Re: 'Beauty deserves a proper hearing. The concept is still enticing and vexing, and Derek is callous to propose abandoning it. I am dedicated to beauty. As was Goya'.
I am not proposing 'abandoning beauty' at all. The Veronese I mentioned does capture an ideal of beauty and it is painting I greatly admire - along with many others of the period. I think my email made this clear enough? My point is that 'beauty' is an idea that only applies to a limited segment of the world of art. It is just silly to try to apply it to Goya's late paintings - as to the Crucifixion in the Isenheim Altarpiece and to many others. The aesthetic dogma that art=beauty (ie always) is simply misleading now. The fact that so many aestheticians still stick to it so doggedly suggests to me that they either do not look at painting (or art generally) seriously - or else confine themselves somehow to a very limited segment of it. To teach students these days that art always=beauty seems to me an absurdity! -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I reject Cheerskep's answer. It is sexist and banal. > Beauty in art cannot be a matter of degrees as in > Cheerskep's rough analogy comparing greater or lesser > beauty to the attractiveness of women. Beauty is a > concept that engages our sensibility and responses to > artworks or things, like people, who can be regarded, > at best, as faulty metaphors of that concept. > (Although Alberti, the great art theorist of the > Renaissance claimed that nothing can match true > beauty, which he defined as "that in which nothing can > be altered except for the worse". He advocated taking > mean measurements of humans to arrive at the best > possible -- imperfect-- beauty). Beauty deserves a > proper hearing. The concept is still enticing and > vexing, and Derek is callous to propose abandoning it. > I am dedicated to beauty. As was Goya > 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)
