Above is a short proof of the Pythagorean theorem. This proof is the shortest and most elegant one I have ever seen for it -a mere three lines of algebra. Can this be beauty?
I would argue that beauty is something that exists outside the boundaries of art alone. Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians know beauty in their own fields. Often, something beautiful is an idea or solution that is exquisitely simple. But for anyone who has tried to simplify a design or a problem solution, the simple solution is often the hardest to find. Discovering a simple solution sometimes requires a new understanding of the problem - requires a shift in perception or a throwing out of assumptions - a kind of personal purgation in service of the endeavor.
If beauty can exist outside the field of art, what's the problem with focusing on it within the world of art? I believe that the pursuit of beauty in contemporary art has gotten a bum rap. Some people would say that beauty is a worn-out idea, that art which aspires to beauty is dull. However, I believe that beauty is the hardest quality to achieve. To achieve beauty requires time and discipline, things that culture at present doesn’t make a priority. Modern culture strives, instead, for efficiency, something which is practical and measurable. Beauty, however, has ill defined rules. One knows it when it is seen, but there is no procedure for creating beauty. Beauty, therefore, is impractical in the contemporary world.
I believe that the tendency toward conceptualism in contemporary art is a kind of substitute for story telling. Conceptual art makes little sense if you don't know its backstory. Beauty, however, is more egalitarian - people know it right away. Not that all art should be easy to understand. I admit that certain works yield additional rewards when studied further. Therefore, there must be that extra something in the work that makes it worth going back to, and that is beauty.
I would also say that to truly witness beauty can be a kind of religious experience. Hence major works of religious architecture are designed to evoke the feeling of awe which is an inherent response to witnessing beauty. Witnessing beauty can be transformative in a way unlike anything else. Consequently, conceptual or not, contemporary art that is truly good must concern itself with beauty at some level, even if the beauty of a work is in its irony or its humor.
So why are discussions of beauty so taboo in art education these days? Perhaps it's like talking about religion or politics amongst strangers...
5 comments:
I believe you're treading in the footsteps already laid by the thinkers behind the Arts & Crafts Movement. This argument for beauty differs not much from theirs, except that you don't acknowledge technology (for them, industry) as part of your thesis.
Since you are interested in technological interfaces with craft, please elaborate on how the beauty you wish to create is now possibly shaped by technology advances...and compare this with issues of Arts & Crafts theory.
Jon, I do think beauty is part of contemporary art education. Anytime you want to pop down to a jewelry crit, we would be happy to receive you. Times and lingo change but beauty has always been there. Maybe today were just call it formal qualities, appearance or aesthetics.
In response to your quasi-jib at conceptual art: Cannot ideas be beautiful as well? If science and math can also be the provinces of beauty why are ideas ghettoized? I think in its earliest and purist forms (i.e. Bochner, Le Witt, Kosuth, etc.) Conceptual art was beautiful, not formally, but in the simple systems artists implemented that would drive the work they made. Conceptual art is not the enemy, exclusiveness is.
Cheerio,
-G
Hi Jon...in response to your bemoaning the taboo nature of the "b" word, I will share a current event from the studio of Andrea Clare Donnelly which I think relates to why it's hard to focus on beauty as a concept in it's own right. I have a project I'm working on right now that is going to sit for a while until I can figure out how to move forward. This is because I am moving in dangerous territory...I am using the face, at this point a generic female face, in 3d work. Right now it looks to some like a mask, but to most, me included, it just looks done, as in already been done. The problem is, there are so many artists and this particular subject is so intriguing to all of us that it might very well be "worn out". There is no getting around that fact, no matter what great ideas I have for this face, I have to be aware of its history. I think beauty falls victim to the same beast. But I am not going to scrap my project, refuse to use the structure that I find so intriguing, just because so many others have already been there. I don't think it has to be that way with beauty either. The important thing, and the difficult thing, and the thing that will make your beauty and my face something worth making work about, is how your vision is different, innovative, fresh. We don't need what's already been done...we need art that will tell us something new, give us a different perspective, make us think.
Andrea
1. As far as mathematics and and really all unusually simple theorems go I have always preferred the term elegant. Id be interested to hear how the shift in terminology might effect your stance here.
2. When you talk of religious architecture et al. you are, as far as I am concerned, treading on the sublime which, while it deserves a look, is a concept in a curious tangle with "beauty," and one which does not fit quite as well into what I think you might be arguing.
3. Which world of contemporary art are you looking at? Painting has been experiencing a heavy uptick of the "beautiful" for quite some time now and there has been a strong urge in contemporary criticism towards reviving the term. Perhaps, coming from a crafts background decorative is the term you might be referring to? Decorative is and might always be a dirty word for both fine art and contemporary craft because it denotes second status. If a painting is decorative it has been authored to, one would assume, go with he carpet or something. Likewise tell some studio furniture makers that they are working in a decorative media and they all but have a conniption.
Post a Comment