First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Must Something be Beautiful and Beyond Ordinary Significance to be Considered Art?
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/15 , edited 2/25/15
Just for clarification, I am not talking about the subjectivity of beauty. The eye of the beholder thing is a dead horse, haha. I want to see if people require something to seem beautiful or appealing to them to be considered art.

There are things I consider ugly, scary, gruesome, etc. that I don't find beautiful but I still consider art.

A lot of people seem to think art needs to be subjectively beautiful, but it can take just as much effort to purposefully create something dark and gruesome. Such a mode of expression does not convey any less than its beautiful counterparts.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/24/15
I give you "She who used to be the beautiful heaulmière"
Name the book it is used aas device to explain art and beauty. She is lovely when you look at her.
2904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 2/24/15
I like dark and "ugly" subjects in art even though I don't find them necessarily "beautiful" just cool though haha.

Also, the subject doesn't have to be out of ordinary to be considered art. Beauty can be found in simple things as well. In fact, the realism art movement was all about portraying the mundane and truthful aspects of life and not masking it to make it appear more beautiful. The "beauty" was found in the genuine depiction of ordinary activities.

Personally, if I see an artwork that strikes a chord with me in some way, such as the way it's painted/drawn or it makes me recall a certain emotion or memory, then I like it and that's all there is to it.
9760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/24/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Just for clarification, I am not talking about the subjectivity of beauty. The eye of the beholder thing is a dead horse, haha. I want to see if people require something to seem beautiful or appealing to them to consider it art.

There are things I consider ugly, scary, gruesome, etc. that I don't find beautiful but I still consider art.

A lot of people seem to think art needs to be subjectively beautiful, but it can take just as much effort to create something dark and gruesome.


Leave my horse carcass alone. It did nothing to you. Don't make me sling the maggot-infested mass of rotting flesh over your castle ramparts.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/24/15

aeb0717 wrote:


Morbidhanson wrote:

Just for clarification, I am not talking about the subjectivity of beauty. The eye of the beholder thing is a dead horse, haha. I want to see if people require something to seem beautiful or appealing to them to consider it art.

There are things I consider ugly, scary, gruesome, etc. that I don't find beautiful but I still consider art.

A lot of people seem to think art needs to be subjectively beautiful, but it can take just as much effort to create something dark and gruesome.


Leave my horse carcass alone. It did nothing to you. Don't make me sling the maggot-infested mass of rotting flesh over your castle ramparts.


15021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 2/24/15 , edited 2/24/15
Naw, unless you're tryin to make money of it. Nobody's gonna pay you for your picture of a bench.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15
Yes, people do seem to be naturally drawn to beautiful and extraordinary things. For the simple reason that witnessing something extraordinary is more thrilling than seeing something from everyday life. Is the purpose of art to thrill? I suppose beautiful things often seem less threatening so people may, for this reason, gravitate toward beauty rather ugliness as well.

Curiosity is a very widespread trait among animals. We are drawn to new stuff and easily become bored. I think it is less animalistic and more human to be able to appreciate ordinariness. After all, at one point in our lives, a mundane thing was once an extraordinary thing. Desensitization to the presence of something we have experienced before doesn't really change the innate value of the experience itself. We merely perceive rare things as more valuable than common things. Maybe that's just me. I have no idea how I am supposed to convey what I mean.

Not that there is anything wrong with thinking a certain way because we can. After all, our brains exist to think, but filtering art through both our more primitive animal minds and more advanced human minds can be enriching. Learning to appreciate beautiful, ordinary, extraordinary, and ugly things.

10314 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Just for clarification, I am not talking about the subjectivity of beauty. The eye of the beholder thing is a dead horse, haha. I want to see if people require something to seem beautiful or appealing to them to consider it art.

There are things I consider ugly, scary, gruesome, etc. that I don't find beautiful but I still consider art.

A lot of people seem to think art needs to be subjectively beautiful, but it can take just as much effort to create something dark and gruesome.


To clarify, I was saying in comparison to you, I can find beauty in something dark and gruesome, which would make it art. Just for example, a painting depicting a dramatic murder scene from a story. Murder is dark but the story behind it provides the art and beauty.

There's no need to separate gruesome and beauty as long as there is meaning, is what I'm trying to get at. I think if you rid the dead horse opinion, you would know where I'm coming from.

To answer the thread as a whole again, I do think art must contain something beautiful or beyond ordinary significance, but that's just my opinion. I may just find various things more appealing than others.

Nice thread, first I've ever tried to respond seriously haha.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15

pandrasb wrote:

Does it have to be beautiful or appealing to the eyes(senses)? Does it have to be something beyond the ordinary?


I think art cannot be ordinary, because that means that it is just normal and has no special quality. Think white noise or static, or a single tone by itself like A, a lone color like red or blue...something plain, void of emotion.

It is the combination of the the ordinary that gives it something special and unique. And the combinations could be endless.

I believe as long as there is emotion and the emotion can be interpreted then it has to potential to be beautiful.

In all it's various forms -- writing, painting, drawing, music composing, culinary arts, scents.


Somebody famous seemed to have went out of his way to make something ordinary and mundane (a 4x8 of a bunch of Campbell soup cans)- Seemingly daring someone to either call it art or not call it art at the same time

(Guess THAT'S art, because you can't escape it once it's done- Ordinary or not, "art" or not)

Posted 2/25/15
You can pretty much call anything art. The term's so subjective and watered-down, I don't think it matters anymore.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15
Art is essentially a way of understanding the world. Whether it's understanding or presenting a part of yourself, or a certain concept or vision you have in mind, Art is a way of sort of feeling out reality. An elegant mathematical proof usually has artistic qualities, as can a toilet, as can most things in the right context.

To answer your question, I'd basically say that the only real requirement of art is that it evokes one's interest. Usually, this requires some bit of novelty, as we don't generally find things interesting if they present things that are mundane to us -- this would sort of preclude the thing in question being "beyond ordinary." But I don't particularly care for the terminology. The question "What is art?" is a semantic one, and I'm far more interested in being interested in things than I am in categorizing the type of interests that I'm interested in. I don't particularly care what a thing is called -- that's a vocabulary test. What I care about, however, is:

Is it interesting?
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15
I'll go with description number 3 when I consider pro wrestling as an art.

It's a modern day theatre with a mixture of slapstick, drama, and action. It's such a craft where you try to convince the audience that you're inflicting damage/hurt/pain to your opponent while, at the same time, you and your opponent secretly protecting each other. It's all about the performance and how you take good hold of the audience's psychology.
18054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 2/25/15 , edited 2/25/15
Dwayne Wade 's basketball is a sight to behold. He can be explosively athletic and a graceful finisher.

If you're a basketball enthusiast, you can tell it yourself how graceful Dwayne wade is in basketball.


Posted 2/25/15
Practice and innate talent goes a long way, but as they say, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. What one may consider art another may not. A lot of great artists and musicians were not appreciated in their time until they were dead, its kinda sad.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.