Should Art be Beautiful?

Should art be beautiful?

  • Total voters
    27
the

the

Si master race.
Banned
MBTI
ISTJ
Enneagram
9w1
Its like the title says: Should art be beautiful? Weigh in now!
 
it depends bro, beauty lies on the eyes of the beholder as they say.
 
don't hafta be. can be inspiring or thought provoking or a myriad of other things.
 
anything you like is beautiful for you even if it's horrible for everyone else
or are you talking about the aesthetics of ugliness?
 
Nope, art is a complex thing and there's multiple functions for art. Sometimes the purpose of art is to get a political message across. Sometimes the purpose of art is to expand creativity. Sometimes the purpose of art is to bring a community together. Sometimes the purpose of art is pleasure of the artist.

murder-vietcong-saigon-police-chief-eddie-adams.webp
"Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief"
Eddie Adams, 1968


The above photo isn't 'pretty' but it is art and literally changed the world. It was the political fuel for ending the war in Vietnam, and it IS art. ​
 
[MENTION=731]uberrogo[/MENTION] is this beautiful?[video=youtube;bD6R57P7Z9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD6R57P7Z9w[/video]
 
I don't think art should or has to be anything.

It's nice when it's beautiful, thought-provoking, deep, insightful, etc., but I don't mind having to sift through rubble to find these gems.

Plus, I feel like there's beauty in any work of art, simply because it's a tangible expression of what's going on in someone's mind. It allows them to express what can't be summed up with words. Even when it's a commissioned work of art, the artist still leaves their personal touch, and a little bit of themselves, in the work. Thoughts, fears, hopes, dreams, feelings, stances on an issue, a tool to enact change - all residing within color splashed upon a piece of paper, clay, once shapeless, molded into a breathtaking display, and all the other media - that's a beautiful thing.
 
Good art unveils the layers of prejudice and vain conjecture our natures are cloaked in. It enables us to see, in a less obscured light, who we really are as humans -- our natures, our desires, our views of society at large. So, in the sense that beauty depicts an ideal form, unfettered by a grotesque physical reality, art cannot be beautiful. Otherwise, it would only be a deceitful mirror of ourselves, as we are notoriously imperfect creatures forged of an earthy flesh. However, if one construes beauty as truth, and truth as beauty, then art can embody beauty in its most supreme form.
 
yes. Art can't make a statement if it's not appealing, attractive, or provocative. That quality which makes it art is it's beauty. So, yes, it has to be beautiful.
 
slant said:
View attachment 13224
"Murder of a Vietcong by Saigon Police Chief"
Eddie Adams, 1968


The above photo isn't 'pretty' but it is art and literally changed the world. It was the political fuel for ending the war in Vietnam, and it IS art. ​
Click to expand...

^I wouldn't call that art-- it's more like information. But most likely it should be called propaganda.

I actually voted 'more often than not'. I think the absence of criteria for what makes good art is a big reason why the arts are in trouble right now. It's not a popular opinion but I'm going to come out and say that art needs to communicate with the soul before it can really be considered art… and while there's a lot of confrontational bullshit out there right now that can shock you and stir up your emotions, there are very few artworks being created nowadays which are truly transcendent.

As much as I'm not on board with religion, there's a lot to be said for truly religious art… something which you just don't see anymore.

And all of this 'self-expression' talk is bullshit-- if you're a real artist your artwork should have almost nothing to do with you personally… it's not about making yourself famous, it's about actually saying/making/portraying something that matters.
 
Art that is primarily visual (Im not talking music here at the moment or beautiful cupcakes like the food network) I think should be beautiful. Art is a form of communication and I am not going to force myself to look at an atrocity. I assume that an artist wants to communicate something to me, we have to speak the same language for it to be effective. Everyone speaks the language of beauty.


The photo of the Vietcong above I wouldnt call art. I agree with [MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] I call that news or propaganda.
 
Besides natural things which have their own beauty, anything beautiful we make requires art. Ugly things don't require art.


However, some highly technically artistic things are ugly - in which case the artistry is beautiful, but the theme ugly. So


So in that restricted sense, art should be beautiful - even if its subject matter is ugly: which is to say, that art should be well executed.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Besides natural things which have their own beauty, anything beautiful we make requires art. Ugly things don't require art.


However, some highly technically artistic things are ugly - in which case the artistry is beautiful, but the theme ugly. So


So in that restricted sense, art should be beautiful - even if its subject matter is ugly: which is to say, that art should be well executed.
Click to expand...

I can see what you mean and I agree in that sense.
 
Well, what is beautiful? Is art simply that which one considers beautiful? Is beauty that which is inspiring, which need not be beautiful in its conventional sense? Perhaps art can be defined in relation to how truthful a work is, or how much of an impression it leaves on you, or how much it reveals about humanity as a whole. Interesting topic Uberrogo.

If an artist's intent is to be factored into it, for instance if the expression of a political opinion is the purpose of a work, then its definition as art should not be diminished should its audience fail to accept this particular opinion. On the other hand, if art is purely that which is deemed by a wider consensus to be beautiful, regardless of the opinion or intent of its creator, then in the aforementioned example, that political piece could not be considered art. In reality, the two - purpose of artist and reception by its audience - probably work in conjunction to create what we as a whole call art. And that definition wouldn't be static, either; it would change over time, as the two factors influence and shape each other.
 
When it wants to be so.

Blessed be the art who sought ugliness and expresses the same;
and on the same vein,
Woe be the art who craves beauty, but exudes ugliness;
And the art who seeks to explore ugliness, but doesn't delve into enough of it.

I see mainly two purposes of art; as a message and as itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top