I’m not trying to distinguish art from non-art; that appears to be your aim, not mine. I’m trying to distinguish between aesthetics and your claim that art should be about beauty. — Possibility

Well, if we're going to discuss a topic, we should isolate it from other topics i.e. to talk about art, we need to exclude non-art from the conversation. Anyway, you've done exactly what I did below [underlined] and so we're good.

Well, for me, the essence of art is creativity, the experience of art is the possibility of understanding what we see, and the beauty of art is a judgement of success in that endeavour. Aesthetics, however, refers to the relational structure that enables all of this to occur, and is inclusive of both unmanifested creativity and any failure to understand what we see. Aesthetic value is a judgement of beauty with claims to universality, but an aesthetic experience can be so much more than that. — Possibility

I do admit that creativity is involved in art for it's necessary for beautification - how might I take something and give it, in your words, "...aesthetic value..." However, creativity per se isn't art. For instance it took a whole lot of creativity to invent the automobile but the earliest automobiles, if you look at old pictures, lacked the "...aesthetic value..." modern automobiles possess.

I do admit that creativity is involved in art for it's necessary for beautification - how might I take something and give it, in your words, "...aesthetic value..." However, creativity per se isn't art. For instance it took a whole lot of creativity to invent the automobile but the earliest automobiles, if you look at old pictures, lacked the "...aesthetic value..." modern automobiles possess. — TheMadFool

I’m not say that creativity per se is art, but that it is a property without which art would not be what it is - ergo, its essence.

There are many skills that are considered an ‘art’ in the hands of some, due to their creative approaches to problem-solving that incrementally challenge what can be achieved, but such endeavours are considered ‘beautiful’ only so long as they don’t overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move.

The ‘aesthetic value’ of early automobiles is lost on many of us, but at the time they would have been looked upon by engineers (at least) as a masterpiece, a thing of beauty - in looking at this contraption they understood what could be achieved. If you understand the history of the craft, you would appreciate their aesthetic value even now, just as we do with paintings and sculpture.

I’m not say that creativity per se is art, but that it is a property without which art would not be what it is - ergo, its essence — Possibility

I did admit that creativity is part of art but that it's the essence of art is debatable unless you mean to say that beauty is a facet of creativity.

There are many skills that are considered an ‘art’ in the hands of some, due to their creative approaches to problem-solving that incrementally challenge what can be achieved, but such endeavours are considered ‘beautiful’ only so long as they don’t overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move. — Possibility

So, do some art "...overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move"? After all, if beauty is not all that central to art, some art shouldn't be beautiful. Can you give me some examples of art that have nothing to do with beauty?

I can give you some examples of art in which creativity has no role at all. Take for instance the Niagara falls or the Grand Canyon or any other natural wonder for that matter. The artist when he works on such subjects focuses on a hi-fi reproduction, a carbon copy as it were, and keeps faer creativity, if fae is so blessed, on a tight leash lest he make the silly mistake of trying to gild the lily.

The ‘aesthetic value’ of early automobiles is lost on many of us, but at the time they would have been looked upon by engineers (at least) as a masterpiece, a thing of beauty - in looking at this contraption they understood what could be achieved. If you understand the history of the craft, you would appreciate their aesthetic value even now, just as we do with paintings and sculpture. — Possibility

This doesn't make sense. It goes without saying that the cars of today are aesthetically endowed relative to the first ones that were made in the 1800's. Back then the car was simply about function - their sole purpose was to get people from point A to point B. Nowadays, that simple formula just won't cut it - people are looking for more than just transport - they also want their vehicles to be nice-looking (beauty).

So, do some art "...overstretch our capacity to integrate the new information with how we predict it would (or believe it should) look or move"? After all, if beauty is not all that central to art, some art shouldn't be beautiful. Can you give me some examples of art that have nothing to do with beauty? — TheMadFool

Some art isn’t beautiful, or at least elements of it are disturbing or difficult to face, watch or acknowledge, let alone judge as ‘beautiful’. These pieces are often described as ‘important’. The earlier example I referred to was of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, first exhibited (after initial rejection) in 1917. The 1994 New Zealand film Once Were Warriors is etched in my memory as a disturbingly powerful piece of cinema that I cannot bring myself to watch again, and yet would not hesitate to recommend. Likewise for Khaled Hosseini’s novels.

