Why I Appreciate Georgia O'keefe

When first taking interest in art at a young age, naturally, I found painting to be the most appealing of artistic mediums. Eventually, as I got older, I discovered modern art and an appreciation for it. One of the artists that most struck me and remains one of my favorites is Georgia O'Keeffe.

A mid-westerner that relocated a couple times in her life, she eventually settled in the American south-west. She married a fellow artist and lived in New York for awhile in her early adult life. Her character was described as rather cold towards strangers and aloof in general. After her husband died, she permanently based herself in New Mexico, and much of her work is inspired by the landscape of that area. She lived well into her 90s.

Her most famous works are the abstract flower close-ups in watercolor that are several of the world's most famous paintings. What is striking about her work is the theme of ambiguity and the emphasis on lines and color rather than composition and subject matter. Her abstracts have a soft textural look and an atmosphere of simplicity. Personally, her paintings have given me an immediate feeling of sensual serenity. I remember watching a foreign news show where a panel were discussing her work, and the younger--and male--interviewee mentioned his indifference towards her art because of its overt femininity. I remember my reaction was one of dismay and increduility. First of all, these works are world-beloved not merely by a female population, and second they are deemed classics of the art world by experts who are not comprised of only men. What is non-gendered about O'Keeffe's work is her bold and original styling, which is a quality that is rare in both male and female artist.


To further analyze her work, I find these flower abstracts to be more substantially meaningful than mere canvas and other schemas of art. Each one is an entire novel of symbolic expression. Her intense microscopic view of one flower, where the lines and colors define the subject rather the space around the subject makes you see an entire new perspective of, not only flowers, but everything. She once said "When you take a flower in your hand and really look at it, it's your world for the moment. I want to give that world to someone else..." And that world is one of deep revelation, for in the fragment you see the whole. What I mean is that in the simple image of petal and stema of a flower, you not only recognize the whole flower but that all flowers can be seen like this. This idea stays with you, and can transform the way you view art. For me, this has transformed the way I view the world as well.

The Beauty of the Mystery

Albert Einstein once said that "the most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." I don't think a more true expression has ever been said. As a result of academia, with some inherent tendencies of curiosity, I am one who loves to solve mysteries--whether they be one of everyday personal things or the "bigger picture." The fun in the quest of ideas and the ultimate truth, which in some ways is different for everyone, can be the most satisfying thing in the world.

Yet I notice that for most people, and sometimes myself, the ultimate truth becomes more important than the quest itself. This can be a dangerous situation because sometimes the truth is nearly impossible to find or the truth is complex in itself. Because of this, we--understandly as lazy human beings--resort to easy solutions or inaccurate information. For example, when we think about statistics, we are just about assured that it is always accurate, and thus always true. But the reality is more complicated. The accuracy of statistics depend alot on how the studies are carried out to determine those numbers, and then, how those numbers are interpreted. And the interpretation is what gets most of us confused. I can attest to it by a personal story:

On a bus, my friends and I were discussing a study that found most people in America bought cookbooks more than any other kind of books. Number one, I don't know where she got her information from--did it come of a survey of bookstores? Did it come from phonecalls to your average American's home? I don't know. Number two, how can this mere number about cookbooks determine what American's prefer to read or what they actually do read. However, it seemed she was suggesting that most Americans did not prefer to read substantial things, and thus were stupid. Whenever I hear this said about Americans, my defenses naturally rise. I am an American, and I very much love reading, and especially love reading fiction and substantial non-fiction alike. Also, America is a hugely populated country with immense diversity, so to generalize like that is quite absurd. But the main point--to get back to the previous story--is that this statistic does not prove anything---except that cookbooks are a popular purchase. Does this mean that Americans only read cookbooks? Or only like to read cookbooks? NO. And clearly, it does not prove the intelligence of most Americans.

Anyway, that was a long example. What I am trying to demonstrate is that we have facts but we don't necessarily have truth. Two separate concepts. We live in a world of scientific knowledge and inquiry, yet we still do not know everything. AND THAT'S OKAY. I am not saying we should never strive to discover the truth, but that we don't forget to appreciate the journey that we go through--meaning what we have learned in the process. Our need for the solution to problems are so great that we find ourselves inventing or haphazardly labeling truth that is which is not really so.

Harking back to Einstein, he was a man who knew the value of the process. He, himself, was an unsual historical figure. An astro-physicist who was deficient in maths, a man of science who also valued the spiritual, and a seemingly wholesome figure who was actually quite a womanizer. Even though Einstein is known for his concrete, tangible scientific theories, he was also a one who loved the metaphysical aspects: to him science was something in which "The individual feels ... the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Here we have the need of objective fragments of such things as facts with the necessary abstract of the whole or oneness of existence. Clearly, Einstein is my "Truth Quest" Idol.

Yet, the truth or solution itself is never something to belittle. That is not the point of this blogpost. The Truth, what we all need and search for, is important always. But the search for it is just about, if not just as, important. The beauty of the mystery is what keeps us going. If we knew everything, what would be the point of living really? It's as if the quest is almost the purpose. And maybe the truth our reward or our salvation.