Goya beauty, I think so. Derek wants to define beauty as limited to the pretty. But beauty (as aroused in us) can be ferocious and paradoxical. In Goya we experience paradoxical beauty. It's the beauty of what is absent rather than what is present. When we see Goya's major ptgs. we are confronted with various forms of human failure, some violent, some just a matter of being dumb. What I've seen in so many Goya ptgs. is exquisite color and very subtle paint handling (not to mention compositions, etc.). This often borders on sweetness. But in the midst of such paradisacal color and poise are an abundance of human failing, fear, anxiety, supersitition. The beauty we attribute to is our sensing what is lost. Goya is a realist. His paintings (and everything else he did) show us what man has done to his earthly paradise, how he has given up Eden. The horror we feel with Goya is made clear by our sensing what has been foresaken. So Goya, I believe, is as much about beauty as any artist who chooses other means to attain it.
Derek, of course, will disagree because he must. That's how he retains his identity. For him to agree would mean giving up or sharing a bit of his selfness. Goya, a unequalled genius, would have liked to paint his portrait. WC --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yet aesthetics persists with the idea that > 'beauty' is somehow central to > > all art. > > > Maybe there is something roughy comparable in the > response of sexual > attraction or excitation. I think it is a common > for men -- and women too -- to be > more sexually drawn to someone who is not generally > accepted as the most > "beautiful" person in the room. I have Hollywood > friends who have remarked on the > "flawless beauty" of Nicole Kidman, but agree she is > not as sexually exciting as > many "less perfect looking" women out there. > > In other words, just as mere "beauty" does not cause > the most sexual arousal, > it does not necessarily cause the strongest > "aesthetic experience". > Similarly, the responses vary from one sensibility > to another. That is, it's misleading > to claim anyone is in some absolute way "sexy", and > a second person is not. > Agreed -- this does not seem to apply to the most > unfortunate examples of > either people or "works of art". There are some that > would seem to be unable to > stir any excitation at all. > > (I'll cite my refraining from jumping on the > vulnerable language of Derek's > remark. Similarly I hope listers will look past my > deliberately kitchen-table > English to the idea it is obviously trying to > examine.) > > > > ************** > Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. > used car > listings at AOL Autos. > > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
