The NPP government’s decision to procure 1,775 brand-new double cab pickup trucks, at a staggering cost exceeding Rs. 12,500 million, represents not merely a questionable procurement decision, but a dangerous convergence of fiscal irresponsibility, procedural irregularities, and a disturbing drift toward authoritarian governance. What the government presents as a solution to transport inefficiencies is, upon closer examination, a regressive policy that abandons proven private sector practices, multiplies taxpayer burdens, and signals an ominous shift in the political culture of our already fragile democracy.

During a TV debate last week, an NPP representative responded, saying that the LKR 12,500 million figure was merely a lease payment, when an Opposition member questioned how a brand-new double cab could cost only 7 million. Both arguments missed the mark. Yes, a vehicle can cost around 7 million when it’s duty-free, but it remains unclear whether these purchases were actually made through leasing arrangements. The real issue, however, is far more serious: if the government coffers are already overflowing with trillions, why resort to additional interest-bearing debt? This raises fundamental questions about fiscal discipline and transparency in public spending.

The Procurement Scandal: Built to Exclude

The irregularities surrounding this tender are brazen enough to warrant immediate investigation. The standard 42-day National Competitive Bidding (NCB) window was compressed into a mere 12 days, a manipulation that serves only one purpose: to limit competition and favour pre-selected bidders. When MP Dr. Harsha de Silva raised these concerns during the Budget debate, he wasn’t merely engaging in political theater; he was exposing what appears to be a textbook case of tender rigging.

The eligibility criteria look as tailored for one or two companies: 10 years of experience supplying specified vehicles, delivery of at least 1,000 similar vehicles in the past decade, 10 service centres nationwide (including five outside the Western Province), average annual turnover of Rs. 10 billion for 2017-2019, and Rs. 50 million security deposit. These requirements, combined with the compressed timeline, effectively eliminate genuine competition, a cardinal sin in public procurement.

The government’s silence on these allegations is deafening. When confronted, officials pass responsibility like a hot potato: the Ministry of Public Security claims no involvement, the Treasury points to the Department of Fiscal Policy, and Director General Dr. M.K.C. Senanayake remains unreachable. This bureaucratic shell game is precisely how corruption flourishes in broad daylight.

The Economics of Inefficiency: A Comparative Analysis

The irony of this policy becomes stark when examined through the lens of contemporary business practices and cost benefit analysis of Buy Vs Lease. The concept of “company-maintained car” has already moved toward employee car loans and allowances in many companies. This transition wasn’t ideological; it was driven by hard-nosed financial analysis. (Figure 1)

The numbers tell an unambiguous story. Under the permit system, the government bore only the cost of duty exemption, essentially foregone revenue on vehicles MPs would purchase anyway. Under the new fleet system also the government still have to bear the cost of duty exemption, in addition, taxpayers fund not just the purchase but every aspect of ownership: maintenance, insurance, fuel, depreciation, and bureaucratic overhead. This is fiscal masochism dressed as reform.

On the other hand, when employees own their vehicles, they maintain them better, use them more judiciously and carefully, and bear the consequences of their choices. The government is now racing backward toward a model that the business world rejected as inefficient and unaccountable.

The Permit “Problem” That Wasn’t

The government justifies this expensive reversal by claiming MPs exploit duty-free permits, selling them or importing luxury vehicles. This argument is intellectually dishonest on multiple levels.

First, if MPs sell their permits, so what? The permit represented the government’s contribution to their transportation needs. If an MP chose to monetize that benefit and use alternative transport, or a less expensive vehicle, that was their choice and potentially saved the government money on maintenance and fuel they would otherwise consume.

Second, the new system doesn’t eliminate the underlying incentive for personal gain; it merely socialises all costs. The “corruption” concern is a smokescreen. Under the permit system, any financial benefit accrued to the individual MP was visible. Under the fleet system, waste and corruption are diffused across bureaucratic processes, harder to trace, easier to perpetuate.

Third, and most damningly, the government now pays for everything the permit covered, plus the vehicle cost itself, plus all operating expenses. This is not reform; it’s fiscal suicide. We’ve moved from “MPs might profit from permits” to “taxpayers definitely pay for everything while MPs enjoy government-funded transport.”

