Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net

Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net (http://www.sculpture.net/community/index.php)
-   Sculpture focus topics (http://www.sculpture.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Why Beauty Matters........ (http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=9851)

Giotto 01-10-2010 02:56 PM

Why Beauty Matters........
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Ypz...eature=related

G

evaldart 01-10-2010 05:01 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
If theres anyone NOT to trust about what is and isnt Art its a philosopher. I'd soone hear such debate by the poets. This thinker here has proven himself easily as gullible and intellectually victimized as everyone else who believes that those museumed silly charades are actually passing for Art. Hah, what a dope, he has chosen to base his entire criticism of contemporary man and society upon a few hyped and celebrated debacles that have been falsly called Art by institutions, critics and silly-sayers...others scribblers mostly. This guy is clue-less. More later.

GlennT 01-10-2010 05:34 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Alas, poor Rorick, or Roger, having the misfortune to be a philospher instead of an artist, and therefore having thoughts and ideas that are essentially worthless in evaldartland.

Is Roger actually fooled by charade-ists such as Duchamp, or rather stepping into the ring to mud wrestle the the muddle-headed who believe in Duchamp, Hirst, etc.? Perhaps he is merely getting mud on his suit just long enough to liberate some people, and then he will happily take a shower and cleanse himself of the nonsense. In any case he won't get a fair hearing with e unless he hires a court-appointed artist to speak on his behalf.

evaldart 01-10-2010 06:05 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
No one forced him to be a philosopher. Elevated THINKING is all well and good but when it is not accompanied by a confrontation with reality it remains fantasy. And the usual blaming of Duchamp and the fountain piece proves he hasnt a drop of creativity. In the same way that Duchamp eventually chose no longer to recognize the word "art", there is also no use for the word "beauty". When he asserts that "beauty" is "not just subjective" he is absolutely wrong and any argument that might occur thereafter is ruined. If there is a use for the word "beauty" it is mandatory that it be seen as being among the MOST subjective things possible. More later again.

Wheres Cantab? He needs to weigh in here.

GlennT 01-10-2010 06:19 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
As an aside, if 10,000 people at random are asked if they consider the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's Pieta, the Venus de Milo, or other such works to be beautiful, and the overwhelming majority, if not all 10,000 answer in the affirmative, does this not speak to some aspects of beauty going beyond merely a matter of subjective interpretation?

Aaron Schroeder 01-10-2010 06:46 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Would those 10,000 folks associate beauty with femininity or masculinity ?

What formal element/depiction would most randomly poled individuals agree as being " beautiful " ?

Would we get more out of this thread if we substituted the word beauty with sexy.

Why sexy matters.........

Sexy being perhaps a little less subjective than beauty.

evaldart 01-10-2010 07:03 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
the mere concurring of masses of people has NO bearing on the meaning, fortification-of or validity of an utterance. The ten thousand are dumber for their numbers. One earned thought is way better than the "mean" of the conclusions of any amount of thought-sharers.

If there is a person out there who has come to his conclusion that the Pieta is "ugly" and not Art at all then it is quite so. But such a surmising must come about by the laborious uniqueness that is his own isolated awareness. If it has come out of a childishly cynical desire just to be contrary, then he has merely executed yet another trivial thought brought about by the influence of those dull masses he is amongst. Disagreeing with the dullards does not an un-dullard make. :D

I personally value the thing that is the Pieta as an example of extremely elevated creativity. If I call it "beautiful" in conversation folks will know how I feel about it. But inside my head the "beauty" is just a recalled sound. All the good that is that sculpture is perceived quite without the use of any damned word that would likely only serve to misrepresent (to myself) my true feelings on the matter.

One thing the old codger got right. Art is NOT an idea, that proves he's made it a little further along intellectually than most.

GlennT 01-10-2010 07:25 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by evaldart (Post 86237)
the mere concurring of masses of people has NO bearing on the meaning, fortification-of or validity of an utterance. The ten thousand are dumber for their numbers. One earned thought is way better than the "mean" of the conclusions of any amount of thought-sharers.

