Should Art be Beautiful?

[Io-]

"should"..... Narrow's the field immediately. Maybe "Can art be beautiful" Who wants to be dictated to.

 

[Arquibus]

The only thing art should be is expressive and reflective of that expression. Where that expression comes from, and what it expresses, is not important. It's unlikely that one would choose to express ugliness through beauty (unless of course it was beauty twisted, but I would argue that is still ugliness) and so allowing art the freedom of expression it needs requires that beauty is not required for validity of art.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The only thing art should be is expressive and reflective of that expression. Where that expression comes from, and what it expresses, is not important. It's unlikely that one would choose to express ugliness through beauty (unless of course it was beauty twisted, but I would argue that is still ugliness) and so allowing art the freedom of expression it needs requires that beauty is not required for validity of art.

I think the topic needs to be broken into two parts:

1. Should art represent/express beauty? - ie. Should artworks be beautiful things?
2. Should art be beautiful? - ie. Should artworks be well/beautifully executed?


Art can be about ugly things, but it really should be well executed in whatever style, or technique it employs.

 

[Billy]

There is no "should" in art.

 

[Nixie]

Hum. I agree with Flavus to a degree. Art should be well executed.

 

[Matt3737]

There's two ambiguous definitions in this question:

1. What constitutes art?
2. What constitutes beauty?

How best to define the term “art” is a subject of constant contention; many books and journal articles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean by the term “art”. Theodor Adorno claimed in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident.” Artists, philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists and programmers all use the notion of art in their respective fields, and give it operational definitions that vary considerably. Furthermore, it is clear that even the basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well.

The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as an abbreviation for creative art or “fine art.” Here we mean that skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, or to engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in a functional object, people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestion which is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craft thinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way it may be considered design instead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as art forms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, for instance, have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with the actual function of the object than any clear definitional difference. Art usually implies no function other than to convey or communicate an idea.

Even as late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasn't trying to be beautiful couldn't count as art. The cubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, with such success that, according to Danto, "Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960’s but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well." Perhaps some notion like "expression" (in Croce’s theories) or "counter-environment" (in McLuhan’s theory) can replace the previous role of beauty. Brian Massumi brought back "beauty" into consideration together with "expression". Another view, as important to the philosophy of art as "beauty," is that of the "sublime," elaborated upon in the twentieth century by the postmodern philosopher Jean-François Lyotard. A further approach, elaborated by André Malraux in works such as The Voices of Silence, is that art is fundamentally a response to a metaphysical question ('Art', he writes, 'is an 'anti-destiny'). Malraux argues that, while art has sometimes been oriented towards beauty and the sublime (principally in post-Renaissance European art) these qualities, as the wider history of art demonstrates, are by no means essential to it.

Objectively, art is nearly impossible to define. It is the very first question many encounter in any art class. What is art? Marcel Duchamp is largely famous for challenging this question in his works and his asssociation with the Dada movement. His first controversial work, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, caused an uproar seemingly over the use of the word 'nude' in the title. When asked (through his brothers) to either rename the work or voluntarily withdraw the work, he chose to withdraw and later recalled:

I said nothing to my brothers. But I went immediately to the show and took my painting home in a taxi. It was really a turning point in my life, I can assure you. I saw that I would not be very much interested in groups after that.

View attachment 13273

The most prominent example of Duchamp's association with Dada was his submission of Fountain, a urinal, to the Society of Independent Artists exhibit in 1917. Artworks in the Independent Artists shows were not selected by jury, and all pieces submitted were displayed. However, the show committee insisted that Fountain was not art, and rejected it from the show. This caused an uproar amongst the Dadaists, and led Duchamp to resign from the board of the Independent Artists.

View attachment 13274

The idea was to question the very notion of Art, and the adoration of art, which Duchamp found "unneccessary":
"My idea was to choose an object that wouldn't attract me, either by its beauty or by its ugliness. To find a point of indifference in my looking at it, you see."

Linguistically, the word 'art' is related with such words as 'artificial,' 'artifice,' and 'artifact,' relating to its association with anything produced by mankind. Concerning aesthetics, we then get to the subjectivity, feelings, and tastes related to the perception of art. Personally, I will broadly acknowledge anything produced by another to be art or at least have artistic qualities associated with it, but I believe what people wish to convey when they say something is 'not art' is that it is really 'bad art' or that they prefer to use a more precise term for a work based on function or design. In this sentiment, I agree wholeheartedly. My tastes are such that beauty in art must convey a sense of symmetry in the arrangement and projection of its elements. It will either be a balance of contrary elements that give an overall sense of complementarity, or a balance of similar elements that elicit a sense of depth.

A case in point: I consider this work to be garbage purely based on shock value. Piss Christ

 

[Arquibus]

Art can be about ugly things, but it really should be well executed in whatever style, or technique it employs.

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. Art only succeeds if what the artist expresses is picked up by the audience. In order to make that expression, proper execution is key. To me, expression and execution are interrelated, beauty is just a quality that art may possess. Expression is its purpose, and execution is the means to that purpose.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. Art only succeeds if what the artist expresses is picked up by the audience. In order to make that expression, proper execution is key. To me, expression and execution are interrelated, beauty is just a quality that art may possess. Expression is its purpose, and execution is the means to that purpose.

It would seem then, that art is defined by its communication.

Any work, project, design, etc. undertaken by a human could possibly be defined as art. I presume that art is short from artificial (from the latin words ars and facere: skill, science, knowledge, etc.; and make, build, construct, fashion, create, etc. ). That is to say art can be broadly said to be any product of an intelligent agent.

However, art in the more restricted sense we use, seems to imply a communication of beauty, horror, joy, hatred, etc. That is to say that art can express just about anything. What defines good art, conceding the following points, would be the ability of a human craft, work, creation, building, etc. to communicate, or express something.

 

[Arquibus]

Yes, that I would agree with wholeheartedly. We may say that there is an art to diplomacy, or building fast cars, or any number of professions. But art itself seems to be about me communicating with you in a less direct way than if we merely had a conversation. Many people who are especially persuasive are or were known for having a silver tongue, an artistic way with words. But the same persuasive ability can be used to free a people or lead a nation to war. Artistic skill can be used to create anything the artist desires. Some people do and always have desired to curb those artistic freedoms. Censorship of everything from the human form to drug use have been attacked as vulgar, and hence somehow unfit for viewing. But art has the right to be vulgar, as it has the right to be all things. It just has to be done in a way that can be understood as the artist intends.

 

[the]

Due to the natural flow of my life, I came upon this documentary at my friends Dinner and a Documentary event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY

How fun that I came across it just a few days after I made this thread. Anyways I agree with most of it.

 

[Gaze]

This is art although many would not see it as beautiful, it's artistic quality, it's message, it's story makes it beautiful.

 

[slant]

Why can't it be both art and​ information?

 

[sprinkles]

If people say yes, then no.
If people say no, then yes.

 

[grt$5vb]

Shouldn't beauty be subjective??? /smartass

 

[just me]

Art should be expressive, or merely copied.

 

[InfernoMink]

If we only had beautiful things in art. We probably wouldn't have studied anatomy centuries ago since all those medical books were only illustrated before photography was invented. So only being able to produce beautiful art would have delayed progress in the field of medicine.