The Authoritarian Creep: One Vehicle, One Choice, One System

Beyond financial stupidity there is a more frightening political motive. This policy represents a philosophical shift toward uniformity and state control that should alarm anyone who values democratic pluralism and individual autonomy, (Figure 2)

By mandating that all representatives, parliamentary as well as local government, use identical, government-issued vehicles, the regime is imposing a Soviet-style uniformity, reminiscent of the USSR’s infamous standardisation, where citizens could have any car they wanted, as long as it was a Lada. This isn’t merely about vehicles; it’s about control and conformity.

In a democracy, elected representatives should have the option to choose modes suited to their constituencies, personal circumstances, and preferences, within reasonable cost parameters. A representative from a mountainous district might need different transport than one from Colombo. An MP might prefer a more efficient sedan, such as EV, Hybrid or plug-in hybrid, over a diesel guzzler. These choices reflect democratic diversity.

The government’s “one vehicle fits all” approach betrays an authoritarian impulse: standardisation over choice, conformity over flexibility, central control over individual autonomy. When the state dictates even the vehicle you must drive, it signals a broader tendency toward control that extends beyond logistics into political culture.

The 1,775 Question: Who Benefits?

Here’s the uncomfortable arithmetic: Why 1,775 double cabs? The government’s vague explanations about “government institutions” don’t withstand scrutiny.

The timing is suspicious. With local government bodies now dominated by NPP/JVP cadres following recent electoral victories, this massive procurement looks less like rational fleet management and more like political patronage, a mechanism to reward party loyalists, strengthen party machinery, and entrench political power through material inducements.

This isn’t governance; it’s machine politics. The double cabs become instruments of political consolidation, distributed to party-faithful across the country, binding them to the regime through material dependence. The fiscal cost is borne by all citizens; the political benefit accrues exclusively to the ruling party.

Budget 2026: Short-Term Thinking, Long-Term Peril

This procurement debacle must be understood within the broader context of Budget 2026, a document that betrays alarming short-term thinking, precisely when Sri Lanka needs strategic, long-term fiscal discipline.

We face resumed debt repayments in 2028 requiring foreign reserves of at least USD 13 billion. The rupee crisis is not resolved; the revenue surge from vehicle import duties is a temporary bubble that will burst. In this precarious context, spending Rs. 12,500+ million on unnecessary vehicles while committing to billions more in recurring costs represents a dereliction of fiscal responsibility.

The NPP rode to power on promises of “system change” and exemplary governance. Instead, we’re witnessing the same old playbook: opaque tender processes, fiscal profligacy, bureaucratic obfuscation, and the use of state resources for political advantage. The party that once positioned itself “above suspicion like Caesar’s wife” now looks remarkably like Caesar himself, accumulating power, dispensing patronage, and showing contempt for democratic accountability.

The NPP government must decide: Will it honour its mandate for systemic reform, or will it become another iteration of the same corrupt, inefficient, authoritarian tendencies it once condemned? The double cab debacle is a test, and so far, the government is failing spectacularly.

The people who voted for change deserve better than a fleet of pickup trucks purchased through questionable procedures, financed by their taxes, and distributed as political favours. They deserve a government that respects democratic norms, fiscal responsibility, and the basic principle that public resources belong to the public, not to party machinery.

If the government proceeds with this procurement, despite overwhelming evidence of its folly, it will signal that we’ve moved from democracy to what the editorial of this newspaper on Tuesday 11th November, 2025, aptly termed “kleptokakistocracy”, (Klepto – from kleptocracy, meaning rule by thieves or those who exploit power for personal gain. Kakisto – from kakistocracy, meaning government by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous individuals; cracy – meaning a system of governance.

And that road leads only to ruin, fiscal, political, and moral.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT, Malabe. The views and opinions expressed in this article are personal.)

The government has been continuously demonstrating an ambivalence to the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the constitution under which the provincial council system has been established. In its election manifesto, the NPP said it did not agree that provincial councils were the answer to the ethnic conflict. However, it also recognised that the Tamil and Muslim communities believed the provincial council system was in their interests. Therefore, the NPP promised to continue with it until they replaced it with something better. Government leaders have been articulating the same view more recently as well. They have also been issuing ambivalent statements on the timing of provincial council elections. The current position of the government appears to be that they will conduct the elections after the redemarcation of electorates takes place.

