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.”

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”?

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)

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.

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).