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?
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists
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
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?
One man's trash is another man's gold
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.
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
How do you represent something ugly?
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 is faulty by definition.
That claims agrees with the proposition's point of view that 'anything & everything' should not be called 'ART'.
Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art
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.
Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder.
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
Put it in a historical context...
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.
Art needs beauty?
of what beauty is
Art has many purposes
While many works of art convey a sense of beauty, it is certainly not the only purpose of art as a whole.
Art is more sophisticated than that.
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.
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