You are skirting the issue here. Your claim was that beauty is entirely subjective. If 10,000, or more likely, 1 billion people would have an affirmative response that a given work of art is beautiful, to me that indicates that something is at work beyond 10,000 or 1 billion subjective coincidences. Some universal quality that is objective enough to register multiple similar subjective responses. Perhaps rather than considering the "masses" dumb, perhaps those who understand and utilize beauty to move the masses are, dare I say, smart?


Whether you care to assign meaning or validity to the word beauty is more akin to issues for philosophers and such humans who are apparently lesser beings than artists to discuss. Do you really want to go there?

evaldart 01-10-2010 08:04 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Artists have always done more of the "right" kind of thinking than philosophers. Philosophers "creative" output manifests itself as long-winded goose-chases dreamed-up under the pompous pretense of seeking answers and solutions. They pretend to be "clearing things up" or illuminating when actually they are ever only thickening the stew of befuddlement to any who might have a taste. They'll rant about the "unknowable" yet suggest to thier bored audience that they "know" it. Ha. And the ones who dont want to strain their brains become historians...and apply their smidgen of creativity to re-arrange and fictionalize events. At least the poets (who do all that same stuff) engage their medium (words) with the intent of "excessing" it into something new. ALL thoughts are new...even when they are expressed and documented by the same words.

grommet 01-10-2010 08:24 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Perhaps rather than considering the "masses" dumb, perhaps those who understand and utilize beauty to move the masses are, dare I say, smart?
What, like puppets? to what end? And this is a good thing? lulled by some pleasantry for... what again??? Accesibility in the cloak of beauty sounds suspect at best. Minor concensus of something as innocuous as beauty only serves to provide a synchronous sense, which creates a beneficial sense of community. Survival stuff, that's all. have at, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with art, it's just a handy dispersal method.

chris 71 01-10-2010 08:30 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
[quote=evaldart;86237]the mere concurring of masses of people has NO bearing on the meaning, fortification-of or validity of an utterance. The ten thousand are dumber for their numbers. One earned thought is way better than the "mean" of the conclusions of any amount of thought-sharers.
QUOTE]

this reminded me of one of my fav quotes by a philosopher.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo Galilei

only i like to replace science with art
i would think your a Philosophers to e but maybe a little different in that you are preaching your ideas along with your manipulating of matter in your reality as well?
not sure if that make sence but...

grommet 01-10-2010 08:54 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

you are preaching your ideas
maybe more like spouting, which somehow is ay less invasive. Preachers attempt to pour stuff directly into your head. Spouters just put it out there. If someone wants it, they have to scoop the foam and spittle from the ground.:rolleyes:

GlennT 01-10-2010 09:00 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
grommet, when I speak of "moving the masses", I mean move them emotionally, inspirationally, perhaps to reflect upon and connect with their higher nature, because that connection is often neglected in the mad dash of day to day living.

I find it unfortunate that you find beauty to be somehow suspect or choose to link it with something less than what it is, or don't find it a necessary and nurturing thing in art, as did the philosopher who dared raise his voice in its defense.

grommet 01-10-2010 09:29 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
If we are to listen to this philosopher and believe mere words, be introspective from his ideas, then why can we not be changed by other ideas, uplifted by the idea that something does not have to be beautiful to be worthy, to allow transcendence merely by making it so. Beauty is just mass transit for uncreative people.

GlennT 01-10-2010 09:36 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by grommet (Post 86244)
why can we not be changed by other ideas, uplifted by the idea that something does not have to be beautiful to be worthy, to allow transcendence merely by making it so. Beauty is just mass transit for uncreative people.

My broadness of perspective allows for the first part of that quoted concept to be possible, or in fact likely. Why spoil it then by denigrating beauty in your concluding sentence? It just sounds like a spiteful bias against beauty, which does little to bolster a case that transcendence through other avenues has occured.

grommet 01-10-2010 09:50 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennT (Post 86245)
My broadness of perspective allows for the first part of that quoted concept to be possible, or in fact likely. Why spoil it then by denigrating beauty in your concluding sentence? It just sounds like a spiteful bias against beauty, which does little to bolster a case that transcendence through other avenues has occured.

i was just making a splashier statement for someone to rail about.;)
Beauty can do what you say, but it's unlikely that many people choosing that "easy' method actually achieve that transcendant state. It is more likely that perceiving beauty, they think they've "gotten it"

evaldart 01-10-2010 10:25 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Did the mice find the pipers tune beautiful? So much so that it was captivating? Or were the mice just not too smart, easily impressed, ever-ready for the entrancement/entrapment.

