Art, Beauty, and Monotheism

Cypress said:
Nobody calls Picasso's Guernica beautiful.

But any who reflects on it with a discerning mind can appreciate the psychological impacts it conveys about a notable atrocity committed in the Spanish civil war
Click to expand...

I didn't say all art is beautiful I merely disagreed with your statement that art isn't supposed to be beautiful.

I agree but it seems you're implying art can only elicit such reactions if it's, I dont want to say ugly, but non traditional? I may be wrong.
 
Yakuda said:
I didn't say all art is beautiful I merely disagreed with your statement that art isn't supposed to be beautiful.

I agree but it seems you're implying art can only elicit such reactions if it's, I dont want to say ugly, but non traditional? I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

You're right, a lot of art is intended to achieve an aesthetic beauty, in addition to achieving other artistic visions.

I don't think the DC Vietnam memorial is beautiful. But as a piece of architectural vision, it obviously has invoked an emotional and psychological response for all the people who visit and admire it.
 
Cypress said:
You're right, a lot of art is intended to achieve an aesthetic beauty, in addition to achieving other artistic visions.

I don't think the DC Vietnam memorial is beautiful. But as a piece of architectural vision, it obviously has invoked an emotional and psychological response for all the people who visit and admire it.
Click to expand...

I think the intention is separate from whether the art is beautiful or not. The intention I think is solely with the artist. That also has no bearing on the consequence or the effect of the art on others. Piss Christ comes to mind. It probably does what the artist intended and the effect is defintie but beautiful? Hardly

I find the Vietnam memorial to be very beautiful in it's simplicity and how that simplicity is in the service of it's purpose.
 
BidenPresident said:
The non-universality of beauty, a rejection of the thought that if you say something is beautiful, you are saying everybody should find this beautiful. You say that “the groupings beauty establishes are less like Christian churches, and more like the pagan cults of ancient Greece, which recognize their common concern with the divine, despite the different forms in which they worshiped it.”

And then there’s this monotheistic philosophy of beauty as well, which says, Well, if it really is beautiful, everybody should find it beautiful, so we should all worship the same god in that sense. Whereas you’re saying, No, the phenomenon of beauty in human life naturally carves us off into different groups, where those groups are organized around the different gods we worship, the different things we find beautiful.

https://thepointmag.com/dialogue/beyond-comprehension/
Click to expand...

That article...what a load of horseshit.

A much shorter way to put it: To Each Their Own.

or....

Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder.
 
Yakuda said:
Right because a sunset IS beautiful. Like your Picasso example, somebody might call it beautiful but it's not.
Click to expand...

I've seen some incredible sunsets in my life that exactly zero people on the planet would disagree with the characterization that they were beautiful, pleasing, visually extraordinary.

I think there are universal truths in beauty, no matter how much anyone screams beauty is completely and unequivocally subjective.
 
Cypress said:
I've seen some incredible sunsets in my life that exactly zero people on the planet would disagree with the characterization that they were beautiful, pleasing, visually extraordinary.

I think there are universal truths in beauty, no matter how much anyone screams beauty is completely and unequivocally subjective.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the point is. I agree no one would say otherwise because a sunset IS beautiful.

I agree 100%
 
Yakuda said:
Not sure what the point is. I agree no one would say otherwise because a sunset IS beautiful.

I agree 100%
Click to expand...

Lot's of people say there are no objective standards of beauty. Some of them are on this board.

I've been to Yosemite valley with dozens of people, and every single one were impressed with how aesthetically beautiful and striking it is. There was not a single solitary dissenter.
 
Telocollinite said:
Someone says something so weirdo BidenPres has to fucking stick his nose in and complain about other people because he's a FUCKING TROLL.
Click to expand...

It's seems BP only has the capacity to post things she is given to post. BP never engages the topic because she doesnt understand them and then just calls everyone a troll, except me I'm an asshole troll. I consider it a compliment from the BP.
 
Yakuda said:
I think the intention is separate from whether the art is beautiful or not. The intention I think is solely with the artist. That also has no bearing on the consequence or the effect of the art on others. Piss Christ comes to mind. It probably does what the artist intended and the effect is defintie but beautiful? Hardly

I find the Vietnam memorial to be very beautiful in it's simplicity and how that simplicity is in the service of it's purpose.
Click to expand...

I really like the stark simplicity of the Vietnam memorial, but I think the intent is to invoke an emotional response, not to win awards for pure aesthetic beauty.

A lot of people don't like the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock. But there is obviously some reason they sell for millions of dollars. They seem to have some pattern, texture , or geometry that is striking to people of a certain aesthetic taste. Why is that? Because mathematicians have determined there is a subtle underlying fractal pattern in Pollack paintings. Amateurs wouldn't get fractals by randomly dripping paint on a canvas.
 
Cypress said:
I really like the stark simplicity of the Vietnam memorial, but I think the intent is to invoke an emotional response, not to win awards for pure aesthetic beauty.

A lot of people don't like the drip paintings of Jason Pollock. But there is obviously some reason they sell for millions of dollars. They seem to have some pattern, texture , or geometry that is striking to people of a certain aesthetic taste. Why is that? Because mathematicians have determined there is a subtle underlying fractal pattern in Pollack paintings. Amateur wouldn't get that by randomly dripping paint on a canvas.
Click to expand...

Amateurs don't like art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top