In contrast, David Hume wrote that “Beauty ... in things ... exists merely in the mind which contemplates them. “ From this perspective, beauty is not in the thing or how it’s executed but in the viewer. No doubt we all have our list of what’s beautiful in life and art and what is not. Hume places a good deal of authority over what is and is not beauty in the viewer. That troubles me. We have far too many examples of what constitutes beauty in art changing as the viewer’s view of the work changes over time. The art itself hasn’t changed, only how it is ‘seen.’ Picasso’s perspective on this is closer to my heart: “Art is not the application of a cannon of beauty but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon.”
Agnes Martin’s statement that “All artwork is about beauty: all positive work represents it and celebrates it. All negative art protests the lack of beauty in our lives." She gives me pause, though I’m not sure about her distinction between positive and negative. Elane Scarry touches on this notion of truth when she writes “Beauty incites the desire for truth.” Hum…”Beauty incites the desire for truth.” Why not, Truth is what is Beautiful?
Neal Benezra brings up a good point – confusion among the viewing public about what constitutes beauty. He writes “The assault on beauty by the contemporary art world has left a confused and baffled art-viewing public uncertain about one of the very cornerstones of Western art and culture, namely, the pursuit of beauty.” So? Maybe the problem lies in a public having that as the cornerstone of Western art and culture!?” Beauty is a cornerstone when viewers seek and demand honesty from artists as the standard of whether a particular piece constitutes beauty.
A passage from Oscar Wilde draws me in. In his 1891 essay "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", he wrote: “A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want.”
Art that is based more on sentimentality is not beautiful art, even if its technically well executed or in its execution attempts to pay homage to natural imagery. Where I live, Joseph, a small town in the mountains of Northeast Oregon, there's a good deal of well executed art, art that shows a level of understanding, if not mastery of materials and technique. Sadly, the vast majority of it is all too saccharine, it being virtually about nothing else but sentimentality and strangely playing homage to a romanticized past. While copying from Nature is a time honored method, and certainly many consider it beautiful art, what does it tell us about Nature or her processes? What does it show us that we didn't already know? Works may show us the artist's facility with some media, show technical proficiency, and the artist's intellect. What does it reveal to us about the artist's heart and soul? How much of his/her heart and soul has the artist allowed us to see? If, on the other had, you have affirmative answers to these questions, then the artist has been effective at manifesting his/her intentions and that's sheer beauty.
Posts
