Beauty. So many people look for it in Art. A work must have this "beauty," this aesthetic value that make people want to view the work.
But should Beauty be central to Art? Can we define Beauty? Should we even try?
Beauty is a muddy subject. It is far too subjective to ever craft a meaningful definition. Two people can watch a lion kill a gazelle, and while one can call it beautiful, another may call it horrifying, appalling. How can beauty be defined when a single object can elicit such diametrically opposed reactions in the viewer?
The simple answer is that it cannot be defined, this it should NOT be central to Art. Just as a person who eats only for pleasure cannot grasp the true meaning of eating, so can a person miss the meaning of Art if they search only for Beauty.
Art is anything, ANYTHING, that conveys a feeling, a message. How that message is interpreted may vary from person to person. But if it communicates a feeling, any feeling, be it love, lust, depression, disgust, or anything in between - THAT is Art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is physics beautiful to you?
I cannot answer that question on the grounds that I have not yet developed a working definition of the word "beauty" on which to base such an answer. In the immortal words of the Magic 8 Ball, "ask again later."
Post a Comment