Beauty In Art

Complicated question, beauty is tied in largely with one's culture, upbringing and experiences. The contemplation of the ordinary everyday object, such as soup cans could be considered beautiful by some. The deeper question would be "Is Beauty needed to make "great" art?

I agree with you wholeheartedly! Choosing a favorite is impossible...but a few leap to mind:

Caravaggio's "Entombment of Christ" is a truly mesmerizing example

Contemporary master Nathan Greene "Chief of the Medical Staff" - I hold my breath as I look at that one as though the procedure underway is a very delicate "live action" surgery in process...

Adolph Menzel's "Eisenwalzwerk, Iron Rolling Mill" --the complexity, composition, use of light [& dark]--you 'feel' the hard physical seemingly never-ending work of the subjects--powerful.

At 87, the extraordinary master, Michelangelo said "I am still learning"...'think that is a critical component...

Robert excuse me but in the course of posting - after lines and lines of response - I inadvertently lost the entire writing; and as I must be up at an ungodly hour I can not reconstruct it at this time. I will make every effort to build a text for your thread as soon as I can because I recognize what it is that you are questioning. At this late hour, let me state that I agree with Ronald that it is a complicated question.

Many years ago I worked for a large corporation that had an art purchaser in charge of buying art not only to decorate the walls of all their facilities but also as an investment. This person bought a series of photos depicting photos laying on the ground with a pile of dirt on top. Another was a series of pieces of colored paper with what looked like cat scratches tearing the paper. Not one person in my office could say that they considered any of these to be beautiful. But the buyer did. Objective vs. subjective? I think the objective is actually subjective with, hopefully, a few guidelines.

Beauty is an aesthetic, not a technique in and of itself. Although a technique can be beautiful.

Is an ideal beautiful?

Or is the capture of poverty beautiful? If the impoverished is giving to still someone else the loaf of bread?

I am not a huge fan of modern art, because it gets repetitive in my mind. We are at the other end of 110 years of modern art. Modernism has been very often an age of disposable art. The opening of design elements can lead to beauty or away from it. It is not one size fits all artists.

repetitive v not one size fits, a paradox.

Dave

I have a favorite school of art: The Hudson River Valley style of photo-realism with hyper-dramatic lighting that depicts a pristine America... before mass-industrialization and cookie cutter art.

Objectivity and subjectivity can't be used as opposites either. Certainly not in the case of art.

There used to be a teevee show, "Connections" with James Burke (If I Remember Correctly- IIRC) which was a lot of fun in that what it intended to show was the trail of innovations that went back from something that seems obvious today.

What made it interesting was its truth (not that I always agreed with their path) which was that nobody knew what their innovation was (un)likely to lead to.

So too is that true in Art. Who could listen to the Blues and think that it was going to lead to Jimi Hendrix, and Pink Floyd, and Cream and a gazillion other rock bands? Who thought that Salsa would lead to Disco?

Who could have thought that Daguerreotypes would lead to the rise of Uther PenDraggin's light scribbles.

Was it Arthur C. Clarke that said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."? There are always those (usually the superstitious) who will see all advanced technology as magic, and magic is the work of the devil (as seen as the opposite of "God") (whoa,,, deja vu!) and therefore definitionally "ugly."

Thing is, we don't know where the envelope "ends." Art we see as "ugly" today may just be the basement floor of a beautiful edifice that is widely admired held up as evidence of "the good, itself."

I don't want to appear dogmatic here. I also believe in beauty as an indicator of the "right path" into the future. This duality is indicative of the problem with "Objective v. Subjective." It is only when the brain has hardened into concrete that we believe there is one truth. Worse is when we think we have found "It" (cap intended for its overtones).

PLAU
UPD

I hope this isn't off-topic but I want to share a Netflix documentary that I watched recently. The art is absolutely exquisite and made even more phantasmagoric by the creatures that colonized it over the centuries. High recommend.
Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable - https://www.netflix.com/title/80217857

I have several favorites, and they are diverse.

