived from them was generated by “characters”. From then on, the work became an “object” that was owned and explained.

Well, don’t worry about what you don’t know, and if it’s not interesting, you won’t watch it anymore. If you find it interesting, take the time to think and taste it yourself. I want that kind of room.