Caution: Fresh Paint

A comparison between contemporary art and contemporary literature reveals the immense difficulty that still exists in the simple idea of coupling, which is the basis of the Zohar's ideology. The balance between content and form requires exceptional maturity and growth, because there is always a tendency to maximize one side instead of maximizing the meaning - which is their coupling. Therefore, artistic practice can actually help people improve in true coupling - and in love

What is the value of spilled paint compared to a painting?  (Source)

Why is the idea of coupling so difficult to internalize? Why does love require so much maturity and growth? Just as it's difficult for artists to internalize that they need to care not only for content, or only for form, but for both. To care for two things. Art is the production of meaning, for the viewer, and in meaning there are two parts: the content of the meaning and its form. Beautiful form without content, empty rhetoric - or a cry of the deepest meaning, I love you, without form - this is neither art nor a love poem. That is - it's easy to focus only on content or only on form, to see one thing as the be-all and end-all. But the ability to care for two things requires compromise, acceptance, and humility that are lacking in the individual, and are contrary to the tradition of unity in Western culture, and of the brain that focuses on one thing at a time (biologically).

Focusing on two things already requires attention switching. A hedgehog knows one big thing, but a snake knows two things. Coupling two things - that's the message of the Zohar. Now, when there is an essential connection between the two things, content and form, or an innovative connection (not a lack of connection) then it's important art. This is a truer and deeper coupling. In a language game there are two things: first to play by the rules, and second to play beautifully, to play well. The rules of the game are not enough. Excessive preoccupation with content or form without balance between them is an artistic mistake. Rococo and Realism - excessive preoccupation with form, and poor content. Medieval art and modern art - excessive preoccupation with content, and poor form. And in contemporary art there is sometimes such a severe disruption in language that it's not clear if there is content or form, meaning it doesn't get through to the viewer, doesn't convey meaning. For example, in abstract art there is a complete lack of content and also poor form, and in conceptual art there is little and poor content and poor to non-existent form. Therefore, these are particularly shallow forms.

In contrast, in literature there is a limit on lack of meaning. Because it needs to be read, and books need to be sold, and in cinema there is an audience. Meaning the simple person is the buyer and therefore there is a limit on the lack of meaning. But in plastic arts, a glance is enough for its consumption and therefore there is no limit, and it has deteriorated into meaninglessness more than any field. A huge bubble. And like any bubble, it will of course burst at some point and leave all its investors with their pants down.

In literature too there is a fossilized representation of meaning, through realism, which has too little content. Therefore, a more fantastic form is needed in literature, like Kafka, to express more meaningful content. Or alternatively, the expression of more meaningful content in realism. But in painting, more realism is actually needed. That is, it's not true that everything is synchronized between fields. There are different constraints on different fields and therefore trends reach fruition at different balance points, like the language trend in painting and literature. Literature - too commercial towards the masses. Art - too commercial towards the elite. Literature - too accessible and flattering. Art - the opposite. The act of love requires both emotion and technical ability, both content and form, and that's why so few succeed in it.