Rogier van der Weyden "Descent from the Cross" which I've seen in person in the Prado. Fantastic work
Pieter Breugel the Elder "Hunters in the snow"
Matisse "Lady in Blue"
O'Keeffe "Black Cross" (Chicago Art Musem) and some of her "Patio" paintings
VanGogh "Thatched Cottages at Cordeville" and "Night Cafe"
Fra Angelico "Annunciation"

There are several more but these are the ones I immediately think of as my favorites.

Well, I have to agree with several who say "it's complicated." However, I notice that you framed your "question" in such a manner that the "only" beauty is derived from the Great Masters. On this, I would strenuously disagree. I will say I have stood inches from dozens of Rembrandts, and yes, they are fantastic. The beauty celebrated in the work of the "masters" is undisputed and unsurprising. To me, that does not eliminate modern works from the realm of either beauty or great art. Consider this about the Warhol Soup Cans: if you could putt a handful of beautifully designed containers into a backpack and travel back to the time of most of the Masters, you would instantly be a rich person as those "ordinary" containers would be priceless during those eras. Beauty is indeed in the eye...

Kathy,
You and me both. A book of Hudson River Valley paintings is in my bedroom so that I can see the front cover every day.

One of my favorite literary characters is Natty Bumppo (Leather Stocking Tails) who roamed the Hudson Valley circa 1785.

Kevin,
Cans of soup would indeed be precious if we went far back in time, but not as art...as commerce...

But great art is not about money, not about commerce...It is about beauty and powerful emotions.

A work of art can be both beautiful and powerful. Look at Van Gogh's "Wheatfield with Crows." (Many claim it as his last painting,)

Great Masters of Art are not all from the past. We have plenty of excellent painters in the last 100 years or so including Matisse, Munch, Chagall, and so many more.

It is my opinion, that we need to study and observe the great paintings in order to develop an "artistic" eye for what is truly worth enjoying. The internet is a wonderful window into the world of art both for study and visual pleasure.

Robert,

I studied the masterworks for something different. The compositions were very often formal studies. Variances of reality from the center of the canvas to off the canvas.

Dave

Robert, I've been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam and that "Wheatfield with crows" is beautiful but also kind of frantic and kind of disturbing in its own way if you know a bit of Van Gogh's history. Not a well man at all. It looks like he was completely losing control.

As a side note, and not connected to the main subject, so forgive me if I'm diverting here, there is a theory that he was actually killed by some teenagers he was harassing earlier in the week, based on the location of the gunshot. They say it would have been difficult for him to shoot himself with a rifle in the stomach, and not wanting to get these kids in trouble, he never said anything. He WAS a bit nuts, after all.

I don't believe" beauty" is an absolute necessity in making great art. If it was then the greatest art would be the most beautiful and I think that is a long ways from being true. Mary I have read a bit on that theory about the teenagers but I think it is pure conjecture, to begin with Van Gogh did not shoot himself with a rifle but rather a pistol.

Interesting. The way I feel about beauty in art is that some art would be considered "beautiful" no matter the culture. Is blue ever ugly? Would anyone think Girl with a Pearl Earring is ugly? The subject here is "Beauty in Art," not provocative or "great" art. Those are different subjects, imho.

To me, as I just stated on another thread.

Great art are examples of an exploring and challenging EYE, MIND and HAND.

And the path towards Beauty may the route an artist may take.

But, there are other paths.

Wide range of taste in various cultures, I'm sure there are people out there who might consider "Girl with a Pearl Earring" ugly. Patricia you think there is universal agreement as to what constitutes beauty? You may be right, but on the other hand. Read Carl Jung's "Man and his symbols". He may have agreed with you about certain forms being universal to humans.

As a caveat to my previous postings

There are Great Artists that decide to go down paths other than beauty, yet still create beautiful art...They Can't Help It!!

A perception of beauty changes a lot by culture and in time. ... However, it looks like there is something common there.

Here is an excerpt from "From The Problematic Perception of Beauty in the Artistic Field" by Raquel Cascales - https://www.intechopen.com/books/perception-of-beauty/the-problematic-perception-of-beauty-in-the-artistic-field).

"In 2003, Semir Zeki and Hideaki Kawabata performed a relevant research on how the brain perceives beauty [10]. In this case, they were no longer doing a comparison with the artist, but they were trying to see how something more complex, beauty, is perceived. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to perform the study and find out if there were specific areas of the brain that were activated in the subjects when they appreciated paintings that they had considered beautiful. At first, in order to grasp the concept of beauty for each person, they offered them a large number of pictorial works that the subjects had to classify as beautiful, neutral or ugly. Subsequently, the process was repeated by analyzing it with functional magnetic resonance techniques.

Through this technique, they verified that the vision of a picture (classified as beautiful or not) does not activate the visual area of the whole brain but only specialized areas for the process and perception of that particular category of stimulus (such as portrait or landscape). This demonstration implicitly implies that at the basis of aesthetic judgments lies a functional specialization. Thus, what Kawabata and Zeki mean is that to be judged as beautiful, the painting must be processed by an area specialized in that particular type of work. Predictably, they also found that the judgment of paintings as beautiful (or not) is correlated with specific brain structures, mainly with the orbitofrontal cortex and motor cortex.

The results of this research showed that although it is not possible to determine what beauty consists of in neuronal terms, we can know the zones of activation or increase of the neuronal activity when perceiving beauty."

"But great art is not about money, not about commerce...It is about beauty and powerful emotions."

Robert, I like that and I agree. The emotion brought out in the viewer is so precious and so important. However, I believe there has to be a pretty good level of technical skill to achieve that emotional connection.

Lots of favorites ... but the two that always, always catch me and hold me and transport me right inside the canvas are:

Joseph Farquharson's 'The Shortening Winter's Day'

and Williard Leroy Metcalf's 'Midsummer Twilight'

Hieronymus Bosch always captured me. But I don't think his works are at all beautiful.

Vista de Toledo by el Greco has many hours of my eyeballs pouring all over it. I don't count it as "beautiful." Powerful, emotional, frightening... not beautiful.

The Scream, Edvard Munch... beautiful is not a way to describe it (IMHO).

I have been at Guernica. Not Beautiful. Powerful (and I have to admit to myself that there is "awe" as a result of its celebrity. It's part in parcel of the entire "This is Art." conceit. at some level, we like stuff that we are told is "good."

I can be and have been lost in Peter Max posters. (as an example)

I have often been transfixed by works by RJ Hacunda. Both his Hudson River School works and his abstracts (I still remember when he first transitioned from landscape to florals! )

There is a theory among mathematicians (some... or is it sum?) that follow the most beautiful theories and find that they are more often than not pathways to further theories. They posit that less beautiful theories more often lead to dead ends. Extrapolating there is a sense that nature adores beauty; that beauty is the clue to understanding the universe. Which might mean that there is a definition of beauty.

Picasso's beggar with a guitar, his blue period.

The Old Guitarist

Reminds me of the myths of Christ. There is a beauty in that. It is a main root of Western Culture.

Dave

Ronald asks..."Is Beauty needed to make "great" art"?

My answer is Yes. I believe in High Culture in things of the mind. such as Art, and Aesthetic Values..

The above have beauty and not utility as their focal point.

@ Ronald - Ah I forgot it was a pistol. I've read several Van Gogh biographies and paid to see the room in which he died so you think I would remember that.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Robert, I think some outsider art I've seen, although disturbing, is still beautiful. At least to me personally.

That is pretty wild Roger and I like it.

Hey...

I know that building. Finished off an amalgamation of it (Photo/Digi blend) a few years ago!



I love this style of creative thinking. The specialty is "Brain Health" at this facility! Fitting.

I certainly would give this contraption an A for effort, but I would not want to look at it every day. Makes me dizzy. Just because you can, does not mean you should.

"According to Gehry, "I was a truck driver in L.A., going to City College, and I tried radio announcing, which I wasn't very good at. I tried chemical engineering, which I wasn't very good at and didn't like, and then I remembered. You know, somehow I just started wracking my brain about, 'What do I like?' Where was I? What made me excited? And I remembered art, that I loved going to museums and I loved looking at paintings, loved listening to music. Those things came from my mother, who took me to concerts and museums. I remembered Grandma and the blocks, and just on a hunch, I tried some architecture classes." Gehry graduated with a Bachelor of Architecture degree from USC in 1954..."

Ha you want Post Modern architecture.......

http://www.zaha-hadid.com/

Now that is full of beautiful work.

Dave

David,
I sure would like this guy to build me one of his cabins in Northwoods where I vacation with the wife.

Just by glancing at his "strange" work, I do find myself liking "some" of it. Good to know about him.

https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/reputations-pen-portraits-/frank-gehry-1929-/10030660.article

In fact, I am having a perverse glee looking at his "twisted" buildings. What I would like to see is for Mr Gehry to design a small town say about 10,000 people with all his twists and turns. Now that would be quite a site (might make some folks so dizzy they would fall down. He seems to be the "clown" of architects. But hey lots of us like clowns including myself.

In theory, I love his "Dancing House in Prague (1996)." It's a wonderful visual joke. Just don't put it up close to my house.

David,
The problem with "super" modern buildings (see Dubai) is where do you put them?

You just can't stick a Gehry in downtown anywhere! Sticks out like a sore thumb (unless that's what you want as a tourist attraction).

Downtown Chicago is famously known as the birthplace of the skyscraper, and the city boasts an impressive collection of tall buildings. BUT

They were erected helter-skelter which I don't find attractive at all. And you just can't tear down an entire old city to modernize it. So if you mingle old designs with far-out modern designs, well not aesthetical pleasing to me.

Hmmm, well we have destroyed Yemen, so maybe the Arab states can turn Yemen into the very next Dubai....like that will ever happen!

David, I am still chuckling over the architecture of Frank Gehry...I told my wife he appears to be the Salvador Dali of architects...

Here is part of an article about his work...

"Frank Gehry Is Still the World's Worst Living Architect"

By Geoff Manaugh
"While it's been widely known for at least a decade that Frank Gehry is the world's worst living architect, it's not entirely clear why some people—mostly very rich clients—haven't picked up on this yet. The utterly god awful Biomuseo in Panama, an eco-discovery center that cost at least $60 million and took a decade to construct, is only the most recent case in point.

"Gehry long ago stopped pursuing any interesting material or tectonic experimentation—and he used to be an interesting architect!—to become the multi-billion dollar equivalent of a Salvador Dalì poster tacked to the wall in a stoned lacrosse player's dorm room, an isn't-it-trippy pile of pseudo-psychedelic bullshit that everyone but billionaire urban developers can see through right away...."

Speaking of architecture as an art form....

If I were in charge of the United States (old man's nutty dream)..

DESIGNING MY UTOPIAN UNITED STATES...

If I were a rich man!!! I would divide America into 7 Mega Regional Modern States of some 40 million people (7 x40 = 280 Million)...

These Mega Regional Modern States (perhaps in New York, Georgia, California, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Washington State would have ultra modern architecture (think Dubai plus). They would be the epic centers of medicine, science, sports, arts, transportation (mostly by air)...

Around these mega Regions would be food production, farmers, etc....perhaps 5 million food producers for each Mega Region...So 280 million plus 35 million would have some 315 million folks in our 7 mega Regions...

Now for the fun part, all other areas encompassing some 40 or more states would be turned back to nature in the form of National Parks, forests, wild life...Ten million Americans would be in charge of all the National Parks, wildlife, wilderness trips, camping, cabins, etc.


Pure fantasy I know, but hey it's my dream....what's yours? Doesn't every man have a dream?

I am currently transforming my straight street candid images into my version of American Figurative Expressionism.

"American Figurative Expressionism is a 20th-century visual art style or movement that first took hold in Boston, and later spread throughout the United States. Critics dating back to the origins of Expressionism have often found it hard to define. One description, however, classifies it as a Humanist philosophy, since it's human-centered and rationalist. Its formal approach to the handling of paint and space is often considered a defining feature, too, as is its radical, rather than reactionary, commitment to the figure.

"The term "figurative expressionism" arose as a counter-distinction to Abstract Expressionism. Like German Expressionism, the American movement addresses issues at the heart of the expressionist sensibility, such as personal and group identity in the modern world, the role of the artist as a witness to issues such as violence and corruption, and the nature of the creative process and its implications. These factors speak to the movement's strong association with the emotional expression of the artist's interior vision, with the kinds of emphatic brushstrokes and bold color found in paintings like Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night and Edvard Munch's The Scream that has influenced generations of practitioners."

Here are a few more reasons why I do not favor Abstract art.

1. It withdraws into itself with an ever-narrowing focus of the aesthetic gaze. It's as if the human spirit is no longer valued.

2. It shows no external judgment of the world, no engagement with things as they are. I just don't want to gaze at pretty colors and geometric design.

Now look at the world engaged art of Bosch (Garden of Earthly Delights), Goya (his Black Paintings), Van Gogh (Prisoners Exercising)...

I rest my case!

PS...I don't hate abstract art. After all, I like some of the color combinations and I must admit some of the designs (even the chaotic messes) can be entertaining for a while. Then there is a treasure of Islamic Art with its ornaments such as calligraphy, vegetal patterns, and geometric patterns.

Robert,

RE:.. Gehry

Instead of Dali, I see his work closer to the deconstruction art of de Kooning.



And the architecture of Gaudi

Roger,
About De Kooning...

His painting "Woman III"

In November 2006, the painting was sold by Geffen to billionaire Steven A. Cohen for $137.5 million, making it the fourth most expensive painting ever sold at that time.

About Frank Gehry you said, "RE:.. Gehry

"Instead of Dali, I see his work closer to the deconstruction art of de Kooning."

Good observation. I don't much care for De Kooning, but I take a perverse delight in Gehry!

"One of the most important architects of the 20th and 21st centuries, Frank Gehry is considered a pioneer of Deconstructivism, a movement that exploded the tenets of Modernist architecture, replacing its geometry and rational order with fragmented forms and fluid, non-rectilinear shapes."

I am still digesting his many "buildings." I would have to see his "deconstruction" in person and would love to walk through the interiors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA042vZpwhs

With the introduction of the 3D digital programs, any architectural concept became possible.

And, , Gehry took advantage of this new way of creating, with much,much gusto.

One building, though, to me, a true GEM, demonstrated a lot of restraint.

A uniquely genuine modern day classic, an edifice that plays well with others....A BEAUTY!!.

8 Spruce Street, NYC



What gets to me is the total "naturalness" of the structure

And Robert, As Lisa Kaiser stated, your new approach to imagery is very compelling,...and to me, Fine Art

At this point, this is my favorite:



And the wording accompanying the piece is perfect

"Furtive Look“......."A fleeting moment can become an eternity...."

As a notable poet once said Truth Is Beauty ~ and Beauty Truth! As for subjective beauty - one man's beauty fails the test for another. But all subjective beauties get weighed in the balance to become an objective whole: objective beauty is if you like, the democracy of subjective beauties!

To put it plainly: if I think something is beautiful - it is - for me at least! How the rest of the world sees it either I care not for; or I work to see from where they're seeing. This last may involve a lifetime of seeing...

Robert,

Zaha Hadid was an Iraqi American woman. She had a massive talent. Her very individual creativity is much more Postmodern than Modern. Modern is more boxy and Postmodern works usually with more curve.

Dave

Jack, you said
"As for subjective beauty - one man's beauty fails the test for another. But all subjective beauties get weighed in the balance to become an objective whole:"

Kind of like saying the One-eyed man is a King among the blind.

Your theory only works regarding ART... if ALL the people have the same knowledge and feelings of Beauty and the Sublime.

For example, Sister Wendy Beckett (art critic who recently passed away) had a marvelous eye and feelings for ART. She had a wonderful way of describing the Beauty and meaning of paintings.

Most folks, myself included, have no such artistic acumen. At the present time in Art History, Kitsch seems to be the preferred choice of folks who have no eye or feelings for great Art.

BY THE WAY, I love your costumed Carnival images!

David,
I am looking at a trio of proposed Brisbane skyscrapers designed by Zaha Hadid.

"Dame Zaha Hadid was truly one of the most creative designers of our generation and leaves behind a legacy of unique architectural works that will inspire generations."

She was described by The Guardian of London as the "Queen of the curve", who "liberated architectural geometry, giving it a whole new expressive identity"

My only objection to such expressive designs is that her wonderful creations do not fit in with all the other buildings.

Creative architects like Ms Hadid and Frank Gehry need their works to be seen in new cities built from scratch and not just "dumped" in with much lesser works.

BY THE WAY, I LOVE HER WORK more so than the fantastic creations of Gehry.

