Do you see Chocma in Art and Culture

Yes. An unbelievable amount. During those times, it was so much more difficult to create a realistic and three dimensional painting. They had to use real creativity and skill to complete any painting, because there was a long, tedious process involved. It would take too long to go through the whole process, but just for a short overview, they first had to project the object, scene, or people they were going to paint onto a canvas which took great care and skill using the tools of their time. Then, they had to create outlines of the focal points and backdrops using those projections. Then, they had to mix colors just right to give the impression of depth, space, and emotion, besides trying to duplicate the exact colors of whatever they were painting. All this took an incredible amount of time and patience.

Bottom line, there is true wisdom in this. Sorry if I was a bit lengthy in my response. I took a class in Art and Design History recently, so all this is still fresh in my mind.

Of course. But why limit it to art before 1900? There is chochma in ALL art and culture. Whether that chochma is something we should internalize and apply to our own lives, that an entirely separate question. After all, there was great chochma in the strategic and operational planning of Hitler’s S.S., but that doesn’t mean it was a good thing. The same can be said for just about any aspect of art, culture, or academic study: There is quite a bit of chochma in cubism, pop-entertainment, and critical feminist studies, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the methods used or conclusions drawn by these “disciplines” are worth emulating or implementing.

MiddlePath- Can you explain why No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock sold for 140 MILLION dollars? Suprematist Composition by Kazimir Malevich sold for 63 Million? Or my favorite, White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose) by Mark Rothko, sold for $72.84 million??

And yes, I have been to one or two of the fine art galleries in Italy. (I think it was the Uffizi)

For sure, but when it comes to art, its in the eye of the beholder.

The Mona Lisa means little to me, Dali’s work, even less.

On the other hand, I really liked two paintings I saw in the Bklyn Museum from lesser known artists. One was a skillful painting of the Grand Canyon, and the other was a parody of the famous Napolean painting (the one on his horse, rearing up on the hind legs).

Lots of chochma involved in making those paintings, no question.

True enjoyment of art is when the piece reaches your heart. It is when it makes a connection with the observer on some level and draws you into it. Each person can view a piece differently but when you are enthusiastic about a piece either because of its intensity, meaning, quality or message, it is hard to walk past it or leave it behind.

Some times it is the sheer genius of the artists and how he captured the reality in his painting. How he managed to capture veery nuance, shadow, shade and color as well as depth and perception just right. In some pieces it is how he managed to capture an expression, a thought, a concept, a color, a look of a mirror or glass or glow from a far that seems to look like silver but as you get closer to it, it really isn’t. Sometimes it is the folds of a table cloth or a crease in a skirt that is beyond perfection or a wrinkle in a face or the strings in the talliis or the fingernails that are perfect or even the eyelashes that can’t possibly be a painting but it is. It is truly amazing what gifts Hashem has bestowed on different individuals and how they share them with others.

But for the life of me I just can’t understand how a similar painting to what my grandchildren made is getting so much acclaim. It has no other meaning to me than it was made by my grandchild. So if some one my age makes it I would say “grow up” and not “put it on display”.