Discussions
The Subject of Art and Beauty
Posted by Anthe • 8/08/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: art, beauty, philosophy
On a forum this week there was a question if art is purely subjective. I have been thinking about that more often en discussed it on a music forum as well before. There someone pointed me to the philosopher Adorno, who said some remarkable things about art and beauty in his writings about Aesthetics.
"Whereas Kant conceives of beauty as a subjective experience, Adorno suggests that beauty mediates between subject and object".
I wrote a blogpost about that a few days ago, and today I wrote another, still very much thinking about all that.
developmentals.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/the-judgement-of-art/
developmentals.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/the-subject-of-beauty/
So I would like to hear how others feel about that.
Is art purely subjective, is it all in the eye of the beholder, or is there some general truth about it?
And is it different for beauty?
User Comments
-
I believe there is an element of subjectivity to art and beauty/harmony, but I also think they follow principles which are quite objective.
There was a similar discussion recently. I will read your posts in more detail later on.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/aesthetics-
Thank you for that other discussion thread, I must have missed that. I cannot remember reading that discussion, but I do remember reading that blogpost with the beauty and the beast and the discussion that followed which was really interesting.
I think there you indeed said something more about the objective principles, so I will read that discussion again now that I have some more structured thoughts about it myself. -
Wrong place, see below.
-
-
I think the relation between art and beauty is an arbitrary one. Picasso said: "I have a horror of people who speak about the beautiful. What is the beautiful? One must speak of problems in painting!"
I think whenever you formulate a definition of art or beauty you're setting up a strawman which someone else will eventually knock down. But dreaming up these definitions is a pleasant game and a challenge for artist and critic alike, so it's great fun to do it if you don't take it too seriously.-
Great expression by Picasso. And I think I can totally see what he means here. But when he says that, he probably is struggling to get done the things he wants to do, and perhaps beauty is not the most important at that point.
But when he says ‘problem in painting’ I think symbolises exactly what I was thinking. He is trying to ‘express himself’, because he wants ‘to say’ something. Maybe not a conscious thought, but he wants to gets something ‘done’ on his canvas.
Well, I agree that every definition of art or beauty can be knocked down and it sure is not my intent to have a strict definition. Actually I think the best definitions often are those that leave room for other thoughts. And it is indeed a pleasant game and challenge. -
Anthe,
I have read your entries and left a comment.
Interesting what you suggest about Picasso trying to express himself.
The fundamental determination of a work of art is the idea of the artist. Hence, beauty would only play an important supporting role. Anf the person who would focus on that aspect would overlook the substantial aspect of the work of art.
Quite cleverly, Aristotle said, if all realities were works of art, substance (the answer to the question what is Being as Being) would be the idea of the artist. -
I also think the idea of the artist is fundamental, but I do think that the form the idea gets, is also very important.
Although it does not have to be in an attractive way, (it can even be in a repulsing way) I think it is important that the form as closely as possible reflects what is meant to come across.
And while struggling, puzzling and rearranging there is this moment of YES, it all suddenly fits together. And maybe that is the beauty of it. -
That sounds pretty much what I would say, except better, lol. Making art is really about the process, the journey, and art and beauty aren't necessarily the same thing. When you focus on beauty, you can get hung up on the end result (I know lots of people who can create beautiful things that I wouldn't call "art") and forget all about the process. -
Shesgotculture: The process seems indeed essential, maybe that is what it is all about.
I just read a quote on Twitter that was something like ‘wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do, as in knowing what to do next’.
And that seems to be about the same with art, because I think especially with art it has to be about the process of understanding what is happening (maybe not conscious, but more a feeling or desire) and be able to follow your own rules.
-
-
Sometimes I think people think about it too much
There are times when a paintings message is very clear, and other times viewers bring their own meaning to it, or presume to know the intent of the artist.-
Yes, at the moment I am certainly guilty of thinking about it too much :-) Don’t know why but somehow it seems important to find out if there is way of communication beyond the common words and bodylanguage.
A communication beyond time too, as art is an expression of the time the artist lives in. Or often more an expression of what is coming. Well, for some artists then.
And presuming the intent of the artist is indeed also such an interesting phenomenon, but is, as well as bringing their own meaning to it, part of the game I guess. -
Sometimes people see things in my work that I hadn't thought of at the time of making it, but they have a sense of what it is. Other times they are so off the mark in presuming what inspired a piece I am floored. It doesn't mean their interpretation isn't valid to them, but I think there is a danger in trying to analyze an artists intent or personality.
Sometimes I have painted something purely for the challenge of it, no underlying cause than that. Then there are some who think I focus on dark subjects and that must mean something, when in fact they have ignored or are not aware that I do light subjects also.
Yes, art is subjective. -
I think it can be very frustrating if the intent of the artist is analysed and they are way of.
