Does art require thought? Words like “love” and “hate” are loaded with definitions that never seem to grip their essence. These are words that try to describe the core of nature. I have my own theory. To me, art is better when less forceful thought is put into it. If I were to see an animal painting on a canvas, I would call it art. It is obvious when someone has put much thought into a specific piece to a point where it is almost unnatural. The unnatural spirit of it is shying away from my definition of art.

I have the most beautiful view from my bedroom window in the morning. There are trees growing to unthinkable heights and birds perching on the trees’ arms. I hear my dog barking at the birds, and the birds sing back in response to his yaps. What I hear, see, and feel is art. Sometimes my sight gravitates to the right of my view, where I see corn fields meticulously planted in rows, fighting a meadow of dewy green grass. The corn is not art to me. It is synthetic, man-made, and overthought.

The birds singing, and a dog yapping was always supposed to happen. Then thought played its roll. Farmers made tools. Tools turned into machinery. Machinery became robotic. Now we have rows and rows of corn. Of course this is necessary for a modern, functioning society, but yet, it is not art. What drove those rows of corn to be made was money. It came from thoughts of egotism. Less of this existed in the past because technology didn’t drive those into overstimulation and egotism. This is also why I believe the artists that are dead now, were the best we ever had.

All art must require some thought, some energy, but the kind of energy used is what makes it art. This is energy of the spirit; the natural spirit that peaks through a person and can be seen visually. I think being able to portray one’s spirit on a canvas is one of the most impetuous things a person can do. Does that mean recklessness requires less effort? I will say that is contrary to the truth.

Vincent Van Gogh is the first artist that enters my mind. He chose to create the natural things in front of him and his creations became art. They are art because they portray his spirit and aesthetic. He found things he was drawn to and finished them to be seen as a reflection of himself. The years Van Gogh lived through were also on his side. The late 1800s relied on nature more than our current time. From what I see, lack of caution in nature plays the largest roll in art. I believe is Vincent Van Gogh was alive today, he would find it more difficult to find inspiration. Today people tend to be very thoughtful and cautious because the future is precious and uncertain thing.

Animals are very unique in the fact that they do not question life or the future. They accept their state of being and choose to survive. The complexity of humanity is what hinders art. Some people are so complex that they choose to do what is against nature. Thoughts can spiral into total chaos and disorder. We decide to create things that damage nature, and the ones we love instead of creating art.

There is an artist hiding in every single person, but it takes a delicately tuned brain to bring the artist to life. Our natural state of being rejects the progression of society, but our ego will continue to allow it. While we are progressing, maybe we will start to look back to Van Gogh and study his natural state of being. It’s interesting how a mind so crazy was still capable of creating an aesthetic such as the artworks we see today. Maybe we’re not as crazy as Van Gogh, but he was crazy enough to accept a lack of restraint in his mind.