Is art always beautiful?

[gstark]

Here's a topic that I think might be worthy of throwing around.

In this thread, Keith (Firsty), in making the image, cropped the image to exclude the bird's "deformed" legs, and some surrounding flotsam, for what he cites as artistic reasons.

In further discussion of this, he wonders whether he should have cropped more closely to the bird, thus removing the legs from the image completely.

That's fine, but it raises for me the question of whether or not art is, or should be, or has to be, beautiful.

Although I may have made a different compositional decision from Keith's, (a) I wasn't there and am not going to second guess the state of the flotsam etc that may have detracted from the image, (b) I fully respect and accept that Keith's decision was absolutely correct for the images he wishes to produce.

Consequently, Keith's image, and choices, are completely off-topic in this discussion. I'm purely interested in this discussion as described in the topic.

What are your thoughts, good people?

[Raskill]

Surely art is always beautiful, to some degree, that being in the eyes of the person who produces it.

I remember a few years ago Benetton using shock adds with graphic art (such as the trousers worn by a soldier shot and killed in Bosnia) top advertise the 'Colours of Benetton'. To most observers it wasn't beautiful, but to the producers it was.

[Nnnnsic]

If you think all art is beautiful or should be, go look up artists like Andres Serrano, Damien Hirst, or even Tracey Emin.

[Raskill]

I don't think it has to be visually nice to look at, a lot of art is shit as far as i'm concerned, but the producer of the art won't be looking at it and thinking "I'm created a masterpeice of shit", they think it looks good for what they want

[losfp]

I don't think it has to be "beautiful" per se, but I do PREFER it to be at least interesting.

Or perhaps more to the point, I think art needs to have a PURPOSE, whether that is something intended by the artist, or intepreted by the audience/viewer.

In the example given in Gary's original post, the photo was cropped to draw attention away from distracting factors, so the purpose was to display the bird in as attractive a manner as possible.

Damn subjective things.... Looking forward to reading the various opinions that will no doubt be put across...

[wendellt]

Art doesn't have to be beautiful
what is beautiful about art is that it challenges people and makes them respond to it in their own unique manner this opens it up to subjective opinion.
The process of looking at art and walking away from it with a new insight is what makes art beautiful

As humans we arethe only creatures on earth that can make art and that's beautiful it's freedom to express.

my humble opinion

[Raskill]

I've seen monkies and elephants paint.....

[phillipb]

I don't think it has to be visually nice to look at, a lot of art is shit as far as i'm concerned, but the producer of the art won't be looking at it and thinking "I'm created a masterpeice of shit", they think it looks good for what they want

The problem with this theory is that if an artist consistently produces shit which he sees as beautiful, he's not going to be around for long unless there are a lot of people with the same opinion as him to buy his art.
A lot of the problem is with the so called art experts who have to find something in a work of art that no one else sees.



They say beauty is only skin deep, but ugliness goes right down to the bone

[CraigVTR]

An artist expesses their feelings, thoughts and emotions through their work. Those emotions can be anything from the high of elation to the depths of depair about themselves or any subject that they 'feel' about.

Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and some art is questionable in my opinon. However, any person, whether they considerer themselves to be an artist or not, express themselves in many visable ways. What clothes they wear, the colour or cut of their hair, the car they drive or bike they ride, what colour they paint their house. I could go on and on.

The artist that produces a visual work for the enjoyment, or not, of others wants to convey what they see or feel. Those emotions, or sight, may or may not be pleasing to the eyes of other people.

Is some art worth the public money that gets poured in to it? That's another question.

Craig

[Oneputt]

I have seen some works of art (one painting immediately springs to mind), which was most definately not beautiful in the conventional sense, but which both shocked and attracted me to it. The fact that I can see it clearly in my minds eye and remember where I saw it, some twenty years later, is a credit to the artist.

I well remember my art teacher from school telling me that there are no wrong reasons for liking a piece of art, only wrong reasons for disliking it.

[Killakoala]

I remember when i hated Jackson Pollock's 'Blue Poles,' but after visiting the painting and staring at it for 30 minutes, i fell in love with it.

I believe art can be both beautiful and ugly at the same time. I guess it may also come down to the old question of 'what is art?' Is it an expression of an idea the artist is thinking?

A pile of vomit on a canvas may not be beautiful, but it's an expression of the artists mindset at the time of creation. (Also something he/she ate)

So to me, art can be both beautiful and ugly, but always expressive.

[sirhc55]

Simple answer - no

[Greg B]

Although by no means suggesting that a dictionary definition is the answer to anything, I offer this up as a contribution to the discussion

art

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2.
(a) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

(b) The study of these activities.

(c) The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

6.
(a) A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

(b) A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

7.
(a) Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

(b) Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

8.
(a) arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.

(b) Artful contrivance; cunning.

9. Printing. Illustrative material.

[Zeeke]

What is art?? all depends on the viewer really... a german doctor made "art" from human remains.. by plasticising there bodys and then carving them up and creating unique statues... extremely grotesque and gory... but thats art...

Tim

[Alpha_7]

No

[LOZ]

No because that is the beauty of art .

[Mj]

Sorry Gary... impossible to answer... let's start with "what is beauty" ???

[Matt. K]

Art is the marks or sounds that man makes in order to try and express his connection with the universe. Art is the language that disbelievers use to to speak to God. Art is God inside man trying to get out. Art is the christian name of Garfuncle, an artist. Art does not have to be beautiful to me....but it should be beautiful to someone.

[huynhie]

Art does not have to be beautiful to me....but it should be beautiful to someone.

Well said Matt.

[Mj]

mmm... well I guess my mother might find me beautiful... and even she agrees I'm a bullartist at times so I guess you have a point there Matt.

[energypolice]

No.

[Dug]

A discussion on a similar thread on an art website.

http://www.artforum.com.au/viewtopic.php?p=11654#11654

A friend was fond of saying that an artist can defecate in a bucket and call it art, but that does not mean that every bucket of sh*t is art.

Conversely, it does not mean that all non-representational or challenging art is a bucket of sh*t.

(Though looking at some exhibitions I've seen.... there's room for plenty of sh*t out there... )

Regarding a Hirst exhibition of half a cow in formaldehyde.
It may be art but I have problems with it.

I am not denying his right to create it or the wort of the work to those who buy it I just don't like it.

It has nothing that pleases me for the same reason as I do not want to watch horror on movies and see horrible things.

I have seen them in real life they have no fascination for me to go to a gallery or exhibition to see such thing personally.

If I want to be shocked and revolted by mans inhumanity I can do some work with refugees or homeless people.

I think it is part of our sterile and voyeuristic culture that such things are considered interesting subject.


I spent most of today dealing with a very ugly situation I do not want to see ugly thing when I get to the safety of my home.

Just my opinion Doug

[mudder]

Everyone's going to have a different view and that's one of the beauties of art, it's an expression of creativity, hopefully invoking some form of emotional response from the viewer... With each viewer seeing something slightly different, not necessarily beautiful to one person, but maybe the next.

Some art makes me feel good, some makes me feel sad, I think some art is beautiful and some art, well, it just doesn't appeal to me...

Art follows fashions and trends, some might excite and some might irritate, but if it manages to entice the viewer to invoke some form of emotional response, then maybe it's achieved the goal?

What's the old saying, "One man's meat is another man's poison"???

[Finch]

I agree with MJ - what is beautiful? We are all different and interpret things as individuals.

Look at the controversy the Archibold Prize has caused this year. Many are saying it is 'ugly', but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers

Michael

[Willy wombat]

In deed - beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder or beerholder as the case may be.

Art certainly doent have to be beautiful to be art, but it (or the series) does have to draw or evoke some sort of reaction for the viewer (participant) to be effective as a 'work'.

[suzanneg]

My vote is also no. Art doesn't have to be beautiful. It should be engaging, and cause some emotional reaction. Engaging can be because of beauty, horror, humour, shocking, unusual, you get the idea...