Accompanied by a certificate issued by West Gallery and signed by the artist confirming the authenticity of this lot

Provenance: West Gallery, Quezon City

ABOUT THE WORK

How does one appreciate nature? Given how it exists in the world, is there a proper way to understand it? Is art an acceptable avenue or medium when it comes to appreciating nature? Numerous genres from Realism to Impressionism have had a long history of depicting and sharing the beauty of nature. But the development of technology, especially within the context of photography, videography, animation, etc… has painting become obsolete? Perhaps our now multifaceted understanding of nature should not be seen as a replacement for realism, but as a jumping off point for a brand new kind of philosophy. One that goes beyond seeing realism as a mere commodity, document, or artifact; but something closer to art’s more inherently transcendental claims. Such bold claims must first rest upon certain distinctions. Within this context, what then separates a photo of a collection of clouds. What separates this 2018 oil on canvas painting by Elaine Navas from a similar photo taken by a common smartphone? One could argue that perhaps it was the intention. Whereas while a photo is relatively instantaneous, a painting is one which may imply a prolonged sense of dedication or intent behind its creation. Such a position seemingly takes inspiration from the aesthetics developed by Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy even argues that “What is precious to us in an author’s work is the labor of his soul and not the architectural structure in which he packs his thoughts and feelings.” Another argument would be that, in a world so focused on delivering and even finding ways of delivering and capturing things in the most detailed and cutting-edge way, Navas’ realism can be seen as delivering reality not as it is seen, but how it remembered, how it is felt, how it is experienced by us the viewer. The philosopher Nick Zangwill, in response to the notion that true aesthetic appreciation always requires factual or scientific knowledge, notes that such an epistemic condition may ruin or harm our appreciation of a thing. He cites clouds as an example. Wherein he notes that “the beauty of clouds is the beauty of things that look solid in a fluffy bouncy way.” The introduction of the true physical makeup during an act of appreciation in the sense that Zangwill puts it may harm or diminish the aesthetic experience of them. Thus in some cases, context, especially one distanced from aesthetics, may not be helpful to an experience. In Navas’ case, its imperfections, in its failure to accurately depict the world, we are able to view not clouds as they actually are, but through an aspect of aesthetic experience and beauty. The work’s unreality shows us more than meets the eye. (Jed Daya)