Galileo indeed. He and his scientific brethern certainly aided in the modeling of human fathoming. Allowed for the proper moving forward away from the tall-tales and fearfulness. The studying of natural conditions (the nature of things) has done much for the streamlining of the human grind; gave room for better thinking...but the better "action", the better "existing" must be demonstrated by the maximal application of the creative impulse. This impulse is within every single human (but not necesarily within "humanity"). So where logic, reason, science and number-crunching begins to become useless, well, THAT is where advancement becomes fueled by creativity. And the ability to "Know it when you see it" is derailed and numbed by value judgements such as beauty and worthiness. The artist's ultimate gift to his race is NOT the artifact hanging on the wall or perched in the plaza; No, the REAL art object will demonstrate the event that brought it about. It will represent trancending efforts that were accomplished NOT for the regarding of any viewer but for the continuation of some destination-less pilgrimage where by the lucky traveler strengthens himself, in increments, to keep his growing load hefted. In the real Art it is evident "where" the artist has "been" if you have the nerve to look hard enough. And this strained attention given may just affect your own route... you're own pertinently solitary pilgrimage.

CroftonGraphics 01-11-2010 06:51 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
I posted this a month ago, no one bothered to look at my incredibly interesting links?

This view of 'beauty' is a backward view and people who hold such views should try to broaden their world view or they will be forever in a 6th form view of art and world view. He contradicts himself in the programme I think I recall as well.

GlennT 01-11-2010 07:23 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics (Post 86249)
This view of 'beauty' is a backward view and people who hold such views should try to broaden their world view

Can you illuminate the narrow-minded with what the forward-looking view of beauty should be?

grommet 01-11-2010 08:40 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics (Post 86249)
I posted this a month ago, no one bothered to look at my incredibly interesting links?

you were supposed to stir the pot counter-clockwise.:rolleyes:

CroftonGraphics 01-11-2010 11:58 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
( I cannot recall the programme fully or watch it on slow connection here so below is what I can remember and some points he may have brought up)-


1. I think that beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and the 'universal truths' of what beauty is are more varied than a classical western world view likes to beleive.

2. I also think that beauty does not have to be in all works of art.

3. I do not see anything 'limited' about people who want to follow a classical route but I see a problem that they ATTACK other artforms.

4. Why do they attack other artforms? It often seems that the other forms are getting more ATTENTION and MONEY. So what, you can still make an ok amount?

5. Regimes in the past that assert what 'beauty' in art should be tend to put on a general bad show, ie Nazis and Communists.

6. I believe this general view of 'beauty' comes from the anglo saxon set of beliefs ie tradition is good/technology is bad, ie our King to be has this viewpoint. This view may originate from the industrial revolution where great engineers, sent their siblings to public schools (fee paying) to become a gentleman and generally useless. Whereas other countries such as Germany as far as I can see saw greatness in fusing the new technologies with art, ie Bauhaus.

I for one see a 'beauty' in an electricity pylon during sunset. A gas tanker on the horizon.

p.s. I dont think I recall what way I stir the pot though, lol. Being a left hander perhaps naturally anti clockwise????

Giotto 01-11-2010 12:51 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
I think some of you misunderstand what Scruton means by "Beauty". He was not referring to the western sense of the term but rather "universal" beauty which has to more to do with the fact we are born into a world of laws. These laws in nature (harmonic wave motion, log rhythmic spirals, gravity, spacetime etc) are reflected in the the shape and movement of evereything around us. just look, I mean everything.

I know most of you have had the experienced of working on a piece ..moving this over here adding a little more to that and you step beck and say to yourself "this is really beautiful" it's that inner (universal) response he is addressing..and when you really get it right others see it too. It's human to seek order in chaos and you can't escape that is what art can do. it's those ideals he was referring to...as he says.. nature and beauty are interconnected.

