The positions of some creators on just issues have always caused confusion and confusion among their audience and lovers of their art, when they appear to be contrary to what is expected by their bias towards the opposite, for example, or even their apathy in relation to the size of what is happening.
Perhaps the Palestinian issue and what it is going through can serve as the clearest example of this confusion.
But why might attitudes differ from the creative product, which is usually in favor of truth, beauty and goodness?
There are answers to this question, but it remains, in my opinion, purely an effort to understand the artist's motives for taking a negative stance on just issues.
The separation should begin between the creative product and its owner, between the tendency of the work to the values of goodness, beauty and transcendence on the one hand, and the motives and motives of those behind it.
This is because it is difficult to be certain that the feelings that the painting, the book, or the music evoked in the hearts of the recipients are the same ones that the creator sensed while he was accomplishing his work.
It may be different, or it may be less or more.
This means that the type or amount of emotion that reached the audience may be different in one way or another, so not everyone is back on the same page of understanding, perception and feeling.
The creator does not usually recognize his work in its final form, except after completing it completely, as he is tried according to a preliminary perception and moves inside it from one idea to another until it settles upon completion, and here he becomes a recipient of his work like the audience.
It is also difficult to ascertain whether the creator possessed a sublime feeling in the first place while executing his material, because there are those who master their creative craft without the need or having to identify with it emotionally. That is, a text can touch the audience and seize their souls only because the writer knows how to do that and not because he preceded them to the same feeling. Here, I find this idea violently clashing with the dreamy idea that has been transmitted by tongues and writings that only what is written from the heart reaches the heart. Here, I quote from the book “The Problem of Art” by the thinker Dr. Zakaria Ibrahim, where he says, “Doesn’t experience tell us that art is not an expression of the artist’s emotions as much as it is a special skill in provoking such emotions in others, through some artificial and precise means… El-Gamal explained to us that it is not enough for an artist to be full of emotion for his artworks to come full of personality, originality and novelty. Art is not just an emotion, but rather a craft and skill.
Then there is another idea, but not far from the previous one; As the creator does not recognize his work in its final form usually, until after completing it completely, he is tested according to a preliminary perception and moves inside it from one idea to another until it settles upon completion, and here he becomes a recipient of his work like the audience. And just like them, he receives according to his experiences, expertise, knowledge and values. Thus, his reception may fail him in absorbing the levers of goodness and beauty in work, so that he does not exalt himself and remains imprisoned in his soul that is deficient in its values. Especially if we know that each of us goes through stages in his engagement with the artistic product; He feels a mental pleasure when getting to know the product, then passes to the pleasure of emotional sharing with the creator of the work, and finally crosses to the pleasure of sympathizing with the assets that the creator depicts in his work. People vary in the degree of their advancement in these ranks according to what they possess within them and not always according to what the work internalizes of the motive power. And the creator when he becomes a recipient is no exception to all of that.
Finally, there is another explanation for the creator's regression towards just causes, which is his reluctance to engage in crowds. He always sees himself as the motivator of the crowd, and not one of them. It hurts him not to seem different and outstanding even when he shares a noble idea with people. That's why some creators may try to contribute to the mass solidarity but in a way that keeps them out, visible and isolated with their different product. And I find I am compelled here to mention Freud's idea of artists, as he considers them narcissistic, meaning that their psychological maturity is not complete and they have some childhood traits!