But a painting is painted on a canvas. it is but a reflection of what the artist saw. the painter saw the tree and painted it with its thousands of shiny waxy leaves, its dry bark full of crackles and gaps. The painter looked closer into the tree and saw a home for the squirrel, a nest for the pigeon too.

was he able to paint the full beauty of the tree then, without the additional observations? seeing the roots protruding from the soil, the soil growing grass just a few feet away?

Is it the tree which the artist has painted or is it only the part of the entire tree which was perceived later?

If he painted only the bark, stems and leaves, he has created a tree, but not the tree he perceived. If only the artist didn't look so closely he could have completed the painting without the hassle of including the trivialities. Are they really trivial? or are they necessary for the beauty of the tree and the perceived scene to be bold in the canvas? What about the things he did not see? the inner workings of the tree, the water flowing through it, the xylem and the ants in the cracks of the bark and the little leaves which can barely be seen and the roots below which spread twice the width of the tree? An artist might have not thought of them at all. But they are there, and they are beautiful.

For me, details are quite important. I try my best to be detailed when I want to get my point across. Artists however, use the details they have in mind to make their artwork more impactful. They use details to get their point across too. Sometimes vagueness is the artist's way of making the audience think. The core aim of any art is to make the perceiver feel something.

I like to see a tree regardless of how it looks. I stare at it for a minute minimum even if I can't see through it and observe the inner workings. But I like to imagine how it would probably look like.

Talking to people and trying to get to know them is a way of making art. Can't make art if you dont know what human experiences constitute it, and are significant.

Its impossible for me to actually know the inner workings of the individual. I dont wish to either. But I'll think of them as I see them currently and talk to them as I know them personally. Another person might know and talk with them differently. After all, every individual is different and therefore every interaction must also be different. Nothing is the same. The only tree i can surely see is the one in front of me. I cannot imagine the inner workings of the tree. Each tree's inner workings is probably different. I dont study trees, I only look at them. So I dont have much idea.

Conclude with the following though.

1. Details are awesome, if you can manage them

2. Its the whole that matters. Elementary parts are not art by themselves.

3. It is not necessary to know the inner workings and every detail. What you perceive is what you make. Its still art if it makes you feel.