I agree with him that much of art and architecture these days is not beautiful. A quick tour of your local art scene will tell you this. Having said that I don't think art has to be beautiful. Of the many reasons for creating art "beauty " is only one. Art can be intellectual, emotional, visionary, visual interpretation etc....But what thrills me about Rogers Scrutons presentation is that he is an important voice in the changing tide of popular concent about what art is and can be. We are experiencing a cultural shift away from "anything goes, art is what I say it is" to a fresh contemporary art scene that exhibits more technical skills, natural ability and has something to say.

I posted the videos to help promote this point of view.

G

GlennT 01-11-2010 12:55 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics;86257
1. I think that beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and the 'universal truths' of what beauty is are more varied than a classical western world view likes to beleive.


[COLOR="Navy"
I'm all for expanding the wealth and breadth of beauty. Just as long as it's beautiful![/color]

2. I also think that beauty does not have to be in all works of art.

We are in agreement there.

3. I do not see anything 'limited' about people who want to follow a classical route but I see a problem that they ATTACK other artforms.

When you say "attack", do you mean criticize? Or do you mean fling sculptures from their plinths and tear up canvases with knives? If you mean "criticize", then I have three words for you, "get over it!"

4. Why do they attack other artforms? It often seems that the other forms are getting more ATTENTION and MONEY. So what, you can still make an ok amount?

Speaking for myself, one concern about artforms that I criticize is their individual and cumlative effect on the morality and culture that we live in. So, attention is a concern, the money is just confetti on the parade of fools.

5. Regimes in the past that assert what 'beauty' in art should be tend to put on a general bad show, ie Nazis and Communists.

Your grasp of history is amazing in its lack of thought. (nothing personal) Or were ancient cultures run by nazis and communists?

6. I believe this general view of 'beauty' comes from the anglo saxon set of beliefs ie tradition is good/technology is bad,

Actually, go back a bit farther and try the ancient Greeks. Or the Chinese. It has nothing really to do with tradition, other than in today's convoluted world where common sense no longer functions, thus things that were a given in the past are now categorized as tradition. Technology in any case is not the polarity against which tradition is set.


So, I still have an opening for someone to provide a clear and intelligent explanation of a forward-looking view of beauty.

P.S. Gas tankers on the horizon are not divorced from the ol' backward-looking view of beauty.

grommet 01-11-2010 02:51 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Giotto (Post 86260)
I think some of you misunderstand what Scruton means by "Beauty". He was not referring to the western sense of the term but rather "universal" beauty which has to more to do with the fact we are born into a world of laws. These laws in nature (harmonic wave motion, log rhythmic spirals, gravity, spacetime etc) are reflected in the the shape and movement of evereything around us. just look, I mean everything.

I know most of you have had the experienced of working on a piece ..moving this over here adding a little more to that and you step beck and say to yourself "this is really beautiful" it's that inner (universal) response he is addressing..and when you really get it right others see it too. It's human to seek order in chaos and you can't escape that is what art can do. it's those ideals he was referring to...as he says.. nature and beauty are interconnected.

I agree with him that much of art and architecture these days is not beautiful. A quick tour of your local art scene will tell you this. Having said that I don't think art has to be beautiful. Of the many reasons for creating art "beauty " is only one. Art can be intellectual, emotional, visionary, visual interpretation etc....But what thrills me about Rogers Scrutons presentation is that he is an important voice in the changing tide of popular concent about what art is and can be. We are experiencing a cultural shift away from "anything goes, art is what I say it is" to a fresh contemporary art scene that exhibits more technical skills, natural ability and has something to say.

I posted the videos to help promote this point of view.

G

Is it a fresh contemporary art scene, or a shift to the conservative in time of uncertainty - for the last decade? A shift to a community (safety in numbers) paradigm. It is easier to motivate a crowd with a common denominator. The more common the better.
There's hamburgers, and there's beauty, and sex, and money, and football, and probably a couple other things like healthcare:rolleyes:

rika 01-11-2010 03:43 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
I only saw the first part, and I found it interesting, but I don't necessarily agree with him. It made me think of Goya in particular, who had no problem producing what was asked of him, painted some beautiful paintings that are considered classical in beauty. And then we have the other Goya, who painted for himself some of the most disturbing, dark paintings-- that I find beautiful-- that had no match until the 20th century.