In the past successive governments used this redemarcation as an excuse to delay elections as there was no consensus on redemarcation among the political parties. The NPP government’s preferred position is equal treatment for all citizens without discrimination, a stance that has been welcomed by ethnic and religious minorities who are relieved not to be subjected to targeting or adverse actions by the government. However, this emphasis on individual equal rights and non-discrimination, while important and reassuring in the short term, will be insufficient to address the deeper political aspirations that animate Sri Lanka’s plural society. Sri Lanka cannot become Singapore which is run from the centre for the simple reason that it is not a city. It is a land with regions, languages, memories and identities that go far into the past.

Without a satisfactory power-sharing framework that devolves authority in a meaningful manner, the underlying tensions that have driven the ethnic conflict in the past, and even to the point of war, risk resurfacing. The problem is that many in Sri Lanka are unaware of the reason for the provincial council system, which they deem to be both inefficient and unnecessary in a small country like Sri Lanka. There is also concern that it can be an inducement for separatist thinking in the Northern and Eastern provinces. The delay in conducting the provincial council elections, and the government’s reluctance to expedite them, has encouraged groups who are opposed to the provincial council system. The National Joint Committee, a Sinhalese nationalist group, has taken the position that the 13th Amendment is “obsolete”.

Persistent Identities

The idea that devolution is obsolete ignores the global evidence. Identity does not disappear with development or prosperity. The United Kingdom continues to grapple with the demands of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, nations with their own histories, institutions and political visions. Scotland even came close to voting for independence despite its high standard of living and deep economic links with the rest of the UK. Canada accommodates Quebec through wide-ranging autonomy, its own language rights and political institutions. Belgium operates through structured power sharing between the Flemish and Walloon regions. Spain continues to manage the aspirations of the Basque region and Catalonia. These are not unstable or poorly governed states. They are developed democracies. If identity persists in those contexts, it will certainly persist in Sri Lanka where the memories of region, language and belonging are even older and deeper.

The historical record presented in the Mahavamsa shows that Sri Lanka was not one single undivided land under one authority through all of history. It had regions that were governed separately for long periods. This is part of the political memory of the people. It has also shaped the modern sense of belonging. Sri Lanka is a country with depth and layers of history, with a civilisation that stretches back to the ancient world. Most of all it is home to more than one people who have deep roots in its soil. This is why equal citizenship on its own will not resolve the national question. Equal citizenship is essential. But in a country with distinct regions and long standing identities it is not enough. Ethnic and communal identities are very powerful and cannot be erased. It is for this reason that power sharing on a regional basis is needed.

Every government since the middle of the last century has had to acknowledge this truth. The Bandaranaike Chelvanayakam pact of 1957 was the first official recognition of the need for regional power sharing. This was after the imposition of the Sinhala language on the Tamil-speaking ethnic and religious minorities in 1956, which was well before the Indian government and the LTTE entered the scene. All governments have known the direction in which the solution lies which is why the nationalistic president Mahinda Rajapaksa spoke of the “13th Amendment plus one”. But they have not been prepared to go forward as statesmen thinking of the future and the best interests of the country. Nationalism and the old fears have come in the way. They have prevented those in authority from taking decisions that could settle the matter and allow the country to move to a new phase of peace and development.

Equal Citizenship

The NPP government is showing that it is ready to address problems that previous governments were unable or unwilling to do. The increase in salary for plantation workers provided for in the budget is one example. It recognises the conditions under which those families have lived for generations. But it is not enough to address the salary issue only. Plantation workers have suffered not only from poverty but also from the legacy of their ethnicity and the political decisions that denied them rights to land and recognition. One million of them were made stateless by governmental decision shortly after independence. Their claim for land to live on, to own and to cultivate is not merely economic. It is also a claim to dignity, belonging and secure roots. The government needs to recognise this history and find solutions that address the land question and the political marginalisation that has stunted their lives.

Acknowledging the rights of the Malaiyaha Tamil community is the counterpart to regional power sharing in the north and east. In both cases the issue is identity, belonging and the right of communities to shape their own future. Regional power sharing in the north and east cannot be a threat to the unity of the country but it can be the guarantee of unity. They strengthen the idea that Sri Lanka belongs to all its people. A country that includes all its communities in its political and social life is stronger than one that tries to deny the differences that exist. Equal citizenship is not weakened by power sharing.

