Re: 'Derek won't tell us what beauty is but he is very quick to limit it to certain artworks.'
I gave you an instance of what I think beauty is - and isn't - in visual art. That is far better than any abstract description. Actually I don't think the word 'beauty' is really quite adequate for the 'Venus and Adonis' in question. It is more than that. There is a kind of nobility as well. And more. In short it is silly to try to pigeon-hole any work of art with one word. My reference to beauty was only a kind of shorthand way of describing it. But it certainly differentiates it from say the Witches Sabbath in question in which there is no trace of beauty at all - quite deliberately I would say. RE: 'believe Beauty is a concept, an expansive one something like Santyana's Oceanic, something that lifts self awareness beyond the limits of here and now. So I think beauty is a state of mind. ... etc etc" I have read so many passages like this from various aestheticians and sometimes art historians - all different, and some even more vague and rapturous than this. Lets' try a little experiment. Below is your passage with all mentions of the word 'beauty' replaced by X. Now, if you asked people to read the passage and say what X stood for, how many do you think would guess beauty? (and I have helped you by leaving the bits about Santayana and Goya in)? My point is that this approach to the idea of beauty - a very common one among certain aestheticians, I might add - merely turns the word into a kind of place holder into which one pours anything one happens to want to rhapsodize about. 'N'importe quoi' as the French say. Very handy for the aesthetician of course because it gives him/her entirely free rein to be as vague and irresponsible as he/she likes. Useless for analytical purposes, however, since the word beauty ends up being totally nebulous and effectively means nothing. Here is the passage: "I guess that X is not in the object nor is it necessarily evoked by an object or by features of objects. I believe X is a concept, an expansive one something like Santyana's Oceanic, something that lifts self awareness beyond the limits of here and now. So I think X is a state of mind. That's what I mean by saying Goya's art is an instance of experience that urges us to think beyond the here and now (the depicted) and imagine what is absent from depiction but very much a part of what Goya's depiction arouses -- a heightened consciousness and desire for sensual life, a recognition of its sweet fragility and how it is murdered by human evil. Thinking about that gives us access to Goya's art. It's a pathway, that's all. Any expansion of our experience to a universal awareness of life value and fragility is the X the peak human experience." Re" Interestingly, one of Derek's favorite artworks to ridicule, Cabanel's Birth of Venus, is precisely the sort of narrow, specific, unambiguous, banal, here and now image, that Derek seems to want in Veronese or Goya. Where you got this from is beyond me! Can you quote where I asked for a 'narrow, specific, unambiguous, banal, here and now image'? DA On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:18 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek won't tell us what beauty is but he is very > quick to limit it to certain artworks. > > I guess that Beauty is not in the object nor is it > necessarily evoked by an object or by features of > objects. I believe Beauty is a concept, an expansive > one something like Santyana's Oceanic, something that > lifts self awareness beyond the limits of here and > now. So I think beauty is a state of mind. That's > what I mean by saying Goya's art is an instance of > experience that urges us to think beyond the here and > now (the depicted) and imagine what is absent from > depiction but very much a part of what Goya's > depiction arouses -- a heightened consciousness and > desire for sensual life, a recognition of its sweet > fragility and how it is murdered by human evil. > Thinking about that gives us access to Goya's art. > It's a pathway, that's all. Any expansion of our > experience to a universal awareness of life value and > fragility is the beautiful/the sublime, the peak human > experience. > > Derek sees art as something that becomes narrower in > its evocation, towards something explicit and unique > (and for him that's the unexplained state of art). > That leads him to ridicule how words alert us to the > many-layered ambiguities of art. I prefer to imagine > that there are many avenues to an artwork, all enabing > our access but none of them replacing the direct > experience and how it may affect us long after the > moment. That's what art criticism is, the searching > for avenues of access to artworks. I think it's a > step by step expansive process where the artwork > suggest more and more, not less and less. > > Interestingly, one of Derek's favorite artworks to > ridicule, Cabanel's Birth of Venus, is precisely the > sort of narrow, specific, unambiguous, banal, here and > now image, that Derek seems to want in Veronese or > Goya. In fact, that painting was the 19C equivalent > of a girlie picture and was aimed at a voyeuristic > audience at the dawn of mass produced pornography. > So, if we could follow Derek's art-talk rainbow to the > pot of gold, we would not find Veronese or Goya but > Cabanel! > > Words are tools to use. We use them to convey > meanings. We can treat them as a sculptor would treat > metal and stone. > > I think the concept of beauty is larger than Derek > says it is. It is the biggest word-container concept > we have for art. > > WC > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
