![]() Of course there are standards of beauty – that which is seen as ‘traditionally’ beautiful. The fundamental difference between art and beauty is that art is about who has produced it, whereas beauty depends on who’s looking. ![]() Aesthetic responses are often underdetermined by the artist’s intentions. Furthermore, ‘communication’ is not the best word for what I have in mind because it implies an unwarranted intention about the content represented. But isn’t the difference between this and a Freddy Krueger movie just one of degree? On the other hand, my definition would exclude graphics used in advertising or political propaganda, as they are created as a means to an end and not for their own sakes. An older brother who sneaks up behind his younger sibling and shouts “Booo!” can be said to be creating art. One of the initial reactions to this approach may be that it seems overly broad. The content of that experience in its cultural context may determine whether the artwork is popular or ridiculed, significant or trivial, but it is art either way. Therefore, art is the intentional communication of an experience as an end-in-itself. And although a person can have an ‘aesthetic experience’ of a natural scene, flavor or texture, art is different in that it is produced. Similarly, the aesthetic attitude requires you to treat artistic experience as an end-in-itself: art asks us to arrive empty of preconceptions and attend to the way in which we experience the work of art. When you step out of a river and onto an island, you’ve reached your destination. Thus, works of art rise like islands from a current of more pragmatic concerns. Now a theme in aesthetics, the study of art, is the claim that there is a detachment or distance between works of art and the flow of everyday life. Consequently, I believe that defining art based upon its content is a doomed enterprise. Works of art may elicit a sense of wonder or cynicism, hope or despair, adoration or spite the work of art may be direct or complex, subtle or explicit, intelligible or obscure and the subjects and approaches to the creation of art are bounded only by the imagination of the artist. So beauty in art is eternally subjective. ![]() But neither the artist nor the observer can be certain of successful communication in the end. Beautiful art is successful in portraying the artist’s most profound intended emotions, the desired concepts, whether they be pretty and bright, or dark and sinister. In the context of art, beauty is the gauge of successful communication between participants – the conveyance of a concept between the artist and the perceiver. Beauty is rather a measure of affect, a measure of emotion. There are plenty of pretty pictures available at the neighborhood home furnishing store but these we might not refer to as beautiful and it is not difficult to find works of artistic expression that we might agree are beautiful that are not necessarily pretty. What then is beauty? Beauty is much more than cosmetic: it is not about prettiness. Art is to be found in how the media is used, the way in which the content is expressed. But the content that we instill on or in our chosen media is not in itself the art. And because words alone are not enough, we must find some other vehicle to carry our intent. It is the communication of intimate concepts that cannot be faithfully portrayed by words alone. Art is an expression of our thoughts, emotions, intuitions, and desires, but it is even more personal than that: it’s about sharing the way we experience the world, which for many is an extension of personality. SUBSCRIBE NOW Question of the Month What is Art? and/or What is Beauty? The following answers to this artful question each win a random book.Īrt is something we do, a verb.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |