Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Art Must Be Beautiful
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 фев 2018
- Should art be beautiful? Revisit ancient philosophers' thoughts on beauty and consider why we might be skeptical of beauty today.
To support our channel, visit: / artassignment .
Thanks to our Grandmaster of the Arts Indianapolis Homes Realty, and all of our patrons, especially Lawrence Abrahamson, Patrick Hanna, M12 Studio, Barbara Nohinek, Robert Rupp, and Constance Urist.
Subscribe for new episodes of The Art Assignment every other Thursday!
--
Follow us elsewhere for the full Art Assignment experience:
Tumblr: theartassignment.com
Response Tumblr: all.theartassignment.com
Twitter: / artassignment
Instagram: / theartassignment
Facebook: / theartassignment
and don't forget Reddit!: / theartassignment
Art must be? Beautiful.
Ross Evertson the wit of this 👏👏👏
Ross Evertson +
whats witty about it
Art? Must be beautiful
smarter could be achieved with a full stop
The beautiful, is -sometimes- a lazy adjective we use to describe the things we like, or find appealing. It's just one aspect of many other aspects in Beauty, like the humorous, the tender, the delicate, the kind, the sublime, the ugly, the tragic, the dramatic, etc..
We are sometimes just lazy by explaining, or thinking about why we like seeing something, and how it made us feel. The Sense of Beauty by George Santayana is an enlightening read about that matter in particular. Thank you for all the lovely videos Sarah :).
No, beauty is transcendent. Very different from fashion.
Could you explain whether art needs to be thought provoking or not? I personally don’t believe that art needs to be thought provoking, it should merely be allowed to exist.
Shreeya Shukla +
Yess! Beautifully said!
I would say that what is thought-provoking is just as subjective as what is beautiful.
What's not thought provoking?
(I want to contextualize further but limited on time atm)
One of the things I found so mind blowing about the Dada movement was the realization, that we humans are insanely good at finding meaning even in things that are purposely meaningless. There is no such thing as not thought provoking art. Only art not being looked at in a thoughtful way.
There is also the Medieval European fear of physical beauty as seductive and false- that it would seduce away from moral virtue, so medieval paintings often lack the symmetries of the classical or Rennaisance period. Great video as always. Thoroughly researched and great for supplamentory material for a theory of knowledge class.
Beauty is the face of God and the mask of the Devil.
Modern art IS simply the return of the Medieval European fear of physical beauty as seductive and false. It's based on the Platonic and Christian goal of getting "past" the physical world and directly representing an imagined world of transcendent forms. That's very specifically what art critics mean when they talk about the "purity" of art--that it is not tainted by representations of the real world, the "shadows on the wall of the cave."
You are right.
Actually it’s purpose was often to intimidate and warn against the apocalypse that would come in the year 1000. Also didactic, to teach the masses.
Thank you for this Sarah. It may not get as many views as other things on this channel, but please know it is uniquely appreciated.
I would like to order that T-shirt plz
Innuendo Studios maybe something new for DFTBA? I know I want it
Innuendo Studios +
-.rejection of logic, (logos) and reason social warrior pink shirt.
We know beauty when we see it.
Hume is just another deceiver for the political considerations of others.
Good to encounter you here, Innuendo Studios
This was really interesting, also, as a disabled person (I’m in a wheelchair) I kinda want “Each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity where another is sensible of beauty” on a t-shirt, or maybe one of those bold fonted prints you see.
I think ugly things can be beautiful in a way. It’s like dissonance in music; it sounds awful but also intriguing and kind of pretty. But it’s definitely subjective: for example I love rusty, rotting, abandoned buildings and find them incredibly serene and beautiful
that's why i love hegel's statement: Art is beautiful when it allows us to realise truths about ourselves.
Probably why I love Saturn devours his son, there is something that appears beautiful to me in that grotesque painting.
Probably just how you understand and feel the picture
Same, I love looking at abandoned houses falling apart from rot and damp and ivy
I think dissonance in music is beautiful too. It's because of its contrast and reference to tonal harmony. Just like a rusty building could be beautiful, because of it's contrast to a shiny new building. To me, just about nothing is more beautiful in music than a gut wrenching dissonant baroque adagio. Sometimes the dissonances resolves, sometimes not, but its always the reference to the home tonality of the piece that crates that dissonance.
The artists job (among many) is to show us that which we don't yet know to be beautiful.
I appreciate this comment so much, as it resonates with my own perspective. Thank you!
I could write a 10,000 word comment on this subject as I've argued and agreed with so many people on Art and aesthetics.
Instead I'll bring up a few bits and pieces-
•The Japanese concept of Wabi Sabi. The ugliness of perfection, homogeneity, conformity
• the statement that only mankind can create ugliness; that all of nature, even a maggoty rotting corpse, has beauty.
• Power/ pain / suffering as beauty, ( for example a photograph of starving children - it elicits feelings of compassion, compassion is beautiful, is the photo beautiful?)
• the artist as conveyor of beauty- eg: Donald Friend , a painter, whose subjects were young boys in exotic settings, aesthetically pleasing works.
He was also a rampant paedophile and had molested all of his models.
Are the works still beautiful?
This subject , "Art must be beautiful" is just tooo huge, and I love it.
(I work for a company that realises artists concepts, for example if an artist has a commission that is beyond their technical capabilities, we'll make it for them, especially public art.
I once had a conversation with a quite renowned sculptor on the subject of winning public art tenders.
His advice?
"Make it oversized, if that doesn't work paint it a primary colour, if that doesn't work make a heap of them and arrange them in rows. Whatever you do, don't make it more aesthetically nice").
omg that last part is hilarious
Brilliant.
You seem like a person who really knows their art. Can I ask you, why did you choose to work with art? I’m writing a paper on it and am searching for interesting perspectives, which I think you have!
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
i wanna read your 10000 word comment
No channel as well articulated and documented as this.
Whenever I encounter a piece of art that isn't aestheticaly pleasing to me, I turn to my other interpretation of the matter: that piece exists and it says something about our shared humanity and, in that way, it is capital b Beautiful.
Though I get why the concept of beauty is controversial in a material sense, and I 100% agree that something doesn't have to be pretty to be considered valuable and important.
Yes this subject! A 100 times yes! I love the question of beauty in art!
Also wasn't it Kant who said "Beauty is that which pleases without interest"?
Indeed. That subject is a very complex one. I made a go at talking about "disinterest" for this, but decided I couldn't do it succinctly enough. Super interesting, though! Thanks for bringing it up.
very interesting quote you mentioned!
Of course Kant said that, because he was an Idealist philosopher, operating in the tradition of Plato. Note that you're merely citing Kant as an authority, as if there were any reason to think he knew anything, rather than that he was a guy living in a time when we had just discovered gravity. That appeal to authority rather than respecting the views of individuals is also a praxis of modern art which is drawn from medieval Christendom.
Having been exposed to a lot of art and photography with rule of thirds and standard pretty aesthetics ive actually grown tired of it for the most part, i find more beauty in the natural world, the mundane environment, things 'imperfect' and with an air of not being intended as art, not created with aesthetics in mind but not necessarily avoiding them, something i call honesty, a world not created for you but one that just is that you happen to find yourself in
I agree with so many philosophers. I don't find Renoir´s painting at first sight so aesthetical beautiful in themselves, but they make me look at light and colour in a very new way. After having seen Renoir I see my surrounding lights and colours in a different way. And going back, Renoir becomes beautiful.
Thank you for this great condensed presentation about beauty. Lots of great information in there. What comes to mind for me is that you have not talked about the sacred, the holy, the divine, which has been a huge part of art through all cultures throughout the ages. The fact that contemporary art does not focus much on the sacred may indicate that we have lost our connection with that deep place within human consciousness. We have lost our connection to the soul. Contemporary art often does not even try to express human emotions. It's more based on concepts. But concepts are the domain of the engineer, not the artist. Creativity is understood usually as a descent into the unconscious, into intuition, a place away from the ordinary thinking where insights may arise. That's what the art is supposed to convey to the viewer, so that by looking at the art we can resonate with that deep soul experience. More often than not, there is no depth to contemporary art. Mostly a big splash to attract attention any way you can. Maybe that explains why so many people feel that contemporary art is pretentious. Our culture is pretentious, it has no direction, no guiding story. Artists are lost, and art has become a commodity ... like most everything else.
The Art Assignment inspired a whole new love of art for me. There is just so much depth to art that a lot of people never take a minute to understand.
I think the biggest thing “beauty” brings to those consuming art is a sense of understanding. For many, if a piece is traditionally “beautiful” they can understand it (I see this with lots of students in early Interdisciplinary Humanities classes) but as scholars and teachers, we try to help them flip that around: if people can understand what they see, it oftentimes, becomes “beautiful” or, if not beautiful in the traditional sense, worthwhile.
Well if somebody start to talk you in a foreign language, and you couldn't understand, would what he said consider innocent?what if he just insult you?
Is not the understanding, is the appreciation. We,as human prefer nature,prefer symmetry, we over the course of time, develop a particular taste that is now reflected upon realism and naturalism. I am pretty sure that if you ask anybody about the meaning, or what the artist was thinking while sculpting a greek statue, they would not be able to respond you, but they would be able to appreciate the beauty
Emma Price Too true!
Oh, and super kudos to Mark and co for the amazing 80s-like font and background graphics on all the quotes! I loved them! :D
When we see beauty we see Truth shining through - as beauty is the fundamental quality of life, just obscured from us. That said Truth is to be found everywhere and in everything and different people see beauty in different things. Same can be said for qualities of love, trust, magnificence, power, joy... also fundamental qualities of life. It's easier to see in, e.g. a pretty flower, for most, and it's more of an interesting challenge to show beauty in something seemingly ugly. That said I feel many modern artists are engaged in trying to make the beautiful seem ugly, and I'm looking forward to the next art movement that really breaks from that.
Sarah, your superior ability to educate us about the subject of art is what I am finding truly beautiful today. These are some of the best videos on youtube, hands down and I am learning so much! God bless The Art Assignment and I hope you all keep up the outstanding and beautiful work
this is by far the best philosophical overview of aesthetics I’ve seen on here
This is a super video Sarah -- I'm going to recommend it to my students -- we're reading Laura Mulvey this week!
great vid, super insightful. Did I miss something tho? whats with the 80s cyberpunk-y graphics
Nostalgia is beautiful
Wow, what a powerhouse episode! I love these introspective inquiries... My own definition of beauty these past few years has been "Within beauty, there is no judgement. Beauty just is." Which isn't to suppose that beauty is inherent in something or anything, but rather than our experience of beauty (so a subjective one) captures our attention and our being right in that place that makes us human (and also not to say that it has to do so immediately -- sometimes it takes getting over something, or discovering something, for the beauty to arise within us). What I love about this episode is that each one of the quotes and views no beauty (and add my name to the T-shirt wanting list!) has a measure of "truth" to them. Beauty (and art) is that multifaceted, and like many things that make us human, defies (mostly) being fit within a simple box. As an architect, I know that there are certain "rules" and elements that do indeed help to create something beautiful (and a space that feels wonderful), including proportions and forms and materials and light... but even using those, there's no guarantee, and sometimes the most beautiful and magnificent spaces of all break or ignore every single one of those rules. Love this discussion and exploration! Thank you for putting out out here and asking us about it. :)
Where do I buy this Hume-rous tshirt
HA
“Beauty is valuable, it’s just not the only valuable facet in art” Brilliant.
But it's an important one
I think it is interesting how beauty in art, just as humour in art, can open a door into the work. They can both take our guards down and let us see/experience/come closer to something that we might otherwise have passed by, either because it was too difficult/painful to take in or because it didn't catch our interest in the first place.
Enthusiasm for art found here.
I find it fascinating just how 'contextual' art can be. For example, a run-down, deserted barn in the countryside can be an eye sore. However, photograph it, or paint it and put a frame around it and it can become an attractive work of art. Truly, art .... like idealized beauty .... is in the eye of the beholder.
Thank you for always make me think about art in a different way!
Art can have many purposes or functions. A Bonnard or Vermeer painting captures an ordinary daily scene and turns it into something sublime and beautiful. Abromovichs work is more of a reflective social statement that asks questions such as “ why do we try to achieve beauty or norms of beauty” Her work also makes us ask the question again” what is beauty”. What ideal is she trying to achieve?” Who created the look that she is trying to achieve?” Dada puts the power back into the hands of the artist as to what is art and what is beauty and what is good design. Traditionally, beauty is related to proportion although there is beauty in disproportion as the famous statement goes. Anyone who has had his life changed through a beautiful work of art knows how profoundly affected we are by beauty captured. Ugliness in a work provokes or clarifies or shocks and can be just as profound yet it’s function is to cause upheaval , turmoil, or chaos while questioning-Growth through pain or confusion. Sublime beauty in art is more meditative, satisfying, calming, and grounding.
"If everybody's not a beauty, then nobody is" is so inspiring. It takes away so much of the stress to make beautiful things, or to be beautiful. One way or another, everything is the same.
If everybody is a beauty, then nobody is
I am suspicious of beautiful art. I am also suspicious of un-beautiful art. It's not just beauty that can be used to sell (products or opinions) but you can also sell by using fear and seeming-smarter-than-thou.
I find myself thinking of advertising as the Catholic Church of our age, or the nationalistic governments who supported the Australian Heidelberg artists and the Russian Peredvizhniki. Sure, they are using art for somewhat nefarious purposes, but can the artists make something important/beautiful/subversive/interesting anyway? Can we be grateful that /someone/ is paying for art to exist, even if we don't trust their intentions? Is there a better way for art to exist, and for artists to still get fed?
Sylvia Morris I think this is a truly complex question. "Is there a better way for art to exist" is one of the great struggles of art. Artists must include things they don't agree with all the time in art just to get paid, which is why we, as observers of art, must be cognizant of the bias of the patron as well as the bias of the artist. Look to any work funded by the Catholic Church during the Renaissance and you'll blatantly see the impact the church had on these artists who, very obviously, didn't always want to include religious aspects in their art. But in any case, I love this question you present and it's truly a difficult one without a good answer. Thank you for opening my mind!
I’m angry at myself for taking so long to check out The Art Assignment and Sarah Urist Green. This is an AMAZING channel!
People needs beauty and if we don't find it in the Art, we will look for it in another side.
Would love to hear a detailed account of YOUR personal definition of beauty with examples - what is beautiful and what not. Lots of intellectuals’ opinions here but am interested to hear your personal take.
I am so glad that I found this channel yesterday. Fantastic video.
As a Psychology student and an Art lover, its the self-awareness that the art and knowledge lets us have which is the most valuable thing to me
learning is great but the most important thing is to be happy, life is to be experienced not just analyzed and directed
Thanks for this. Well done. If someone is contemplating identifying their life as a fine artist, this question is one they will need to come to terms with.
A good insight on this tricky question. I would've liked to hear more about the fact that art doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful.
That's why I liked Winkelmann's approach: "I do not turn away until I find at least some beauty in it". So far, with a bit of time, I can find beauty in pretty much anything v
Beauty to me is a gasp - a wonder - a recognition of that which moves us to feel emotions truthfully, or purely. Sometimes that emotion and truth is honestly hurtful; sometimes, it is inspiring; sometimes, it is jealous. No matter your conception of beauty, we all need to feel connected -especially connected to that which is bigger than us, or better than us. This is not to say that we are not good enough or that we are meaningless or worthless, but that we all aspire to improve and grow. I am a musician, and this series is fascinating to think about in regards to the art of music. Musical beauty can be very subjective, but I do believe that some art is better than other art, in that it inspires more people to feel emotions truthfully, or purely.
Hickey was spot on! Sorry he is not still among us. Rest in Beauty, Dave.
I finished this video, I still believe that art should be beautiful. So to me beauty is objective.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder applies strongly to this topic
I need all these quotes on a tee! Loved this one ♥️
This series is wonderful-jam-packed with a truckload of content. I wish there were 50% less words. Zinsser the script please!
For the most part I did agree about the definition and development of beauty. But strangely I disagree about being suspicious to beauty. Maybe because I'm being susceptible to things? My question would be: why are you suspicious to beauty?
And just as a side note: the medieval period in Europe might (most likely) have ideas of beauty. One of the probable problem is the lack of theoretical description of beauty in at least early and high medieval period, which leaves art historian with pretty much the modern take on beauty in the medieval period. Just mentioning this since it's kinda unfair to skip more than 500 years of history from the antiquity to the Renaissance.
Mike Regnetta talks about why we "overthink" pop culture in his video "A Defense of Overthinking Pop Culture" and think that this ties into this subject.
I've thought about this, and for me art doesn't have to be beautiful, it just needs to make you feel something, think differently about something you've had a set opinion about, make you think about something new, or even question your belief in something. Great video :D
sheep_in_a_spaceship Amen, sister. Let that art make you feel and think :)
There is always beauty. If you look where there is none to find, you become it.
I'm a 3d creature designer and I need my art to be all kinds of things. Beautiful too and some times scary and mean🐍🐉
That was a great way to discuss beauty! I'd be so grateful if you extracted bibliographical references in the foot of the video to be able to consult more on the subject.🙏🙏🙏
The concept of beauty is very important, because we value our opinions more than beauty. Opinions can't be wrong, they define us and make us feel unique. Opinions are often mistaken for intelligence (see Dunning Kruger) and we give greater importance to those with very strong opinions. In court, they are referred to as "expert witnesses" based on the confidence of their testimony. An art collector who pays millions for a piece of art verifies its beauty with cold, hard cash (in the form of a wire transfer, of course) and those who thought the piece ugly must now question their own values.
I like that not only do we question our perception of beauty but our preference not just to consume beautiful things but to produce it as well. Is it because it sells? Why is that such a bad thing?
I love feeling that something is beautiful, I think there's not just one way to be beautiful, and sometimes I find things beautiful that other people don't, like cat teeth, and, it used to seem to me like being beautiful was the most important thing, hence anorexia... I started being jealous of beauty in art, or anywhere, because I will never be beautiful, but now I find art that isn't meant to be beautiful, beautiful as well :)
I’ve been thinking about this from the other direction. Less about beauty and more about unattractiveness. When I look at a piece of contemporary art, I think “Will someone still want this on their wall 100 years from now? When the backstory is gone and there is no wall plaque to help create context, will most people will still find this a “good” piece of art or just ugly?”
Loved it. You always make me think more about what do I really believe
Your balanced presentation is beautiful in itself. Perhaps Beauty and Truth work together; as in insight meditation, where one needs to be pleasantly calm enough to look deeper. The aesthetically pleasing may be necessary to help us experience a level of truth that by itself would be overwhelming.
Some how this episode made me think of the video George Condo Interview: The Way I Think at the Louisiana Channel, but I'm not sure why. Maybe some of it is due to Condo's description of his work method, or maybe he too talks about different perceptions of beauty. I don't remember..
EITHER WAY great episode!
This reminds me of the philosophical topic of epistemology (the study of knowledge and knowing), and something called relative subjectivism. Relative subjectivism is a kind of approach to an epistemological problem called 'the God Trick' which posits that absolute, irrefutable truth is a fantasy of human thought, and usually used historically to manipulate masses into believing that something is true or good because it was declared in holy texts, or by elevated individuals. Relative subjectivism posits a solution that allows for idealogical interdependence, which means illuminating and embracing any and all biases, allowing them to change over time and affect each other. Most importantly, this system of knowledge would allow for truth and fact to exist differently within each person, something which would in a system that deifies total objectivity of knowledge be the opposite of so-called truth.
To me, this applies to the question of beauty because of the ideas brought up by Sarah's quotes of ancient philosophers on the subject. These philosophers and thinkers define beauty in a way that has the same essential or objective meaning. Similar to how the God Trick is a concept for absolute fact, something that exists whether or not someone experiences or discovers it, the ancient conceptions of beauty were, as Sarah says, "...something that rests in the object and not in the response of the beholder." It's almost as if the rough conclusion that Sarah draws from the questions and research in this video is that of a sort of aesthetic relative subjectivism. In summation, Sarah says, "Beauty might be subjective, impossible to define, ever-changing, and socially inscribed, but it's nonetheless real..I'd argue that beauty is valuable, it's just not the only valuable facet of art." I'd go even further and argue that finding beauty, not just in art but in the world around us, is a part of growing up and being human, just like discovering for ourselves what we think is right or true is a part of being human. It's the interdependence of information, whether aesthetic or logical information, that creates the complex, subjective, and I believe inherently human experience of "truth".
This video makes me think. You describe a very traditional, dualist view of aesthetics in philosophy, which has seeped into our ideas on art (history). These views on aesthetics are very much based on the beholder, as you explain, being the most important -- being the active participant -- in the relation between art and beholder. Beauty (but also agency, ideas, characteristics) is bestowed. I would say this is based in the aesthetics of reception, or reception theory. This is a very anthropocentric view of art and objects in general. Perhaps this lies in the fundaments of the channel being a very museum-focused, and thus presenting museum-esque ideas about art -- where I would say that art is so much more.
I am interested in thinking about art and cultural objects as active in themselves. They do not need a human participant to be, to become -- they are formed in their materiality. These ideas stem from a philosophical/art historical trend that rejects the fundamental dualism on which Kant, Hume, and the others you mention have based their ideas of beauty. We should focus on the object as an active, dynamic, important agent. Perhaps look into new materialism (Karen Barad, Jane Bennett) or the importance of materials in art (Ann-Sophie Lehmann, Horst Bredekamp).
As a general comment about your show: you focus on quite a traditional, old-school art historical view on art objects. Perhaps, if you have the time of course, you could read up on some new, more progressive art historical literature. Just to counter the views that you have and have people think about art from a different perspective.
I love the channel and please keep up the fantastic work -- keep me thinking!
it's hard to describe the phrase "beauty " , simply because beauty is not limited in one platform , there is beauty of thinking , beauty of being , beauty of creating unusual objects , it's just hard to think that we can measure beauty !
There can be beauty In everything the same can be said that there can be beauty in nothing, beauty is a concept that can be individual as well as be apreaciated by a group of people and its fascinating how the idea of what beautiful is can change in a short amount of time it's fleating and that in itself is beautiful
oh god why didn't I find channel like this sooner? I feel so ignorant when thinking about my views from just few years ago...
I would love more episodes discussing beauty and art!!
Im in love with the host - beauty and brains at its finest
I'd be really interested in cross-cultural research of what people think is aesthetically pleasing, so we could see what similarities there are and which cultural differences exist. That way we could consider what aesthetic qualities we find innately beautiful, and which opinions of beauty are purely cultural.
This wouldn't mean that beauty is objective in a material sense, but there could be elements of beauty that are "objective" to the human experience.
If truth and beauty are the same, sensitivity to one is also sensitivity to the other. An addiction to societal standards of purported beauty obscures truths that reveal themselves through beautiful things that violate the agreed upon (and false) standards.
The artist must hone their senses so as to refuse addiction to the merely pretty or beautiful only on the surface by exposing themselves to a wide variety of things , especially those on the opposite end of the pretty spectrum.
So good. I will share this with my class. Thank you.
I might add that Art is not only a painting or illustration of jam or nature but an ingenious act that elevates the ordinary to the extra-ordinary. Therefore beauty is not separate from the object. I think
No Kant did not think beauty was 'entirely' subjective; this is a bad misreading of Kant. Kant thought that yes beauty provides us with a subjective sense that cannot be rendered into an object, but also that, judgements of beauty do lay claim to universality. The beautiful for Kant has to do with orientating the subject such that it may reflect on itself as a rational being. Part of this is the subject retaining the capacity of exceeding the limits of judgement in order to posit ideals that allow us to reflect on the structures of judgement.
Kant does not think that beauty is 'entirely' subjective, rather, beauty comes before any capacity to judge and makes possible the very capacity to judge. But this does not mean anything can be beautiful, instead it means the beautiful expresses a teleology
Thank goodness RUclips algorithms brought me to this wonderful oasis.
Aversion to beauty is only a postmodern phenomenon and people are realizing a need not just a want for beauty in our lives.
I think “beauty” has a subjective part to it, we respond to certain things differently than other due to our background; but also all humans have the “same brain” and it functions the “same way”, so even though we might come from different backgrounds we all have a tendency to like symmetry, rhythm and order, not only in form but also in color and composition. I would also add that we find beauty in objects that reflect a challenge that we can’t reproduce, like an iPhone, a Renaissance Portrait, or in 70s psychedelic music.
beauty, in a work of art, can be at different levels, for example, the beauty of the drawing, the colors, the proportions, etc ... the beauty is important, because it is more effective. for example, we have noticed that a beautiful, well-drawn airplane always flies better than an ugly one. but it is only a means to give power to this same work. this being said, beauty can be hidden where one does not expect it; hence the importance of certain contemporary artists...
This was stellar. I took a million screenshots of the paintings and quotes. Such an expansive topic though, I - for one - would certainly not mind more content on 'beauty in art' * hint * * hint *
I love Byzantine mosaics, the Pre-Raphaelites and also, German Expressionism. To me, art should be a sort of dialog between the artist and the viewer. Beauty is, of course, a marvelous thing, but I like art that 'speaks' as well as being pleasant to look at.
I would like to say this video is...enlightening... Thank you!
I'm not really sure anymore about what constitutes as beauty in art - maybe it's a kind of harmony or balance, a kind of peace, lack of discord, etc. However, I would love to hear the other side of this argument: "Art must be ugly?" Maybe that would shed more light on the relationship between art and beauty.
Interesting would be to study if animals have a sense of beauty when they make their nests or sing or perhaps when they listen fascinated to certain music. For the rest I think a work of good art preferably has many layers, the more the better. So it could be very beautiful (or ugly!) at first sight but it should have also has many details that only come out after deeper study and it could have a message too and last but not least a masterful technique adds also a lot. Such a work is then not immediately boring and fascinates even the layman.
I really hope more people get the chance to learn more about modern art since it is highly discouraged to be taught in public education
as it should be but i call lie on your statement, schools are mostly filled with modern garbage art sadly
Whenever I find beauty I do my best to paint it as I see it.
I don't just paint beauty but when I can, I do.
I really think we should separate beauty into 2 part the subjective and of the masses. Because the is a nice line of thought to a sense of beauty which is individual and belonging to you but the is definitely a science of making something look beautiful. I like making art which tries to show my subjective/individual perspective on beauty as a hobby but I also think that you can make work in which the majority of people find beautiful or trying to tick this box for as many people as possible.
On that note, I really wish I was allowed my phone out at work because after we clean the factory floors (robotic cleaner rise) my all-time favourite unintentional abstract painting appears from the dust. I call it "At least 35 years of oops I dropped the paint, polished into a concrete floor." :)
thank you
In art, to me, is the Idea and the execution of that idea successfully is a beutiful process in itself no matter what the resultant artwork is.
The sheer extremity of time and devotion and energy spent to create one piece of art has to be worth something and has to be good, otherwise what's the point? So beauty is not dependent on aesthetics.It is a thing in itself.
I was just pondering this question in the bus today :)
If art isn't beutiful or executed with technical expertise it has to be emotionally striking. In a good way or in a bad way, otherwise it's but a rock, or a canvas with some pigment - if the case is that the art isn't emotionally striking or beutiful or executed with technical expertise the art isn't important to anyone and then, who cares if you'd burn it over a fire.
Everyone's feelings is unique, that's why a Piet Mondrian can sing to one person and just be some rektangles to another person. Therefore what is emotionally striking is subjective.
This applies to abstract art wich requires less or no technical skill.
Traditional art executed with technical mastership should be praised because that is objectively beutiful because you know there was a lot of craftmanship there and that is valuable in in of it self.
Oi where can I buy that slamming shirt shown at 4:30 ?
Thanks for the video, I'll definitely have my high school kids this as they just wrote a paper on the subject. I think that, just as with the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes of of absolute objective or subjective beauty. To hear an argument for the objective side, I would encourage anyone to check out Dennis Dutton's TED Talk on a Darwinian theory of how we as a species evolved to appreciate certain things as beautiful.
Art should be impressive, and by impressive I mean gives a certain impression depending on the subject that the artwork portrays.
And about the beauty, we as humans have instinctual subjective standards, and we build upon it additional objective ones related to our experiences.
I think logically - it is very difficult to prove that beauty is objective. Human experiences of the world is essentially subjective - colours and shapes don’t really exist - they’re our brains interpretations of electromagnetic wavelengths. However - I don’t know if I agree with the Hume sentiment that if beauty is subjective it must not be very important. If anything - I personally think how beauty is defined differently across cultures and between individuals is one of the most fascinating aspects of art. Anyway - beautiful video though! :P
I enjoy being around beautiful people, things and places. There are times when I can see beauty in ordinary people, deformed people, ordinary things and places as well. So yes, beauty is subjective indeed. As an Artist, I want to create art that is not only beautiful to look at but is thought evoking and sometimes even clever. I love spending my time studying the compositions of paintings that I find beautiful. Modern Art and most Abstract Art is a joy kill to me. I avoid it like people of today are avoiding Covid-19. Interestingly, whatever I create whether figurative, abstract or scenic does sell. Perhaps not for the amount that can fully sustain me independently for now but I KNOW at some point that too will happen. Having said that, I do want to look at and own beautiful art and although I can admire the beauty behind some ugly art, I will never bring it home and display it.
Art doesn't have to be aesthetic, but great art tends to be beautiful in what it connotes or evokes. Beauty doesn't have to be something visible, it doesn't even have to be related to art - a satisfying math equation, someone's awesome and inspirational perseverance, a heart-warming relationship is all beautiful in that non-visual and non-aesthic sense.
I love the Outrun aesthetics in this video
As a long time fan of Hume, I NEED that shirt!!
Beauty in my eye is all I ever see and all I have ever seen therefore your beauty is a product of your Society, nothing less nothing more.
This channel has beautiful contents. Compared to most channel in RUclips.
Although it may not be true for all art, I need art that I make to please the eye. But then the question is -- am I talking about the eye of any beholder or just my eye?
i think art must be beautiful but maybe not in the expected or obvious way. if you like a work of art it means you're feeling something and that's what beauty is, isn't it? that feeling. even if the beauty is not visual or whatnot. i think beauty is a criteria for art.