Response to Aditi Kaji: Tragedy & Art

Aditi asked the following: Do you believe that artwork that depicts these things [conflict, depression, tragedy] is most effective? Is this perhaps why there is so much of it? Do you think art can exist without tragedy?

I am going to address these questions one at a time--though not in the original order (sorry if this bugs the OCD reader). I have to say that I am not sure if Aditi was asking if non-tragic works of art can exist, or if he is asking if art can exist without tragedy generally in the world. With regards to the latter, I do think that art works can exist without containing tragedy. We see this in every beautiful painting of a sunrise and every picture of happy smiling couples. I do not think, however, that such pieces could exist if there was no tragedy in the world. We need to have bad times in order to appreciate good times. Likewise, we need tragedy in the world so that we can look upon a painting of a dew-covered rose and think, "Wow. That is so beautiful."

I believe that artwork that depicts conflict or depression or tragedy can be more effective than other scenes of different natures--but it is not always. Negative emotions are easier to convey, just like it is easier to be unhappy with your circumstances than it is to be happy about them. Furthermore, people tend to have an easier time relating to such darker feelings.

As for why darker themes are more prevalent in art than lighter ones, I attribute this to a few reasons. First of all, darker depictions tend to receive more attention since, as Aditi said in his blog, it is human nature to revel over the morbid. Also, many people use art as an outlet for their emotions when they are having trouble coping or expressing themselves and it is less likely that happiness is what they cannot cope with, as opposed sadness.

My question in response is: Do you find yourself more affected by art depicting darker scenes or art depicting happier scenes?