The NPP government has the best chance to do what no government has done before. Its credentials on questions of national identity are strong in the eyes of the people. It also has the numbers in parliament that are needed to take decisions that go beyond the usual calculations of political risk. The current paralysis of the provincial council system is a democratic and constitutional breakdown. Since 2018 there have been no elections. Centrally appointed governors run the provinces. Fiscal powers remain centralised. Local needs are dealt with through central officials, most of whom are from the majority community and may not feel the pulse of the people whose language they do not speak. This undermines the very purpose of the 13th Amendment which is that problem solving takes place at the local level. If the government is serious about equal citizenship, then it must be equally serious about political power sharing. Only then will the idea of equality become real in practice.

by Jehan Perera

Text of a lecture conducted by Bhagya Rajapakse.

Venue: Sri Lanka Archive of Contemporary Art, Architecture and Design, Jaffna on November 2025

Tamil Interpreter: Jasmine Nilani Joseph

Special Thanks: Prof.T.Sanathanan and Prof.Sarath Chandrajeewa.

(First part of this article appeared in The Island yesterday)

What constitutes a piece of art, a masterpiece?

There are three common elements that act as crucial in elevating a piece of art to the level of a masterpiece.

1. A Work of Art That Did Not Exist Before.

2. A Work of Art that is Not Bound by Time.

3. A work of art that Establishes a Benchmark for future generations of artists.

Something new and unconventional always catches our attraction.

Exceptional creativity, craftsmanship, and innovativeness

provide impetus for an artist to create something new and unconventional.

This is how originality comes in.

How would we define exceptional creativity, craftsmanship, and innovativeness?

Let’s understand this with a few examples.

On one occasion someone inquired of Michelangelo about how his sculpting process goes.

And the immediate answer of Michelangelo was, “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.”

In the subject of marble sculpting, the meaning of creativity for Michelangelo was to remove the unwanted chunks and pieces from the marble block and save the figure he imagined on it. In his words, it’s liberating the figure from the marble that imprisons it.

Any masterpiece by Michelangelo was a clear and prime example that demonstrates how exceptional creativity, craftsmanship, and innovativeness converge in a single piece of art.

Another example is the 1942 sculpture by Pablo Picasso, ‘Bull’s Head.’

It’s nothing more than a merger of a bicycle seat and a bicycle handlebar. In this sculpture., Picasso converts two ordinary, unrelated objects into a unique and evocative structure within which unrelated objects form a correlated entity. A BULL’S HEAD.

That’s all about Picasso’s exceptional creativity, craftsmanship, and innovativeness.

Let’s move to another example.

What can one do with a few discarded machinery parts found in a scrap metal store, an iron rod, some wood blocks, and some copper strips?

A creative as well as innovative mind could do a lot more.

By bringing all these components into one single unit, sculptor Sarath Chandrajeewa gave life to something extraordinary. That is the 2023 abstract monument titled ‘Motion and Stillness.’

In this monument the artist embodies one of the most profound concepts in the world.

Motion and stillness is a concept found in physics and philosophy as well as spiritual approaches.

The existence of the whole world depends on the dynamic interplay between motion and stillness.

Motion signifies change and transformation, while stillness symbolises ‘rest’ or ‘pause,’ which ensures the continuity of motion.

One hundred years ago, in 1925, English poet Fredegond Shove

wrote a poem bearing the same title, ‘Motion and Stillness,’ as well as the meaning.

“The seashells lie as cold

as death.

Under the sea,

The clouds move in a

wasted wreath.

Eternally;

The cows sleep on the

tranquil slopes.

Above the bay;

The ships are like

evanescent hopes.

Vanish away.”

This is a moment where the same concept is embodied in two different forms of art by two different artists of two different eras and of two different countries. It’s just about being creative and innovative.

The most important thing to be noted here is that Sarath Chandrajeewa was unaware that there is a poem written a hundred years ago that holds the same title and meaning as his abstract monument does.

Art is universal; it manifests in numerous forms, conveying the same meaning and message over the centuries and beyond.

That is the reason why some works of art are considered timeless. The inherent nature of a masterpiece is that it is not bound by time and space. Instead, it transcends the boundaries of time and space. Mediums can be changed, and styles can be changed, but the core essence of any great work of art remains constant.

Works of art that transcend spatial and temporal boundaries have set precedent for aspiring artists throughout history.

All artists follow in the footsteps of the previous masters in any field of art. The masters of early days and their masterpieces act as models of excellence for other artists.

