[PenultimateManStanding]

As some of you know, I like Art. The question that I have and have had since I can remember, is should Art be beautiful? Sublime, inspirational, these were some of the old time categories. How do we rate the early 20th century art of the modernists? They rejected beauty. Why? Isn't it a natural thing to want beauty? The cave artists painted buffalos and antelopes. Was it beauty they were after? What is the role of Art?

[SinisterBlueCat]

Maybe art is merely an outward expression of an inner emotion...and therefore has nothing to do at all with the viewer.

[emersonbiggins]

Rather disturbing thoughts of one modern artist:

The Cremaster Cycle, a series by Matthew Barney.
Cremaster website

[PenultimateManStanding]

[SinisterBlueCat]

I have a hard time finding the passion thomas cole's work. It is good and methodical, but lacking in any real passion.

[Ludi]

I'm an artist, both professionally and for personal expression, and I say "no." Art should be whatever the artist wants it to be.

[EdF]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'A')s some of you know, I like Art. The question that I have and have had since I can remember, is should Art be beautiful? Sublime, inspirational, these were some of the old time categories. How do we rate the early 20th century art of the modernists? They rejected beauty. Why? Isn't it a natural thing to want beauty? The cave artists painted buffalos and antelopes. Was it beauty they were after? What is the role of Art?

[Ludi]

I agree, Ed. For me, art is about "Look at this! Think about this! Feel this! Isn't it interesting?"

[threadbear]

For ugly, I look to the real world, destruction of the eco-sphere, Guantanamo bay torture, etc.. The emotional effect of the subject matter is disempowering and dispiriting, and that's just reading about it.
However, the digestion of the information can have a positive effect if, through the tellling, if offers some kind of way out.

When these subjects are rendered on canvas or somehow conveyed in music the effect is completely lost, as the specifics as to the cause of the "problem" and therefore some kind of solution are lost. How can a person rise above this kind of self imposed unpleasantness? If nothing else art should be a transcendental experience that takes us out of ourselves and in some small way makes us richer for the experience. There is a spiritual aspect to art, as well as an emotional one. If one chooses dischord, grating art, sobeit, but it's neurotic and makes a mockery of life.

Ugly art is an oxymoron.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EdF', '
')Let me move this to a different context, but one that you are familiar with. Consider the music of Ornette Coleman. He rejected the aesthetic of the late boppers, and with it, a lot of the mainstream aesthetic of jazz. He developed "harmolodics" as a new aesthetic. Can you listen to Body Meta or some of his other work of that period, or its myriads of spinoffs and descendants (eg Mandance by Ronald Shannon Jackson), and not find them beautiful? Yet that music was (and to some still is) grating and a lot of people would call it ugly. Same goes for a lot of other music (eg Tim Buckley's Starsailor) and art.

I think art is about moving people into new perceptual spaces. And that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And good art is always sublime.

- Ed

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'A')s some of you know, I like Art. The question that I have and have had since I can remember, is should Art be beautiful? Sublime, inspirational, these were some of the old time categories. How do we rate the early 20th century art of the modernists? They rejected beauty. Why? Isn't it a natural thing to want beauty? The cave artists painted buffalos and antelopes. Was it beauty they were after? What is the role of Art?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'M')aybe they weren't going for art, and those cave paintings were just an early form of communication.

Art is something more than talk. It is idealism. It's what happens when the artist uses his talent to try to bring the physical realm closer to the heavenly realm.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '
')

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '*')** Thomas Kinkade ***

Whoa doggies, that is one ugly painting!

[BabyPeanut]

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '
')

[SinisterBlueCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')Devoid of anything harsh, or even real, they are inane and quite popular for their superficial beauty.

[Ludi]

Yes, I find it ugly, but not in an interesting way, rather in a repulsive way, my gorge somewhat rises when I look at that kind of thing.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SinisterBlueCat', '
')as for mr. kincade, he is not an artist, he is a production manager. it is not art, merely a product.

[SinisterBlueCat]

from what I understand, mr. kincade create an "original" and then lots of prints are created, and then some poor sap in a third world country squeezes the vermilion and applies the "highlights" that create the impression of a fine art piece.

To me, it is not the subject, but it is the session that created the piece that is the definition of art. Kincade creates his pieces to sell, not because they are an outward expression of an inner emotion. They are passionless. Because his "art" is meant to hang on a wall in a frame is merely a technical definition of art.

To me, art, is a form of communication meant to draw an emotional response (positive or negative, it does not matter) from the viewer....I do not think kincade cares if the viewer has an emotional response to his work, as long as they buy it.