Home Forums The Think Tank Art History Discussions Is art merely the pursuit of beauty?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 115 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #989564
    jonathanmehl
    Default

        [FONT=&quot]In an article in The Central European Journal of Aesthetics Karol Kuzmany claimed that “the aim of all art is the creation and representation of the beautiful” (229).
        I’m curious to know what other people think. Is art merely the pursuit of the beautiful, or is there more to art than that? I believe that art is much more than that, but I’d love some feedback to see what others think about that claim.[/FONT]

        #1159947
        KrystalB333
        Default

            I think that Karol Kuzmany has not seen much art. :) I absolutely disagree with her claim and completely side with you.

            To only make beautiful images for the sake of beautiful images would be boring and there wouldn’t be nearly as much art created in the first place. If we only are seeking aesthetics, we should simply place the brushes, pens, pencils down and go outside. lol

            What are your thoughts?

            [FONT=Georgia]Krystal Booth
            [FONT=Georgia][FONT=Georgia]www.krystalbooth.blogspot.com
            [FONT=Georgia][FONT=Georgia]www.wix.com/krystallbooth/art

            #1159948
            jonathanmehl
            Default

                Krystal,
                I believe that art goes much deeper than just a sense of beauty or a pursuit of beauty. I think that art is closely attached to emotion, and our negative emotions (anger, hate, sadness, depression, meaninglessness, etc.) are just as strong as our positive emotions of love, joy, etc. In an ideal world where all we experienced was happiness and joy and love perhaps art would be only beautiful, but we live in a world that is so often torn apart by war, hate, broken relationships, and I think that it is only fitting that our art reflects some of that.
                And I completely agree that if art was only about seeking aesthetics perhaps we would be better off if we didn’t create art. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with art that seeks to recreate beauty, but I don’t think that art is limited to such narrow confines. I recently read an article published by the American Psychological Association that stated that “art is central to human life, and it is a mystery why something that does not seem essential for survival would capture our interest so intensely and become so ubiquitous in culture.”
                We certainly don’t need art in order to survive, but there is a part of us that senses a need to express emotions and experiences through art and music and poetry. It is not necessarily an attempt to create a perfect world of beauty and order, rather it is an attempt to capture a perspective of the world around us – an interpretation, if you will. Sometimes the arts mingle in ideals, but the art forms that seek ideals are not more truly art than the forms that simply capture a reality, whether of the world around us or of our minds.
                But I am starting to ramble….thoughts? Comments? I’m certainly open to hearing other opinions. I have been asking many of these questions about art and I certainly don’t think I have arrived at an ultimate definition of art or its purpose. I am interested in continuing to ask questions and hear what art means to many different people.

                #1159946
                Coldcreation2
                Default

                    [FONT=&quot]In an article in [I]The Central European Journal of Aesthetics[/I] Karol Kuzmany claimed that “the aim of all art is the creation and representation of the beautiful” (229).
                    I’m curious to know what other people think. Is art merely the pursuit of the beautiful, or is there more to art than that? I believe that art is much more than that, but I’d love some feedback to see what others think about that claim.[/FONT]

                    This is but a section of a sentence quoted. To get a feel of the actual meaning of the full sentence, within the context meant by the author(s) see here.

                    And here:[/url] “The aim of all art is the creation and representation of the beautiful, or the creation and representation of certain objects in a way that makes it possible to feel their essence…” etc.

                    In the first part of the essay, concerning general aesthetics, Kuzmány presents his theory of beauty – the feeling of the essence of things through perception by the mind (Anschauung or intuitus mentis); the basic idea – truth, the moral good, and beauty – according to Kuzmány, comprises the idea of religion in the broader sense – Humanität, humanitas. Rather than the opposite of beauty, the sublime constitutes beauty’s being raised to a qualitatively higher level: it is based on a contemplated intuitive awareness, which is itself felt. The second part of the essay consists of Kuzmány’s attempt to define art and to categorize kinds of art and genres of poetry. He distinguishes between unmediated art, which represents beauty to the external senses, and mediated art, which is aimed at inner feeling. The latter category includes poetry, which is, according to him, the supreme art, for it can, with the help of language, represent all forms of unmediated art as well. Kuzmány also devotes himself to a speculative justification of its genres, poetic style, and verse.

                    From what I gather, the concept of “beauty” mentioned above deals with the interpretation of Kant’s theory. “According to Kant, the beautiful form conveys representations of imagination that strive towards a presentation of the ideas of reason, that is, the true sublime for Kant, opening up for the mind the prospect of an immensurable field of related representations.”

                    So without reading the sentence in the context of the full text, or without knowing how the terms in the sentence are defined (e.g., beauty is subjective, defined by each individual differently, according to his or her experience), it is impossible to formulate an opinion (based on the fragment above).

                    What I would recommend, jonathanmeh, is that, if you have access to it, post the entire paragraph in which the phrase is written, or link the relevant texts here.

                    CC

                    #1159935
                    Horsa
                    Default

                        I am reading a biography of Vincent Van Gogh in which he is cited as saying that art should be “personal and intimate” and concern itself with “what touches us as human beings”.