For instance, Paul Cézanne was a monumental figure for Pablo Picasso.

Picasso was greatly influenced by Cézanne’s work.

Picasso deliberately turned human faces into mask-like forms in his paintings. This was quite evident in his 1907 masterpiece, ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.’ He probably got this idea from Cezanne’s 1894-1905 masterpiece ‘Bathers.’ The faces of the human figures seen in ‘Bathers’ were seemingly carved from wood.

“Cezanne is my one and only master. He was like the father of us all.” That was how Picasso admired and respected Cezanne.

Cezanne’s approach of breaking down forms and restructuring them in an abstract manner provided the foundational inspiration for Pablo Picasso and George Braque when co-founding ‘Cubism.’

Revolutionary moves taken by artists by radically changing the existing styles are always recorded by history. And their fearless approaches to art elevate their work to the state of masterpiece.

‘Cubism’ was one such revolutionary move that radically changed the landscape of art by challenging traditional perspectives and representations.

‘Cubism’ at the beginning of the 20th century shook the foundation of visual art. It was initially faced with incomprehension and rejection by the public as well as art critics.

The fragmented appearance given to the then conventional depictions by ‘Cubism’ was not well received by many.

French art critic Louis Vauxcelles first ridiculed this new style by Picasso and Braque.

In 1908, after seeing Braque’s exhibition, Vauxcelles dismissed the work by saying, “This style has reduced everything to little cubes.”

This was how this revolutionary style got its name, ‘Cubism.’

Similarly, ‘Impressionism,’ which emerged in France in the second half of the 19th century, left the viewers indifferent towards the new approach.

The first ‘Impressionist’ exhibition was held in Paris in 1874.

Claude Monet is considered a pioneer and father of the Impressionist movement.

In the 1874 exhibition, Monet’s masterpiece ‘Impression, Sunrise’ was among the exhibits.

After visiting the exhibition, French art critic and journalist Louis Leroy referred to Monet’s ‘Impression, Sunrise’ as a mere IMPRESSION rather than a finished work.

Thereafter the entire approach was named ‘The Impressionism.’

At the end of 1940, American artist Jackson Pollock established an unusual and unique abstract art technique.

In this technique he laid a canvas on the floor. Then dripped, poured, and splashed paint onto it using sticks and cans. Sometimes he rode the bicycle on the canvas, which was covered with paint.

Pollock’s revolutionary idea was to get rid of the traditional use of the ‘PAINT BRUSH’ and the role of the ‘LINE.’ He was adamant that the ‘LINE’ should not dominate the canvas any more. So, he said goodbye to the Brush and the Line, and both were given freedom from the task of painting.

But Pollock’s works were not immediately appreciated.

Art critic Harold Rosenberg gave the name ‘The Action Painting’ to this new technique initiated by Jackson Pollock.

The term ‘Drip Painting’ was coined by Time Magazine in 1956, and the magazine gave Pollock the nickname ‘Jack the Dripper.’

However, through ‘Drip Painting,’ Pollock set a precedent that influenced artists for generations.

Masterpieces are not immediately accepted by the public, and in the first run, those were highly criticised by the ‘experts’ in the field.

Because masterpieces challenge the accepted norms in any field of art.

The public as well as the critics are initially shocked by the shapes, techniques, styles, or subject matters set by the radical artistic approaches.

It is common for many works of art to be appreciated after the artist died.

Their work stands as timeless and priceless masterpieces posthumously.

In some cases works of art gain much popularity and continue to last because of the concept they carry as well as the location they are being placed in.

One hundred and eight years ago French artist Marcel Duchamp challenged the established perception of art by bringing a signed urinal into an exhibition space as a work of art titled ‘Fountain.’

Duchamp argued that the artist’s intention, idea, and the context made something art.

The context within which a work of art is placed is capable of changing the value of the work and the way others look at it.

Duchamp’s intention was to challenge the then-existing traditions of art to reconsider the nature of originality, authorship, and the way of defining art.

‘Fountain’ is considered the founding piece, and Duchamp is considered the founder of conceptual art.

The urinal titled ‘Fountain’ was not just a mass-produced commodity but a medium carrying a concept.

A commodity was converted to a work of art just by changing its context.

‘Fountain’ was discarded soon after it was submitted to the Society of Independent Artists’ Exhibition in New York in 1917.

The work known today as ‘Fountain’ is a replica authorised by Duchamp.

