Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[TigerNinja]

Art is often conceived of as being beautiful. A mesh of vibrant, tones and colours splashed onto a canvas in such a way that it becomes appealing to our senses. They always have a form of beauty, be it the ideological concept they are trying to give you, or the social commentary as in Grayson Perry's pieces, or simply the symbolism behind them. But despite saying that, does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Tell me your opinions below!

[Hereandnow]

You would have to explain how it is that much in the art world is not art because it is not beautiful. Insisting on beauty as an essential requirement is impossible, unless you are willing to declare much that is called art, not art. I went to an exhibit where there were naked ceramic bodies hanging from a ceiling. They were charred and abused and not remotely beautiful. Was it an experience of art that was elicited? Was it an aesthetic of line, color texture? Or, was it outside the of aesthetic responses? The experience was one of revulsion, suggestive of some savaging event, horrible to behold. Munchs Scream is like this. A lot of Dada is just ugly. Are these aesthetic emotions? I think the answer to this depends on what you think an aesthetic emotion is.
I think an object becomes art when we look at it AS art. Simple as that. Ask me if my cup is a work of art and my attention at once goes to its form, color, texture, and so on. Not it's art,but its is not when I am using it as a cup. My attention makes it art, literally. So, it then goes to whether my experiences regarding the cup taken AS art are indeed art experiences, does it not? Then, your question would take the matter to experiences: some are aesthetic, some not. Which is which? Clearly, the taking up of an object AS art is what is at issue, for when it is taken up thusly, what happens in experience that makes my taking it up, taking it up AS art? What have I done within?

This is where I think your question goes. The hard part is making the concept of art sufficiently exclusive of what is not art. Taking someting AS art is the beginning, but then, how does this work?

[LuckyR]

Art is often conceived of as being beautiful. A mesh of vibrant, tones and colours splashed onto a canvas in such a way that it becomes appealing to our senses. They always have a form of beauty, be it the ideological concept they are trying to give you, or the social commentary as in Grayson Perry's pieces, or simply the symbolism behind them. But despite saying that, does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Tell me your opinions below!

Art clearly doesn't have to be beautiful, just as music can be dissonant and literature can be horrific. Beauty is merely a genre.

[jerlands]

Is man beautiful? Are all men beautiful? Are there degrees of beauty? What is art anyway

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Art is often conceived of as being beautiful. A mesh of vibrant, tones and colours splashed onto a canvas in such a way that it becomes appealing to our senses. They always have a form of beauty, be it the ideological concept they are trying to give you, or the social commentary as in Grayson Perry's pieces, or simply the symbolism behind them. But despite saying that, does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Tell me your opinions below!

Art clearly doesn't have to be beautiful, just as music can be dissonant and literature can be horrific. Beauty is merely a genre.

I agree. "Does art necessarily have to be beautiful?" Absolutely not, just my opinion.

Beauty usually means means accessible, pretty, or harmonious, sweet.

The work of Joseph Beuys or Anselm Kiefer, Cy Twombly, Richard Serra, most of Picasso, Willem de Kooning, ain't beautiful at all.

In my own head, there is a poetic elegance that I look for in art. It could be called a kind of beauty, but that's my personal take on the word.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Art is often conceived of as being beautiful. A mesh of vibrant, tones and colours splashed onto a canvas in such a way that it becomes appealing to our senses. They always have a form of beauty, be it the ideological concept they are trying to give you, or the social commentary as in Grayson Perry's pieces, or simply the symbolism behind them. But despite saying that, does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Tell me your opinions below!

Art clearly doesn't have to be beautiful, just as music can be dissonant and literature can be horrific. Beauty is merely a genre.

I agree. "Does art necessarily have to be beautiful?" Well, no, just my opinion.

Beauty usually means means accessible, pretty, or harmonious, sweet.

[Jan Sand]

It might be instructive to turn the question around. Is anything beautiful therefore art? Since art embodies an element of human intent this would seem not so. But many things accepted as beautiful such as flowers and birds and sunsets or vistas of unusual terrain have no human intent. They were produced out of necessity to fulfill a function and out of the natural requirement that that purpose required ultimate economies of structure and other basics with no human perspective of human attitudes towards beauty involved. Without a human observer beauty does not exist. Therefore, beauty requires human judgment and it is that human judgment which determines beauty and thereby involves human intent and participation. Much disagreement on the matter of beauty involves the differences that individuals have in discerning beauty. Experienced mathematicians have been overwhelmed with the beauty of an equation or a mathematical proof which can only puzzle a casual observer. And science itself has the same difficulty. Beauty is obviously of special attributes involving human participation and humans can differ widely in their perceptions.

[ThomasHobbes]

Art is often conceived of as being beautiful. A mesh of vibrant, tones and colours splashed onto a canvas in such a way that it becomes appealing to our senses. They always have a form of beauty, be it the ideological concept they are trying to give you, or the social commentary as in Grayson Perry's pieces, or simply the symbolism behind them. But despite saying that, does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Tell me your opinions below!

Much art is deliberately ugly or beauty neutral.
There are subjects that art is used to reach which involve ugliness, necessarily.

[Jan Sand]

The boundary between art and science is not only permeable, they frequently overlap. They are different ways to explore the universe.

[-1-]

Craft without art is like sex without love. -- taken from a different site, not my own. I can't quote the originator, because the quoter had no name, and he or she did not give credit to form whom he or she heard the quote.

So ask yourself: do I want to love this or that art piece, or do I just want to have sex with it?

Your answer should give you the answer.

[-1-]

The boundary between art and science is not only permeable, they frequently overlap. They are different ways to explore the universe.

I should have thought that the boundary between art and science always overlaps.

****, I am picking nits.

[Jan Sand]

Science is integral with understanding and art is integral with feeling. Craft is much more a matter of applied science than applied emotion but there are mixtures of intent that get involved in each area with others so one annot simply separate art frpm either craft or science.

[Burning ghost]

Have been reading Schiller recently. He said something interesting that stuck me as being so obivous I’d never noticed it as a truth before.

Both art and science remain outside of political manipulations. No matter what the physical reality and aesthetic appeal of “beauty” will always override any political suppression. We hear a beautiful piece of harmonious music and will stop to listen (that won’t chnage), we watch TV and cannot deny the benefits and understanding achieved through the scientific endeavor.

Both reasoning and aesthetic appreciation are innate. It is up to us to hone them and no matter what people do good understanding and “beauty” will always shine through the darkness of ignorance and apathy.

[Jan Sand]

Art is not only visual art, it is creative communication through many domains of perception and this communication cannot neglect politics since politics is intimately involved with many avenues of being alive. Of course politics is only one of many areas as is beauty. And art has a much wider spectrum than beauty alone.

[Burning ghost]

Art is not only visual art, it is creative communication through many domains of perception and this communication cannot neglect politics since politics is intimately involved with many avenues of being alive. Of course politics is only one of many areas as is beauty. And art has a much wider spectrum than beauty alone.

And taking something someone says as a cut and dry statement with bothering to think of the nuances (or regard the purposeful use of parenthesis) is plainly political.

If one wishes to state that eveyrthing is “art”/“political”/“scientific”/“creativity”/“communication” then one can do so. I’d rather not here thanks