I watched a documentary in Sociology about art. It had some old British guy complaining that art is no longer beautiful, and if anything, a celebration of ugliness. He argued that true art is meant to be aesthetically pleasing, something people will look at, feel warmed and “completed” by. He argued that beauty isn’t subjective, but rather, has a true and objective form. I disagree.
First, on beauty’s “objectivity.” Thinking something looks nice is completely subjective.. For example, take Starry Night by Van Gogh, a piece of artwork that is generally perceived as “beautiful,” I could look at it and feel revolted. How could we ever say that beauty can be defined? Our experiences and values determine how we perceive things, and unless everyone developed the exact same way, then beauty must be subjective. Not only that, but by making art only a question of beauty, art becomes less accessible. If someone can’t paint or sculpt something aesthetically pleasing, they’ll have no chance of even being considered called an artist. We’d be limiting the opportunities of creative people and expression.
The narrator then went on to argue that art is no longer beautiful because we, as a society, view things from a utilitarian framework. We value function before form. He argues the modern mindset is that if art and beauty have no use, then we don’t need it around.t. He goes on to argue that because of this ideal, we’ve rejected the creation of beautiful things. I’d argue, though, that art is a reaction to things around us. We don’t make beautiful things for the sake of beauty, but rather because we perceive our environment to be beautiful. Similarly, we make ugly or shocking things as a reaction to what we have perceived as a colder, uglier reality. In a way, the art is telling us to wake up, smell the concrete, and realize that maybe the world around us kinda sucks sometimes. Art is a statement on the state of humanity and our environment, where our lives are increasingly dominated by the mundane – an increased flow of bad news, a destruction of nature, and an overall change in how humanity connects. I’d also argue that functionality and beauty aren’t mutually exclusive. Apple makes some good computers, and they look really good. The Ford GT40 was built to beat Ferrari at Le Man’s and is still considered one of the most beautiful cars in the world (my favorite example). We can find beauty in anything, thus, classifying what beauty is, should not even be considered.
The British guy then argued that art should be created to fulfill some desire in us for harmony and make us whole. In my mind, that would just lead everyone to a false sense of hope. It would keep us entertained, when maybe we should really be shocked and angry about the things going on around us. Maybe the revolting art is trying to wake us up to the ugly reality of life, telling us that we should be angry. We are meant to feel unfulfilled to drive us to make radical changes to feel “whole.”
He made the case that creativity is dying. This is completely wrong. Look at any of the ugly art that he references: performance art, disturbing visuals, and overall weird concepts. These are all forms that ooze creativity. Any of the things we create take up thought and necessitate innovative ideas. This opens the discussion of what is the line between what is and isn’t art? Frankly, I don’t know. This question shouldn’t only be applied to “ugly art,” but also to those nice looking, yet mass-produced, cold, industrial art you see in an office building or my dad’s apartment.
Basically, let art be defined by the creator and the viewer. If this old documentary guy wants to think that art is considered art only because it is beautiful, then so be it. I perceive it differently. But at the end of the day, who cares?