                        I would be interested to know what other artists, famous and not so famous, have said about the purpose of art.

                        Certainly some of the greatest art in history does not seem overly tied to the pursuit of beauty. Picasso’s Guernica not least of this.

                        My Painting Blog: http://adkpainter.blogspot.com/

                        This is our ART: useless, boring, impotent, elitist, and very, very beautiful.

                        #1159928
                        Use Her Name
                        Default

                            The emotions are a mixed bag. Rage and anger is also an emotion. I tend to think of art as a kind of personification of the inner world of a person (could also be culture, church, facet of “civilization” as well).

                            No longer a member of WC. Bye.

                            #1159920
                            Clive Green
                            Default

                                Art is primarily about the artist. It becomes ‘art’ to the viewer when an emotional response is generated. It is difficult to speak of aesthetics and beauty (which are not the same thing) without considering context. It could be as valid a statement to say that dissonance and ugliness are essential to the artistic experience.

                                :cool: Kia Ora o Aotearoa Feckless and Irresponsible
                                My website http://www.otaki-artist.com
                                #1159851
                                John Emmett
                                Default

                                    [FONT=”Book Antiqua]Not merely, but profoundly, art is about beauty.
                                    [/FONT]

                                    http://youtu.be/urOg2vVeJVk
                                    http://youtu.be/EVHWqTBhYZw

                                    #1159898
                                    treeshark
                                    Default

                                        I don’t understand the “merely” in the question either. I would depend on what you included in the catch all term “beauty”. Depending on your choice of definition you could include or exclude any work from that set. The word pursuit has uncertain meaning too, it could be an occupation, a search or a chase. Don’t worry about making Art, or chasing beauty, if you do what you do as best you can with all your head and heart then either of these things might occur, or not as the case may be. It is not, after all, you who will be the judge of success or failure. In my own experience the more you consciously intend to create “Art” the less likely you are to succeed. So not pursuing, more sneaking up whistling innocently.
                                        Rob

                                        Rob Adams
                                        C&C welcome
                                        Website: http://www.treeshark.com
                                        Blog: http://www.treeshark.com/treeblog

                                        #1159891
                                        karen m
                                        Default

                                            If I were asked for a very succint explanation of art, it would be that it is ‘communication’. More precisely, a conversation. The artist speaks, not only from his own inspiration, but to the viewer. I have always felt that no work of art is really complete until it resonates with at least one who views it.

                                            Beauty is often a result, but it is so much more than that.

                                            karen

                                            #1159852
                                            John Emmett
                                            Default

                                                Roger Scruton – Why Beauty Matters (2009) – BBC documentary
                                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY

                                                [FONT=”Book Antiqua]Philosopher Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives.

                                                In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert.

                                                Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the centre of our civilisation.
                                                [/FONT]

                                                #1159897
                                                edf
                                                Default

                                                    Art is something that “draws you in…”. It acquires and maintains your attention.

                                                    #1159853
                                                    John Emmett
                                                    Default

                                                        Art is something that “draws you in…”. It acquires and maintains your attention.

                                                        [FONT=”Book Antiqua]And they should thank you.[/FONT]

                                                        #1159921
                                                        Clive Green
                                                        Default

                                                            Scrunton seems to be a ‘nostalgist’. It is true that in architecture we have suffered through (briefly) brutalism, in the visual arts the worst excesses of ‘pop’, in the films and theatre the saccarhine rubbish of the ‘musical’. For all of which our homes and workplaces are in general safer and more comfortable and our public spaces more human, the visual arts are alive to a wider audience, and the performing arts more responsive to reality than to fantasy.

                                                            Sometimes the form that follows the function is both lively and challenging, if not conventionally beautiful. Pursuing the essence and not the surface is, to my mind, more important.

                                                            :cool: Kia Ora o Aotearoa Feckless and Irresponsible
                                                            My website http://www.otaki-artist.com
                                                            #1159887

                                                            If I were asked for a very succint explanation of art, it would be that it is ‘communication’. More precisely, a conversation. The artist speaks, not only from his own inspiration, but to the viewer. I have always felt that no work of art is really complete until it resonates with at least one who views it.

                                                            Beauty is often a result, but it is so much more than that.

                                                            I quite agree re. the conversation part; as for the resonating, as long as the artist feels the work resonates with himself, I can accept that.

                                                            FWIW, a very good book on how art works (at least according to modern neuroscience, but in a readable format) is Eric Kandel’s Age of Insight. There’s lots of open questions – it’s a pretty young field – but I think it’s a good beginning in stepping away from the blather of folks like Scruton or Greenberg.

                                                            C&C of all sorts always welcome! (I don't mind rude or harsh criticism.)
                                                            I suppose I have to do this too :p (my blog, & current work). My Visual Arts Nova Scotia page.
                                                            Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known - Oscar Wilde

                                                            The primary palette: Attention, observation, memory, imagination, integration, execution

                                                          Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 115 total)
                                                          • The topic ‘Is art merely the pursuit of beauty?’ is closed to new replies.