But if someone sees something in it, that you did not see yourself, that seems to be essential, I think that is the beauty of art. It is not a strict set of observations, but an image that can have many forms or so. -
I don't get frustrated with viewers bringing their own interpretation or meaning to my work, nor do I feel their interpretation is wrong even if it wasn't the intent behind it. What I don't appreciate is when they presume my character based on their interpretation.
-
Yes, I can see the difference. But would you say that the art you make is always part of your character, (apart from the judgement of others) or is it sometimes nothing more than just a trying out of a technique or so.
-
"But would you say that the art you make is always part of your character, (apart from the judgement of others) or is it sometimes nothing more than just a trying out of a technique or so."
It is part of my character to be inquisitive about things, to enjoy eclectic tastes, to talk about a variety of issues, and that is reflected in the body of my work. Sometimes I do something purely for the challenge, like being able to paint lace, or satin, or flesh tones, and there was a time I painted tongues because it was a technical challenge getting it's wetness and surface texture. -
Yes, I saw that painting on your portfolio. Fascinating!
In that sense it seems that every painting you make, is a reflection of ‘a part of you’. It is just that others might judge it the ‘whole you’ that is making it frustrating.
Or maybe the fact that others conscider something ‘dark’ while you might see it as ‘reality’.
I am just speculating as I find it really very interesting to have your views on that. -
I don't mind people viewing or saying my work is dark, since to me it reflects the yin yang of life and sometimes life has a dark side. Just as I talk about a range of things in life, I put it into visual language as well.
"In that sense it seems that every painting you make, is a reflection of ‘a part of you’. It is just that others might judge it the ‘whole you’ that is making it frustrating."
Yes, I don't think one can look at a few paintings or a series and determine the character of a person. They can see the artist interested in spending time exploring a theme (whether it is technical, subject matter etc) but that work is a fragment of that persons life and interests.
One painting I have called "you presume wrong" was a wee play on the idea that people might assume things about the painting. It really all started with a desire to see if I could paint a tongue, and the thorn stemmed rose through his head was nothing more than a need to create a compositional balance using colours that complimented the rest of the painting and adding a bit visual interest. Each viewer brings their own experience and ideas and that is great, but trying to presume that it evolved from some hurt on my part, or anger at a man is way off.
-
-
I think for the greater part Art is subjective, we are all unique therefore have unique ideas and reactions when we are exposed to Art, take Stendhal syndrome for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stendhal_syndrome !!
However I believe that when the golden ratio is used in Art- employed by Leonard Da Vinci and Dali etc, then we will automatically adhere to it. There is something very,very intriguing about 1.6180339887...-
Wow, I never heard of that syndrome. Intriguing!
Although I can also be overwhelmed by the beauty of art (mainly music) it has never been that strong fortunally :-) Maybe that is the same as some say to be mystic experiences in nature, the beauty of a mountain or something like that.
And this golden ratio is something that might be seen as an objective, maybe even scientific measurable effect on people. Must go search for that.
But even than people will likely respond to it very different.
-
-
It's purely subjective. Each person's idea of beauty is distinctly different. There may be general consensus--but I have found true beauty in people/things that no one else saw. Of course, those were different than the 'sexual beauty' that most people think of.-
Yes, I have that too, seeing beauty that no one else seems to see. Maybe it is a certain way of looking at things, that even changes over time, depending on life experiences.
So in that sense indeed subjective.
-
-
It's interesting. I often attribute beauty to personal experiences...and how it affects how we see things. But that Adorno outlook surely proves to be a challenge. Indeed, something to think about.-
Yes, challenging indeed. I found another essay from someone that writes about Adornos views on that. I am reading and trying to understand what he says, but it is confusing to say the least.
I am trying to put some of that in my own wording so that I can understand it all better. Philosophical language! Sometimes I have to read it 3 times before I can begin to understand what it says.
But the strange thing is, that by reading very fast over it, I often get a sense of it being something I have been thinking about myself and then when I read it, without exactly understanding it, it does make a lot of sense.
I have that more often and now again with Adorno. And if I do so, I just have to understand it!
-
-
Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder - but often set in a cultural/societal context-
I agree. The ballet "The Rite of Spring" created boos and uproar to new audiences when it began. New Orleans was outraged at the beginning of the last century when it was tagged "The Birthplace of Jazz." Such primitive, tasteless banging and clanging had NOTHING to do with rhythm and harmony. It was an insult for the city to be so associated. "Nude Descending a Staircase" triggered controversy within the accepted Art World when it appeared in New York. An upset repeated in the early '60s when Andy Warhol had the gall to showcase Campbell Soup Cans as "art".
It is the history of arts. Our perception of "aesthetics" undergo constant revolution. Artists are our explorers, probing new ground, new sounds, pushing accepted boundaries, and through their work marking the guideposts for all of us who follows. -
Maybe the audiences did not have much of a sense of beauty/pulchrum? Seriously, I cannot agree with the assertion that beauty is purely subjective. Fundamentally, beauty in art is about proportions, balance and general harmony, clearness and simplicity, faithfulness in representation.