Robert,

RE:..."Creative architects like Ms Hadid and Frank Gehry need their works to be seen in new cities built from scratch and not just "dumped" in with much lesser works. "

From my time in architecture, I've found that many known architects go out of their way and struggle to find justification in why and how their edifices belong in the fabric of the city in which they are to be constructed.

And even when they are initially an affront to one's senses, most seem, over a period of time,start to fit comfortably....Eiffel Tower as an example.

And when it comes to "new cities built from scratch"....Consider Brasilia

Speaking of Masterful Paintings...

I am new to the Art World and I am rather dismayed by all the silly Contemporary Art Movements such as Kitsch, Funk Art, Neo Pop Art, Lowbrow Art, (and also Art Installations).

Why wallow in such goofiness? I take Art seriously. I Iike to gaze at skilled work framed and hung on a wall.

I pondered on this for a time then decided we have so much silly images because we are saturated in meaningless images on TV, YouTube, Computers, Movies, Magazines, and Advertisement the silliest of them all.

We are bombarded with images saturated in color...eye catching.
The average person no longer has an interest in aesthetics pertaining to Beauty or to the Sublime. No longer has the ability to stand in front of real Art Work (Goya, Van Gogh, etc) and to decipher the Artists intent, to admire his brush strokes and painting skills.

I admit I am a Cultural Conservative and reactionary when it comes to High Culture and the Masters of Painting (Rembrandt, etc). So it goes.

Robert,

RE:.."Goofiness"



Don't blame me....It's R Allen that's doing the wallowing

Roger,
Your comic is very funny and also proves my point. We both win.

Contemporary Art...the Death of Beauty and the Sublime...

Simply stated, Beauty gives us visual pleasure, even Beauty's sad and terrifying images (see Goya's Black Paintings) are sublime creations.

Since the sixteenth century (after the decline of Judeo/Christian imagery) artists have striven to create Beauty without the images of God.

Not so today! Beauty has been tossed aside like a broken doll. Taking its place are the demands of the Market for the likes of Junk Art, Pop Art, and all the other beasties of tastelessness. We are left with outrageous and meaningless "art" of the most banal type.

Our young artists are instructed to be "honest" with their feelings no matter what mental garbage emerges from their miseducated brains. Sorry not for me.

Like it or not, Beautiful and Sublime Art brings pleasure to an old fashion art lover like myself.

DEFINITION OF SUBLIME...
exalted, elevated, noble, lofty, awe-inspiring, majestic, magnificent, glorious, superb, wonderful, marvelous, splendid

Robert,

RE:...Contemporary Art...The Death of Beauty and the Sublime

Here is a selection of the works of a wonderful and contemporary artist we all know.



Marlene Burns

These paintings, to me, are not only beautiful and sublime,...they are replete with strong, heartfelt meanings

Roger,
I love the way Marlene presents color combinations, lines, and shapes.

Purely abstract art is a 20th-century invention. It is perhaps the one movement which is absolutely modern. It has no roots in earlier art (as we use the term today).

"One of the first to achieve complete abstract paintings was Kazimir Malevich, who presented a completely black square in 1913. He was a Suprematist, an art movement based on simple geometrical shapes."

All that said, I prefer looking at objects (still life), landscapes, portraits, animals, etc.

I can go as far as fauvism which is pretty far. For example, gaze at the art of Georges Henri Rouault (French: 27 May 1871, Paris – 13 February 1958). He was a French painter, draughtsman, and printer, whose work is often associated with Fauvism and Expressionism.

"The case of Manierre Dawson, an American from Chicago, is very interesting. During a tour of Europe in 1910, he started painting true abstract works. Back in the United States, he became convinced that he could not earn a living at art, and became a farmer. He was forgotten until a rediscovery in 1963. He may have been the first person to paint a completely abstract work."

Let me see if I can say this in a simple non-theoretic,non-romanticized, dumbed down way, art represents man,woman and "life" (everything else), in "all" it's ways and that is the beauty of art and "the beauty in art" .

Robert,

RE:..."I love the way Marlene presents color combinations, lines, and shapes."


To me, Marlene's descriptions accompanying her work, are well worth reading...Especially her words going along with her Judaic Art paintings