I've got nothing to say!!!!!!!!!!

SO, I shall just put up my second attempt (successful) of this horrendously complicated essay question.

Human art can never rival mother nature in terms of either its awe-inspiring beauty or ultimate truth¡± Do you agree?

The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection. That is what Michaelangelo, the creator of one of Man's greatest artistic works, believed in. And divine perfection it is, for how can one prefer the captured stillness of the glowing sun to witnessing the slow crawl of its rays signaling the start of each day, for oneself. Human art is a less than perfect recreation of the ultimate truth of nature, and through the eyes of every artist, there exists distortions of this truth. It is in this context that I agree that human art can never rival mother nature in terms of either its awe-inspiring beauty or ultimate truth.

Mother nature, coming under the guise of flora and fauna, lakes and beaches, and waterfalls and mountains, is the muse of most, if not all artists. One cannot help but absorb the beauty of a snow-capped Mt. Fuji, the rush of water of the Niagara Falls or the natural beaches of Tahiti. That artists derive inspiration from this source is no secret. Be it the warm hues of a sunset or a picturesque lake, mother nature is the epitome of awe-inspiring beauty unparalled by any other, in this case human art. Human art comes mostly in the form of paintings, sculptures and more recently, photographs. We often see human art embodying the elements of nature, take for example Waterlilies by Claude Monet, which was painted by a pond at Giverny, where Monet grew waterlilies. However, it remains to be seen if Monet's masterpieces are truly awe-inspiring, this bringing the subject of perception and eventually ultimate truth into light.

Perception, or more specifically the artist's perception of what he sees differs vastly from individual to individual. How an artist wants to portray a particular scene, and his motives for doing as such, is all a matter of opinion and preference. The sky may be painted pink and the grass blue, merely to showcase the artist's individuality, not relaying mother nature in its natural state. Ultimate truth, the acknowledgement of irrefutable facts and of culture-free universality, is wholly absent in such a depiction of mother nature. In Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh, the stars are painted as swirling balls of fire, and while stars are in fact balls of fire, we do not, in actuality, see them as such. Another example of human art is The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci's The Last Supper is a pictorial representation of the most important event in the Christian doctrine of salvation. Ultimate truth is also missing in this celebrated work of art due to the boundaries of religion. By culture-free, we cannot take into account the role of Christianity or any other religion, ethnicity or custom, and the belief in God and Jesus is one that is not shared universally.

While, on the one hand, human art does not always represent ultimate truth, mother nature on the other, represents all semblence of ultimate truth. For how can one deny the sun's shades of red, or the sparkle of yellow and gold in the darkness of night. Mother nature is timelss, spaceless, in a world where art, human art, is bound by the confinements of culture, of society and of the individual.

Where human art is not bound by such restrictions, however, beauty and truth resides. Michaelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel is one such example. People of all walks of life, of various social standings, all stand in awe of his work. The beauty of such inspiration is not be be trifled with. Where countless others have failed, Michaelangelo's art had succeeded in transcending the boundaries of what is expected, reaching into the recesses of people's minds of what could not rival mother nature in it's awe-inspiring beauty and ultimately, truth.