It is no doubt the contemplation of nature which "trains" our sense of beauty, by revealing its harmony and height, even in the peskyist mosquito. -
Nomadic: Yes, that cultural/social context is very important I think. I have been going deeper in Adornos writings and he seems to see art as a sort of reflection that.
"Artworks are not mere things. Insofar as they are woven into the fabric of social and historical relations, Adorno regards artworks as the 'social antithesis of society'.” -
Rivy: I really like that "through their work marking the guideposts". And pushing accepted boundaries is indeed what art does, what it is supposed to do actually.
-
Harveyavatar: “The contemplation of nature wich trains our sense of beauty”, wow, yes that sounds really true.
-
-
The work of art itself is the best definition of Art.
Take all the works ever created and all the works yet to be created-and that is my definition of Art.-
Maybe this is the difference between art and aesthetics. Art being just what arises and no need to be evaluated, while aesthetics is trying to get art defined, trying to understand it.
-
-
I think art and beauty are found in the making of art. The seeking spirit that pushes one to pursue an ideal, an answer is the foundation of art. Something merely beautiful and pleasing is not necessarily art (good craft maybe). What makes us think, feel (good or bad) when reading/hearing a poem, looking at a painting or a movie is what I would call art. Maybe art is the occurrence of an unspoken communication between two lives (that of the artist and that of the viewer) through a medium (the object of art).-
Yes, I think that is a very important distinction between art and good craft. But I am not sure yet, if what makes us feel or think a certain way is making it art. Maybe someone feels the same about a dog or a tree.
But I do think it is about the unspoken communication between lives through the object of art. -
Sylnande, Anthe, thank you for your comments and thoughts.
Defining "art" has been my life quest. Or more accurately, defining myself, finding my self, within the realm of art. I am an artist. I have been one all my life. (I did not term myself "artist" until I was in my mid-40's - all the years before I would just say "I'm a drawer. I like to draw and write down things.")
But "artist" I am. Whether good or bad, important splash or just another pebble cast onto the beach, is beside the point. I do what I do. And I do it with words and imagery.
It is not about "beauty". Harmony. Rhythm. It is about me. Fear. Doubt. Hunger. Seeking. Failing. Reaching. Living. Stumbling often as I move. Retreating at times with boredom and doubt. Yet - at age 71 (my birthday was Friday!-smile)I continue forward. With hope and humor (dark as it may be) and gratitude. My art is about me. Life. The life I experience. And hopefully leave a sense to others of what it means to me. Make a connection with their own. Whether I succeed or fail, I don't know. I do it. Gratefully. Art is my life.
-
-
Rivy, great blog you have. I love the combination of words and images. Personally I always like a context, a few words that make things more clear.
But when you say that it is not about beauty, harmony and rhythm but instead about fear, doubt hunger, seeking, failing etc, I really wonder if not those so called negative things ARE the beauty, harmony and rhythm. The beauty of life, which is (and I really feel it that way) what it is all about.
And that what it is all about, has to be expressed in one way or another.-
Thank you, Anthe. I appreciate what you say. It sparks more thoughts for me. And maybe the need for some clarification. I feel Art is about Life. As it is lived. The yang and yin. The up and down. The dark as well as the light.
In many lives the dark looms large. Adam and Eve. Hansel and Gretal. Romeo and Juliet. The Beauty and the Beast. From mythologies of the Gods, the Bible, Shakespeare, on and on, the stories, whether told in words, imagery, ballet, music, often deal with betrayal, incest, love, hate, desire, crushed hopes, bitter finales.
Yes, rhythm, harmony, and beauty ARE the tools of art. The means by which we are seduced, drawn in, even transformed for the moment. Art allows us to feel the emotions of another take, another outlook. Another life. And for some, motivates us to try with these tools to record our own. Dark or light. Dark and Light. Our lives.
-
-
There is a point to be taken from the both of them in that there is a depth of truth in both argument. -
"Death is the mother of beauty." If I had to single out one underlying cause or subject for art, I'd say it was the desire for immortality.
-
Thats some beautiful phrasing. Very brilliant Nothingprofound! -
I agree. Ego is a large part of the psychological profile of the artist. The need to somehow transcend the moment. To somehow save it for myself, to hopefully communicate it to others. Those beyond my own reach of life.
-
-
Why do we ask what beauty is, I let beauty be what it is without question. Its vague really.
-
I've many of these responses and agree with almost all of them! I think a better question to ask is, why do we consider a work of art beautiful? Why is some art considered disturbing? What causes us to have a primordial response to something and label it as beautiful, strange or exotic? There are many answers but many more questions.-
The word 'primordial response' immediately got my intention and I think highlights a difference with the response that is based on previous experiences.
Of course the culture we grew up in is essential in many things, as are our childhood memories. But that is also what I wonder, what are the universal responses, that do not depend on individual experiences.
-
-
Larissa31-Why don't you start a discussion thread asking one or some of those questions?
-
I echo your suggestion. I like discussions that have dept. (Not that I don't enjoy doing my one-liners to. (smile)
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
