Art needs beauty

Last updated: March 3, 2017

Until the twentieth century Art was mostly about beauty or perfection. Art had to stand apart from everyday life and give someone pause. Art has however morphed into including ugly things, or everyday items that are simply classed as 'art' because someone says it is. How are the critics taken in by this! should there be certain minimum standards for something to qualify as art?

Art needs beauty
Yes because...

A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

[[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]]

Beauty can be defined as anything with symmetry/order that appeases the mind. Therefore, according to that definition/standard: beauty can be in ordinary things.

However,the monetary value of that 'pulchritude' really measures 'how' beautiful and rare/unique/original it is. Art is therefore, standardized with 'price tags' : a masterpiece: a carefully crafted delight to the senses; can hold up a trillion dollar bid , where as a common rose bouquet can not.

>>>>>
So you agree that Art needs beauty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a yes side argument :P
No because...
If our standard for art involves official certificates and price tags, how do we avoid the corruption that comes together with money and official business affecting whether the art is judged fairly? Such a process can hinder art as much as it can support it.

Secondly, Beauty is a subjective principle. Order is just as ugly to some as Chaos us to others. The mystifying aspect of beauty is that it cannot be defined as anything except that which appeases the mind. If all art were predictably beautiful, would beauty continue to be the most sought after experience in art/life?

Art needs beauty
No because...

One man's trash is another man's gold

Who is anyone to define beauty, standards of beauty differ from country to country, culture to culture,century-to-century(Van Gogh's fame is posthumous) and person to person.

It is wrong to state something is beautiful and something else is not.

And 'art' is a sheer means/medium of expression: it should not be measured and weighed.
Yes because...
Art critics, art-aficionados and connoisseurs will/do beg to differ.

>>>>
I believe you should be on the yes side. You're saying art needs beauty, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is an argument for the yes side :P

Art needs beauty
No because...

How do you represent something ugly?

The object of many pieces of art is to represent something. This object may be something ugly, either a physical object or person that we don't find aesthetically pleasing or a more general negative concept such as death or fear. To give a poignant portrayal of the essence of that thing, it is necessary to create something that will invoke negative reactions from people. A piece of art that does so satisfactorily can both be called good art and not be called beautiful (or at least, beautiful in a different way).
Yes because...
But there's still a standard, art does have to tug at a certain degree of emotion/feeling/provocation(whether a pleasant/placid/peaceful feeling or anger or love or hate but it has to be felt) to be worth something.

Not everything evokes thought/feelings. The standard that you have set in your point is that for something to qualify as art; it must.

Which lands to favor the proposition who also feel 'not everything' should be called art. That there 'should' be a standard/criterion/definition of what is art and that standard is dropping/plummeting as, in our times/zeitgeist/day-and-age any form of creation/expression(even bland/muted/dead/safe/boring work) is commonly called 'ART'.

Art needs beauty
No because...

Art is faulty by definition.

Art is about creativity, which means deviations from perfection, or faults. If I run the same document through a printer that works perfectly 200 times, I will get 200 identical documents. If I run the same document through a slightly faulty printer, it could produce one of millions of interesting variations. That which is faulty is also chaotic, it grinds against what we instinctively know should be, it makes us want to fix it. Art inherently contains these qualities which are not beautiful.
Yes because...
Again, you are setting a standard: Art 'has to be' aberration/erroneous/vagabond/exotic/provocative/different/unique/reflective-of-human-error.

That claims agrees with the proposition's point of view that 'anything & everything' should not be called 'ART'.

Art needs beauty
No because...

Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art

Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is art where God or the clock-worked universe is the artist.
All skills are art
All creation/destruction (indocti discant) is art.

Cave paintings were/are art. Good/bad writing is art.
To claim that something is not art because it does not fit some pompous criteria/standard is an elitist realization of Marx's Bourgeoisie, who standardize art(where/when there are no 'real' substantial definitions of beauty/art) to keep themselves rich and the proletariat poor.

Posthumously commercially exploiting (poor proletariat)artists like Vincent Van Gogh; to keep themselves rich.

Art needs beauty
No because...

Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder.

Different people like to express their personalities in different ways. Who are you to be critisizing other peoples work? Is it YOUR job? Whose job is it to say wether a work of art is good or bad? Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder. We all have our own styles that we like and that is fine, but how would you like it if we all came up to your work and trashed it with our words? You wouldn't like it, so think about it the next time you are about to call a work of art bad.
Yes because...
>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry but...
This debate isn't about what beauty is... in fact, its saying that art need beauty! :D
So, once again i will say that all you've done is write a no argument that belongs in the left side because you said "Art Needs Beauty" but continued by saying "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Which i agree with, but supports the yes side in saying that art does need beauty

Art needs beauty
No because...

Put it in a historical context...

One might also take a historical stance to this debate. Long before this 20th/21st century of sublime comfort, the world was not as pleasant a place in many ways - one might suggest that the magnitude of beauty in art prior to the cynicism of our modern age has much to do with juxtaposing the living standards that the human race was used to. (For that matter, that statement can also apply to the juxtaposition of cynicism in art against the pleasantries of the modern world.)

One might also suggest that most artists throughout history, at least in the western world, were supported in large by the Church and commissioned to produce works that inspired faith in God. This is not art as we have come to know it: an individual's subjective interpretation of an individual's experiences in a world full of other individuals.
Yes because...

Art needs beauty
No because...

Art needs beauty?

Does art really NEED beauty? Art IS beauty. God created all things. He is perfect. Could you live without the things God gave you? You wouldn't even be here making this statement. Everything God made has a purpose!
Yes because...
thus proving that art is beauty. Why did so many "yes" arguments end up in the "no" column?

Art needs beauty
No because...

History

Man changes, therefore art changes. History. From the begining art has changed based on the people's circumstances.
Yes because...
>>>
of what beauty is

Art needs beauty
No because...

Art has many purposes

Art is essentially the physical expression of ANY concept or idea- be it beauty, death etc. Some of the most powerful works of art would not be considered beautiful- for example the work of Francis Bacon- but are held in high regard because of the ability of the artist to convey a sense of something.

While many works of art convey a sense of beauty, it is certainly not the only purpose of art as a whole.
Yes because...

Art needs beauty
No because...

Art is more sophisticated than that.

If artists only cared about pleasuring people, they stand no chance against the nicotine and sex industries.

Of course there is nothing wrong about making art simply to be pleasing to the eye, just as there is nothing wrong with making radio-friendly pop music.

But art also has to power to expand your view of life and humanity, affect you in ways that make you a larger person (no not as in fat), more complete, more intellectual.

This may sound like I am differentiating between "highbrow" and "lowbrow" but it is not that. Every piece of art affects every beholder in ways that they do not comprehend. You do not have to be able to verbally articulate how a piece of art affects you and what it is doing to affect you in that way, in order for it to have affected you. Leave that to art critics. If you enter a modern museum and come out feeling a little befuddled, you have still been affected. Your perspective of life has gained something.

The majority of our brain processes are unconscious. So it is not possible to fully comprehend how something has affected you. There are too many variables. But beauty is only one aspect of art, and possibly a superficial one.

Yes because...
But these advertisement are beautiful in some way... beautiful to some people at least. No not everyone finds every piece of art beautiful, but someone does. Lets look at a few examples:

War Propaganda Posters from WWII: A Swastika would look very beautiful and appealing to Hitler and lead Nazis because it means so much more to them, but America would see it as ugly. Beauty to some, ugly to others.

Cigarette Ad: Beautiful to addicts, ugly to opposers

Now lets switch the scene and looks at music. Hardcore heavy death metal is beautiful to some, while country is to others.

Theres no right and wrong in the aspects of beauty, but the end result it a type of beauty to someone


1
Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of