These four paintings reveal the nature of complexity of ‘nature’ and interconnection with human beings. Is there any distinction between human/society and nature? If yes then the boundary has been blurred and nature has internalized human or vice versa but many scholars and philosophers has distinguished these two as a separate identity. ‘Nature has not been discovered but constructed or created’ as Dona J. Haraway (1991) in her book ‘Simians, Cyborg and Women’ has discussed extensively and this is how nature has been understood as separate body on this earthy planet. Human beings have externalized nature however the fact is it’s an internal part of human and society. Poets, story writers and painters have also interpreted nature in their own way. Social positioning or location of the community or individual may provide different lenses to interpret of nature as a tribal community might have different connotation and meaning of nature than urban community. A story writer from upper caste or majority community might interpret nature in different way from a Dalit or underprivileged community. In the same way painter, poet and story writer may also visualize nature in different way. However painters have still version of those thoughts, ideas, theories, facts or stories but the meanings and interpretation has wide range of scope to understand its significance.
I think painting is the still version of those lines or paragraphs of a story or novel or poetry or theories which perfectly signifies or clue to draw the whole meaning of the poetry, novel, story or theories.