But the concept it carried keeps revolutionizing modern art to this day.

Another work of art that faced much controversy, praise, rejection, and ridicule predominantly on social media platforms in the recent past was ‘Comedian,’ a work by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan in 2019.

It was all about a fresh yellow banana affixed to a white wall with ash grey duct tape.

The ordinary banana we daily see on the racks of fruit stores became extraordinary after changing its context.

As soon as the banana was placed within a high-profile exhibition space, hundreds of people gathered at the gallery to see this awe-inspiring banana.

It was no longer the banana we see in the market or just a nutritious fruit, but a concept.

According to the artist, ‘Comedian’ was interpreted as a work of art that signifies commodification of contemporary art.

The satirical commentary passed through a banana by Cattelan, in a way, pushes the viewer to re-evaluate their preconceived notion about what constitutes art and how its value is being determined in a consumer society.

‘Comedian’ was sold to three buyers on three separate occasions, and four editions of this art piece have been exhibited in 4 different locations: Florida, South Korea, New York, and France.

In 2019 the first two editions were sold at a price of $120,000, and in 2024 another edition exhibited in Sotheby’s Collection in NY was sold at $6.2 million.

When a banana rots or when someone has eaten the banana while it’s being exhibited, the artist simply replaces it again and again, and then it continues to be an original piece of art. But the concept it carries goes on to last for ages.

Speaking about bananas, this ordinary fruit has been a medium of carrying concepts in many countries, in many contexts, by many artists.

In 1967 American visual artist Andy Warhol launches a banana design screen printed on laminated plastic. This was featured on the pop album cover ‘The Velvet Underground and Nico.

Reviews say that this famous banana design by Warhol reflects his fascination with consumer culture and showcases how a primary object, such as a banana, symbolizes the rise of mass production and distribution.

In 2004 English artist Agnus Fairhurst creates a massive installation of peeled bananas. This nine-foot-long bronze peeled banana carried the concept that “Bananas are sensual, but they quickly decay.”

In the same year, 2004, Sri Lankan artist Sanath Kalubadana, through his installation ‘Dinner Table,’ expresses his disagreement over the horrors and destruction of the war in the medium of a table of food with bananas burnt to cinders.

In 2008, Austrian graphic designer Stefan Sagmeister creates a gigantic installation, ‘Banana Wall,’ with the phrase ‘Self-Confidence Produces Fine Results’ spelled out in green bananas placed among yellow ones.

Nearly ten thousand bananas are said to have been used in this installation. I quote a fascinating Facebook post by content creator ‘Ivan’ here to read out what he has said about this Banana Wall.

“It wasn’t just about shock value; it was about time, change, and transformation. Over the days and weeks, the banana slowly ripened, turning from bright yellow to spotted brown, and eventually to deep black. The scent of the room shifted too, from sweet tropical to something far less pleasant. Visitors returned again and again to see how the wall evolved, turning the space into a breathing piece of art.

If a work of art is to last for ages, it must be received by the public constructively.

Any extraordinary piece of art or a masterpiece has its unique way of initiating a silent dialogue with the viewer.

The masterpiece transmits the message of who they are, using an iconic visual language enriched with artistic elements.

The rhythm of the visual language of a masterpiece is complex. But not complicated.

No masterpiece is easy to understand and is full of complexities. But it never confuses the viewer.

Complexity is intriguing, and complication leads to confusion.

If a work of art confuses the viewer, he or she will no longer be in favor of it. That’s exactly where the silent dialogue between the masterpiece and the viewer comes to an end.

One of the most complex masterpieces in the world is Pablo Picasso’s ‘Guernica.’

Its powerful symbolism is not everyone’s cup of tea.

So, there were many arguments among the public as well as experts about what some symbols really mean.

Responding to this discourse, Picasso said, “It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols; otherwise, it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words. The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.”

Despite all the underlying complexities, people from all over the world spend millions to go to faraway countries to see the great pieces of art with their bare eyes.

Why?

Because every extraordinary piece of art has its own charisma and aura, which no replica of the same work can possess. It is the charisma and aura of Mona Lisa, David, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Guernica, and many more that draw millions of people to their countries to see them firsthand.

They are not just paint patches on canvases or stone figures. They are living beings. They have their own rhythm of breathing, they never die, and they remain immortal, as do the extraordinary masters who made them.-