Where does the Truth lie: at the beginning or the end? A painting is initially a visual sensory experience and is then transformed by logic and time. So where does the Truth lie at the beginning or the end.
Here is an extract from Acharya Rajneesh: when Krishanamurti was asked once who best interprets his work he said in jest, Rajneesh. But I think they were both brothers in mind. An extract of Rajneesh’s work is:
Reason is an effort to know the unknown and intuition is the happening of the unknowable. To penetrate the unknowable is possible, but to explain it is not. The feeling is possible, the explanation is not.
When you stand in front of a painting for the first time and it creates an impact. Like a quantum scientist unable to know the true measurement of his experiment because his very act of measuring it, his intension to measure already alters the state of the experiment and hence the results. Your intension to understand that thing about the painting, as it implodes on itself perhaps and creates a connection with you and the painting, as an atom implodes on itself and alters its state with the intension to measure it. The initial raw uncorrupted Truth without the interference of time, where the logically mind then comes in with information, facts about the process and alters that initial perception. So where are you at in this: at the beginning or the end. Has art history and knowledge tainted your Truthful view of the whole. Is it a case of you initially had it, and then lost it in the end?