My point is up until the impressionists--excluding a select few-- artists didn't really have a big say in what and how to create, the church and their patrons made crucial decisions for them. Had they have more choice, I've no doubt there would be less "beauty" as he refers to it.

With freedom of expression comes a sea of ugliness, but there's also all kinds of beauty out there. The sewer of art history will take care of the trash. Duchamp might be remembered as an innovator and no more, the ugly buildings will be demolished, the shark, the cow head will rot sooner or later. History will take care of everything. I'm not worried. If I want classical beauty I can go to see European masters in any big city museum or art gallery, for classical architecture I can take a trip to a historic town any time.
But I live in the 21st century and want to make art (good or bad)for the 21st century. Most artists do. Nothing wrong with that.

GlennT 01-11-2010 05:35 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
[quote=rika;86266]My point is up until the impressionists--excluding a select few-- artists didn't really have a big say in what and how to create, the church and their patrons made crucial decisions for them. Had they have more choice, I've no doubt there would be less "beauty" as he refers to it.

QUOTE]

I don't know how a person who has studied history can say this. In the Greek period look at the transition from archaic to classical to Hellenistic. Look at the transition from the Gothic era figures to the Renaissance, and then to the Baroque. Look at the transition from Neoclassical to the 19th century realism.

Are you saying that the church or other patrons, and not the artists, were responsible for these major shifts in how the human figure was perceived and rendered?

I don't think you have had works that were commissioned, because you don't seem to understand the dynamic involved. Most often the patron has the sketchiest of notions about what they want, and it is left to the artist to come up with a compelling idea to fill the space. Let us say that the subject is absolutely restricted to a specific individual, say Joan D'arc. Look at how many different interpretations have been made of her, not because the church dictated the way of it, but because the artist ran with the chance to make his or her Joan D'arc express that artist's vision of the saint. the only "crucial decision" made by the patron was selecting the specific space where the statue was to go, and who was to be depicted. (And fortunately, how it was to be paid for.) These are not decisions about art, as evaldart would tell you. Although, he would also tell you that the artifact was not the art either, so maybe I should cite someone else here for back-up!

The point is that these artists were not represssed uglophiles forced into a straightjacket of beauty. It is only the relatively recent phenomena of changes in thinking (perhaps due to LSD in the water supply) leading to an unleashing of creative energy into concepts were beauty is not applicable, possibly due to lack of attainment on the part of artists not willing to discipline themselves enough to learn from nature's harmonies, and also from the notion that the hodgepodge of human nonsense is worth flinging on canvas and fhrompling together with fragments flung from frappe of factory debris. Suddenly anyone can be an artist, if they do something, anything, and call it art. That is a heck of a lot easier than just about any other scam, so there it is.

If beauty is back in voque, it is not because people are dumbing down, it is because they are smarting up.

rika 01-11-2010 06:18 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Glenn, what I'm trying to say, artists had to adhere to certain standards accepted by long tradition. I'm not saying they didn't have room to do their best artistically. But the subject was given. And yes, their patrons, the pope, the king etc. had a say, and if they didn't liked what they saw, they hired someone else, didn't they. So if you were an artist, you had to keep that in mind. I do admire Michelangelo and Velazquez and all the others that they were able to produce such beautiful works of art under such conditions. I just played with the idea what if they had the same freedom today's artists have. Would their works been any different?
Think of Rembrandt and his realism. An early exception to the rule. What if he stayed successful and well off and would have had rich patrons? Would he even painted self-portraits? Wouldn't be a shame if those portraits of human struggle and pain were never painted?

GlennT 01-11-2010 06:31 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
If these past artists didn't produce works in a different direction than their commissions, it was because they weren't motivated to do so, not because their opportunities were repressed. Not every work in an artist's oevre has to come from a commission. Benini, for example, when he temporarily fell out of favor, created "Time Unveiling Truth". It was a large work, and unfinished. Also, not as impressive as his other works. Great commissions actually help to focus the mind and can pull out the best from artists. I just don't see the commissions as anything burdensome. Quite the opposite, it can be a vehicle for liberating genius.

evaldart 01-11-2010 07:23 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Way back in the olden times, Since it became known that "Art" and artmaking were things of the greatest possible value to human development, there have been imposters, masqueraders, jokers, con-men, fast-talkers, wannabes and frauds pretending to know their way around the concepts of art and beauty (many of them were indeed skilled and had things to "say"). There also have been elevated individuals actually making Art all the while, despite the compromising position they were put-in with the nature of commission based Art.

The requirement of surviving, sustaining, and participation amongst one's kind neednt have clouded the idea of true creativity. Which is a special experience that imparts developings not attainable by any other means. Too bad.

Humans are becoming more and more aware of this. So I suppose there is more Art and beauty being accomplished now than ever before. Yet it has always taken quite the choosy viewing intellect to look past the crap that is posing in museums, galleries and history books to find the Art...to find the "beauty". But it is there, more now than ever. So you see...as a thing as limited as language treats our words, "beauty" and "Art" are more prevalent in our world than ever. The crap has always been there too and always will be...as long as Art is perceived to yield opportunity - which it indeed does - But there are different brands of opportunity. Some opportunities help you keep the water off your head and some help you negotiate the unfathomable. An individual only NEEDS some things - and Art can give him/her the things that are better than needs.

CroftonGraphics 01-11-2010 08:05 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
In reply to Glenn-

When you say "attack", do you mean criticize? Or do you mean fling sculptures from their plinths and tear up canvases with knives? If you mean "criticize", then I have three words for you, "get over it!"

Attack as in verbally attack. I do not mean criticise.
It is not something I need to 'get over', it does not bother me it is an observation.You can attack people with ones views and verbal actions, it is different to 'criticise'.


Speaking for myself, one concern about artforms that I criticize is their individual and cumlative effect on the morality and culture that we live in.

People have been saying this kind of thing all through history. I also say this sort of thing, not about art but the plastic trash on UK tv that we export such as Pop Idol etc.That worries me more, as the masses watch that and dont go to art galleries.

Your grasp of history is amazing in its lack of thought. (nothing personal) Or were ancient cultures run by nazis and communists?


I was making an example of modern regimes. My grasp on history is good, you are incorrect and it is a bit rich to try to criticise someones knowledge of history on a few lines :eek::mad:. Ancient cultures also did questionable things I dont have to point this out. I am reading a very interesting book about the varied races of people known as the Celts. The modern fabrication of the druid is one of a kind of pastoral merlin or gandalf, that IT workers seem to play out the roles at the weekend. Whereas there is a lot of primary and secondary evidence to suggest that they practiced human sacrifice. Similar with the Greeks and the ancient Chinese?
Would you say the Greeks or Chinese were a tolerant society? I do not know this area so well.



Actually, go back a bit farther and try the ancient Greeks. Or the Chinese. It has nothing really to do with tradition, other than in today's convoluted world where common sense no longer functions, thus things that were a given in the past are now categorized as tradition. Technology in any case is not the polarity against which tradition is set.

Yes, I did not word this point correctly, I mean from the tradition of those with similar background and views to Scruton. In the UK traditional taste, ie antiques, overly decorated works etc and the anti technology standpoint, that I see Scruton and Prince Charles etc have. This is a very important factor in why the UK has problems that span to today.This is perhaps why I have a strong dislike for words 'tradition'.

I am glad you can also appreciatte the beauty in oil tankers. The port near where I live at present often has large vessels docking to refuel, they look powerful in the sunset and sunrise hours.

GlennT 01-11-2010 09:18 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Hey, CG, you're a good sport. I do get "a bit rich" at times* when I go after ideas that hit me the wrong way.

Many of the ancient Greeks, save for the Spartans, were very tolerant, especially in Athens, but within certain accepted cultural standards. It would also depend on the specific locale and time period. And the Romans went through many different phases from a Republic to a dictatorship. US history is in danger of repeating many of their mistakes. The Chinese have such a long history that it is difficult to generalize. there was more tolerance and openess to new ideas in the T'ang and Song dynasties.

In the context of our discussion, I take "tradition" to mean an evolving path of depicting nature and the human figure in an on-going pursuit of masterful expression that has beauty in strong emphasis, along with other notions such as harmony, grace, and rhythmn.
__________________________________________________ _______________

* As in, "most of the time"!

grommet 01-12-2010 02:03 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
had to read your first item in quotes twice. I couldn't believe you'd refer to yourself that way, but if the cactus shoe fits...:rolleyes:

JUST teasing...

evaldart 01-12-2010 08:41 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
What you all think you know about history, of any kind, is poppycock. It was all dreamed-up, with the mildly applied virtue of creativity - mind you, by historians wishing to separate themselves from their bespectacled herds by the continuous manipulation and introducing of new "facts".

Just look at the things available to your eye; it will get increasingly easy to tell what is "what" and what was the nature and priorities of the individual that produced the thing. As group efforts are considered...well, they are not that important. There is the possibility of a visual treat by those cumulative efforts, and maybe some "beauty" or a lash of shocking uniqueness; but all that will disperse quickly from your noggin just like a trip to Disneyworld (you'll recall the important things like the magnificently long and winding lines to Space Mountain and the turkey legs).
Art will ever be the stuff that bothers you in your dreams and in your sketchbooks. Find that somewhere in-between. Not beauty.

GlennT 01-12-2010 09:28 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Well, beauty matters to me, so I'm going to stick with it until I decide otherwise.

I like learning, so I'm going to pay attention to history as well, despite any shortcomings in the abilities of the storytellers.

As for what Art is...the less said with words and the more said with Art, the better!

evaldart 01-12-2010 09:58 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennT (Post 86288)
Well, beauty matters to me, so I'm going to stick with it until I decide otherwise.

I like learning, so I'm going to pay attention to history as well, despite any shortcomings in the abilities of the storytellers.

As for what Art is...the less said with words and the more said with Art, the better!


Nope Glenn, beauty doesnt matter to you. There are surface adherences that you use to execute your facade. But it is quite apparent in your Art, behind the narratives and affectations, that you really worry over more significant matters. Your all-too-traditional proclamations are inconsistent with a handiwork that betrays a nervous want for departure. There is an improvised softness and unusually roughly interpreted blurriness to your figuration that makes it unique; less realistic, less correct, less skilled than so much other stuff that rings "illustrated" and boring. In my solitary opinion, you are good not at all because you demonstrate any grasp of beauty; you are good because you have departed from it. Whether you like it or not, or know it or not, you are NOT pursuing "beauty"; you are indulging the self-directed whims of the tyrant that is your creative impulse...as it must be for advancers. Sorry, all the clasped hands and all the debate cant change it...you are irrepairably "loosed"...and "beauty" is a shallow speck of language. But then, you know all this.:).

GlennT 01-12-2010 10:07 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Thus spake Zarathrusrevaldart!

While it is true that more than beauty matters to me, and a lot more than that goes into my work, I cannot deny its importance in my world either, nor feel shame in admitting so.

It is nice to be appreciated though, so I thank you for noticing things and interpreting them using a slightly different language.

CroftonGraphics 01-13-2010 10:17 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Er 'Why HISTORY matters?'
LOL.

grommet 01-13-2010 10:58 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CroftonGraphics (Post 86301)
Er 'Why HISTORY matters?'
LOL.

but Must we continually relive it? Must I live in a hypnagogic state in perpetuity???:eek:

CroftonGraphics 01-13-2010 11:57 AM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
No not relive it but to build on, refer to, rebel against, be inspired, learn from.

To exist in a state without what we label as past and future, sure that would be an interesting thing, but could things hold together like that?

Learning from experience but also books, not to label things, to put in boxes, to dry up life, but to expand the wonder of life experience and existence.

grommet 01-13-2010 12:14 PM

Re: Why Beauty Matters........
 
Quote:

No not relive it but to build on, refer to, rebel against, be inspired, learn from.
okay, this is important.
So in "using" history, do you need to have the reference there when you finish responding to it, or is its value in its inferred existence which is intangible in the new work?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.

Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert