On beauty in the arts 7 February 2008
Posted by pcNielsen in Abstract art, Aesthetics, Art, Art and faith, Beauty.trackback
I speak regularly of beauty on this blog, more often in the context of the human physique or the built environment than with respect to the fine arts. Why or how it’s ended up this way I can’t exactly say, but I’m taking this opportunity to talk specifically about beauty as it relates to the tactile arts.
From Wikipedia: The image of the young woman is a
symbol of human beauty in the West,
and a dominant theme in western art.
The above painting is “Nymph with morning glory flowers”
by Jules Joseph Lefebvre
Beauty has driven how I think about and create my sculptures (and occasional paintings) since I can remember thinking about and creating art. It influences every one of my artistic decisions. My works represent a process of searching for a Divine beauty, for a more palpable definition of a subjective and somewhat ethereal concept.
beau·ty (byōō’tē)
n. pl. beau·ties
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
I hope the idea of beauty plays into every tactile artist’s work and process, but by no means do I expect every work of art to aspire to be beautiful. Art serves a much broader purpose than just beautification, even if, in my opinion, this is one of the most important aspects of visual art. Many other approaches to a work are equally valid, whether the crafter’s intentions are social, political, personal or relating to the interesting concept of the sublime. And, of course, using these in any combination is also an option.
I don’t know how to approach the subjective nature of beauty in this entry. Suffice it to say that I do believe there are aspects to beauty, artistic and otherwise, that cross cultural, social and personal aesthetics — though I don’t know what these would be off-hand. I suppose one can point to flowers or sunsets or mountains or oceans as universally eliciting a positive emotional response (Although, if I recall correctly, 19th century Europeans didn’t necessarily think of things like mountains and oceans as beautiful, but instead referred to them as sublime.). I personally like to think of beauty in terms of original Creation. What did Adam and Eve and the garden look like before the Fall? How can I emulate or capture a snippet of this ideal?
In asking how I can aspire to a Divine aesthetic I usually end up abstracting both the beautiful and sublime as I find them in nature, particularly — and you’ll already know this of me if you’ve read this blog for the last couple of years — thunderstorms as they occur on the American prairies. I also stick to forms and textures that mimic the natural materials and processes I prefer, generally employing natural visual elements such as wood grain into the finished product.
I’ll continue this train of thought with an article in the near future dealing with Gregory Wolfe’s most recent Image Journal editorial (take note of their new website), which is in defense of beauty.
Also from Wikipedia’s article on beauty, a painting in the Hasht-Behesht palace, Isfahan, Iran, from 1669, “of beauty.”
While there are huge differences in cultural perceptions of beauty, there is a unifying theme. Symmetry is considered beautiful in every corner of the world.
i’ve always found Beauty as a subjective and personal response a rather useless concept — precisely because it is such an arbitrary aesthetic experience. that being said, there actually seems to be a fair amount of agreement about what is [generally] beautiful. this isn’t to say that there aren’t specific cultural attiitudes about what is desirable, but the general ideas behind them, though expressed differently, are quite consistent e.g. while we may not all want facial scarring or tattoos, the idea of adorning the body [in a culturally relevant way] is common.
anyway, i prefer the idea that Beauty really refers to “fittingness”. dictionary online states: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).
its indo-european root deu–2 has the following nuances: To do, perform, show favor, revere. the idea behind the word beauty is that something is effective in its communication or execution, or that the form actually amplifies/ expresses the content. it is fitting. if i look at that in its presented order (an action as arbitrary as declaring something aesthetically beautiful, really) it would seem to me that the process and action of presnting a message or idea to consider (i.e. the work’s “work”). the viewer/ reader pays attention with their whole being (intellectually, emotionally, kinaesthetic/ phenomenologically) and then experiences something other or beyond the work.
that takes it beyond some personal aesthetic and emotional response. an emotional response may be part and parcel of the experience of viewing/ reading the work, but the mind and sense are alsoengaged to enrich and direct that response. or perhaps Beauty can be measured by how Truthful a work is (and yes, i do mean to capitalize Truth). i tend to identify Beauty by how well (or how richly) a work is able to convey its message. therefore, work by artists such as joel-peter witkin, christian boltanski, annette messager or anselm kiefer can be Beautiful – it’s about the manner in which the content is presented, rather than the personally pleasing aesthetic.
you see, image has as one of its slogans dostoyevsky’s maxim that “Beauty will save the world”. i’m pretty sure it’s a little more conceptual and theological in nature than personal aesthetic preference. just a thought (and probably not a very well-nuanced one).
techne said: you see, image has as one of its slogans dostoyevsky’s maxim that “Beauty will save the world”. i’m pretty sure it’s a little more conceptual and theological in nature than personal aesthetic preference. just a thought (and probably not a very well-nuanced one).
You’ve restated my thesis, though I’m not certain based on your comment that you understood that was my thesis. Certainly you’re comment is more to the point, and this is just to say that I don’t disagree with you. Personal aesthetic is different than Beauty, but I don’t believe that we in a fallen world can really understand or find all of Beauty; parts of it, yes.
you’re right, as most of your examples and points referred to objects and events that still fall within a traditional or general notion of beauty. in essence, nature is beautiful (or, in the case of the sublime, grand/ majestic/ awesome).
i think that what you quoted from me was more a post-script than my thesis. my point was that Beauty is about much more than aesthetic appreciation. perhaps i muddied it up, but my thought is that Beauty is about “fittingness” and Truth (i.e. how effectively or appropriately that Truth is presented) rather than aesthetic beauty or any “positive emotional response”. even the sublime relies on an emotional response. which isn’t to say that a traditional aesthetic concept of beauty can’t elicit powerful emotions. it’s not about the pleasurable qualities of the materials or even the image – it is about the manner in which the content is conveyed.
i hope that’s clearer…(i hope)
I think I follow, techne, though it seems to me Beauty can be about Truth and “fittingness” and still regularly elicit an emotion — though I haven’t thought about this much.
sure – i just think that Truth and “fittingness” are primary, whereas an emotional response is secondary.
i see the artist’s responsibility while creating their work as more important than the viewer’s response. the weight is on the artist to create as coherent and rich a work as possible (the Truth and “fittingness” components). if that is done well, there will be (more often than not) an emotional response, especially if one is pre-disposed to responding to Beauty. so both artist and viewer/ reader have the focus at different ends of the exchange, one in the making and the other in the receiving.
but that does beg the question: is an emotional response a necessary component , condition or effect of encountering Beauty? and does that emotional response have to be “positive”?
Some very good discussion, here. To me, one necessary aspect of beauty is Mystery. This may touch on the idea of the sublime… something along the lines of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Any great portrait does this.
I would agree with techne’s assessment, above… the greatest responsibility lies with the artist, though the viewer must respond and be open to Beauty. Beauty is Truth, and so the celebration of ugliness or the merely “pretty” or pleasant are both impediments to beauty.
At Jeff Legg’s website, there is a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson;
“Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not.”