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...