And Monet’s Impression: Sunrise was among many works rejected by the Salon des Beaux Arts in Paris for years prior to the 1874 Impressionist Exhibition, because they over-stretched critics’ capacity to integrate certain techniques and subject matter with how they believed paintings should look. These artworks were not ‘beautiful’, and did not aim to be: they intended to portray the aesthetic qualities experienced in the fleeting nature of light and the ordinariness of life. That critics couldn’t recognise this aesthetic quality, let alone judge it to be ‘beautiful’, did not mean it wasn’t art, even then.

Some art isn’t beautiful, or at least elements of it are disturbing or difficult to face, watch or acknowledge, let alone judge as ‘beautiful’. These pieces are often described as ‘important’. The earlier example I referred to was of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, first exhibited (after initial rejection) in 1917. The 1994 New Zealand film Once Were Warriors is etched in my memory as a disturbingly powerful piece of cinema that I cannot bring myself to watch again, and yet would not hesitate to recommend. Likewise for Khaled Hosseini’s novels.

And Monet’s Impression: Sunrise was among many works rejected by the Salon des Beaux Arts in Paris for years prior to the 1874 Impressionist Exhibition, because they over-stretched critics’ capacity to integrate certain techniques and subject matter with how they believed paintings should look. These artworks were not ‘beautiful’, and did not aim to be: they intended to portray the aesthetic qualities experienced in the fleeting nature of light and the ordinariness of life. That critics couldn’t recognise this aesthetic quality, let alone judge it to be ‘beautiful’, did not mean it wasn’t art, even then. — Possibility

I can tell you this, your views depart from the mainstream understanding of art is. Read below:

Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics). — Wikipedia

Marcel Duchamp was simply having some fun and unfortunately it was at the expense of those who know that art must be about beauty. I'm sure his reputation from his previous works which were, I suppose, beautiful, helped him slip this monstrosity past the art checkpost. It happens. I remember a long time ago knowing a person who was known for his honesty. At one point he did lie but everyone believed it because of his reputation as an upstanding bloke.

I can tell you this, your views depart from the mainstream understanding of art is. — TheMadFool

I’m okay with that - I’m not after the popular vote.

Marcel Duchamp was simply having some fun and unfortunately it was at the expense of those who know that art must be about beauty. I'm sure his reputation from his previous works which were, I suppose, beautiful, helped him slip this monstrosity past the art checkpost. It happens. I remember a long time ago knowing a person who was known for his honesty. At one point he did lie but everyone believed it because of his reputation as an upstanding bloke. — TheMadFool

You might want to do a little research on Duchamp before you leap to this conclusion. Duchamp had already earned a reputation for adding aesthetic qualities to his work that challenged the criteria of form. He added elements of movement (Nude Descending a Staircase No.2) and even elements of mental activity (Portrait of Chess Players) to his Cubist artworks that scandalised critics, and he later rejected what he referred to as ‘retinal art’, which he believed “intended only to please the eye”. Fountain was his most significant Dadaist work, was one of a number of ‘readymade’ objects he used in his art, and was indicative of his desire “to put art back in service of the mind”. It didn’t ‘slip past the art checkpost’, but was originally rejected as ‘not art’ for an exhibition that supposedly had no jury, prompting Duchamp to resign from the Board of its organising society. But it wasn’t the first time his art had been rejected from a non-jury exhibition.

I’m okay with that - I’m not after the popular vote. — Possibility

:up: Fantastic!

already earned a reputation for adding aesthetic qualities to his work — Possibility

The reason why Duchamp was recognized as an artist was because some of his works were beautiful. OK.

was originally rejected as ‘not art’ — Possibility

In other words, to many, those who share my sentiment that art has to be aesthetically pleasing I presume, Duchamp's work wasn't art.

As far as I can tell, if Duchamp was a pioneer of the point of view on art that you're espousing, then kudos to him. I don't know what kind of artistic environment his take on art take shape in but it must've been marked with deep frustration at the status quo whatever it was. To present a toilet as art comes off as a desperate measure...perhaps because of...desperate times.

Just to add to the discussion regarding toilets f, my friend who used to make paintings on the theme of urinals, did this making the walls and structure of the room like temples. He spoke of how he imagined sacred, esoteric rituals taking place in such places in the middle ages, probably based on paganism.

But it is worth saying that he began making this art while in therapy. His work was based on his own struggle with Catholic views on sexuality. and how especially the idea of hell had affected his mental health His work probably fell into the tradition of 'outsider art'.

What is new to some may be old to others. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely it runs along the lines of “one mans rubbish is another’s treasure.” With respect to “popular art” I would imagine it is that which has the capacity to engage a large audience - that perhaps it has a message or emotion that is either new to many or just simply held in great esteem/importance to the majority. Art that deals with current affairs or archetypes of human nature would fit this category. It is observed that art that deals with struggle and hardship, depression, love or the mysteries of life has that kind of impact that resonates with a lot of people while of course there are also niche arts that won’t relate to the majority but are profoundly interesting to a few. But as you pointed out, to say one is better than the other is a fallacious claim just as to assume ones dreams/ambitions are less correct or valid as another’s is also merely a matter of opinion.

I think however that Whilst most of us wouldn’t be comfortable critiquing art, critics do have a purpose or knowledge in discerning what is perhaps powerful or popular art verse art that is less so. But they would make judgements not only on the relevancy or perceived “worthiness” of the piece but many important factors such as; Technique and precision - how well did the artist execute the message they wish to portray, style - is it something that is refreshing and unique or something that has been repeated 1000 times already, how was the piece composed - how well does the artist demonstrate spatial awareness and balance in the piece etc. The list is extensive and always open to contention.

In essence the true irony is that critiquing or “appreciating” art is just as much an art-form as the artwork itself and this is why many a time several famous or well recognised art critics can be at total odds with each other as to the beauty of a piece they have all independently analysed. One could say it’s the best thing they’ve ever seen and another could say it belongs in the bin.

It is therefore important for artists (especially those who create works of a deeply personal nature - the artists who quite literally put their soul/ being into a piece) that a criticism is never universal. And that a disliking of the piece is not a reflection of the validity or worth of their personhood and they should not take it to heart too much.

The issue really is that as I pointed out earlier most of us have very little idea of what is “good” so we tend to agree with the experts opinions despite maybe liking the piece before the critic “ripped it to shreds” and this can feel awful for an artist when the group turns on their piece without really knowing what decision or who’s decisions lead them to that conclusion.

A worthwhile final note is that dozen of artists have faced severe and often life destroying levels of exclusion/ denial of their talents based on the status quo at the time only to emerge as distinguished and highly regarded artists posthumously in the future. If only they could see what became of their work.

The reason why Duchamp was recognized as an artist was because some of his works were beautiful. OK. — TheMadFool

Not the same thing - and I’m getting a little tired of you clipping my statements to suit your own argument. Aesthetic qualities does NOT equal beautiful - you’re equivocating aesthetic qualities with positive aesthetic VALUE. His Nude Descending a Staircase No.2 horrified art critics and patrons alike in the US in 1913:

Julian Street, an art critic for The New York Times wrote that the work resembled "an explosion in a shingle factory," and cartoonists satirized the piece. It spawned dozens of parodies in the years that followed. A work entitled Food Descending a Staircase was exhibited at a show parodying the most outrageous works at the Armory, running concurrently with the show at The Lighthouse School for the Blind. In American Art News, there were prizes offered to anyone who could find the nude.

After attending the Armory Show and seeing Marcel Duchamp's nude, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote: "Take the picture which for some reason is called 'A Naked Man Going Down Stairs'. There is in my bathroom a really good Navajo rug which, on any proper interpretation of the Cubist theory, is a far more satisfactory and decorative picture. Now, if, for some inscrutable reason, it suited somebody to call this rug a picture of, say, 'A Well-Dressed Man Going Up a Ladder', the name would fit the facts just about as well as in the case of the Cubist picture of the 'Naked Man Going Down Stairs'. From the standpoint of terminology each name would have whatever merit inheres in a rather cheap straining after effect; and from the standpoint of decorative value, of sincerity, and of artistic merit, the Navajo rug is infinitely ahead of the picture." — From Wikipedia

The aesthetic qualities he added challenged Cubism’s criteria of form at the time. It clearly lacked those aesthetic qualities by which it could be judged ‘beautiful’ as an art form, and yet it was important for the aesthetic qualities it did have: repetition, indeterminacy of form, and variations of perspective that suggest movement. Today, with photography and cinema, we take these particular qualities in 2D form for granted, but at the time they were conveying a new understanding of how to see the world - one that wasn’t yet understood in art.

In other words, to many, those who share my sentiment that art has to be aesthetically pleasing I presume, Duchamp's work wasn't art.

As far as I can tell, if Duchamp was a pioneer of the point of view on art that you're espousing, then kudos to him. I don't know what kind of artistic environment his take on art take shape in but it must've been marked with deep frustration at the status quo whatever it was. To present a toilet as art comes off as a desperate measure...perhaps because of...desperate times. — TheMadFool

I recognise that many people draw the line of ‘art’ at visually pleasing, which they understand to be the limit of aesthetics. I find it sad that this opinion is still mainstream (even considered intellectual) after more than a century of artistic exploration beyond this horizon. But some people still insist the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, so...

I also recognise that Dadaism emerged from the environment of WWI, a stark reality that made this criteria of ‘retinal art’ seem like escapism, fantasy, a denial of their own experience. But the idea that aesthetics was about more than what is visually pleasing, and included sublime delight in the process (however fearful, difficult or disorienting) of attempting to understand what we’re looking at beyond the limits of our senses - I believe that was Kant.

Not the same thing - and I’m getting a little tired of you clipping my statements to suit your own argument. Aesthetic qualities does NOT equal beautiful - you’re equivocating aesthetic qualities with positive aesthetic VALUE. His Nude Descending a Staircase No.2 horrified art critics and patrons alike in the US in 1913 — Possibility

But the aesthetic VALUE is completely determined by beauty, the aesthetic quality. To speak of one is to speak of the other. You wrote "...aesthetic qualities..." Pray tell what other qualities other than beauty are there in aesthetics?

Not that I want to get into an argument with you but I quoted YOU so if you're not happy, you have yourself to blame for it.

I understand that Duchamp's works, some of them I presume, elicited a response that was negative in every sense of that word from the art critics. For my money, the reason why critics were, in your words, "...horrified..." was because the work was absent beauty in the form that the world and the critics were familiar with up until that point. For Duchamp to be considered a legit painter, an artist in his own right, we must come to the conclusion that he was offering a different perspective, on, revealing another side to, beauty and not outright rejecting the role and importance of beauty in art. That;s as far as I'm willing to go with what you said.

they were conveying a new understanding of how to see the world - one that wasn’t yet understood in art. — Possibility

A "...new understanding of how to see the world..." as I've been explaining ad nauseum isn't unique to art. The same can be said of philosophical positions, scientific theories, and whathaveyou and that being so, art can't be defined by in those terms. To illustrate analogically, we can't use eyes to define human beings because other animals also have eyes; to define human beings, we need to focus on the essence of what it is to be human. Similarly, to define art, we can't rely on features that are present in other non-art disciplines; what we need is something unique to art and that, for me, is beauty.

I think that you make an important point about the need for 'a new understanding of the world.' Of course, this is not unique to art, and definitely applies to philosophy. But I do believe that art and the arts are one place where this can take place. You speak of the 'need to focus on the essence of what it means to be human' and I completely agree.

I do not see the question of art and influence as being entirely separate from the one in the thread of where are we going? Remember, I am not talking about visual art alone but about all the arts. I would also see philosophy as an art in its own right. I believe that we need to find new ways of seeing.

I think that you make an important point about the need for 'a new understanding of the world.' Of course, this is not unique to art, and definitely applies to philosophy. But I do believe that art and the arts are one place where this can take place. You speak of the 'need to focus on the essence of what it means to be human' and I completely agree.

I do not see the question of art and influence as being entirely separate from the one in the thread of where are we going? Remember, I am not talking about visual art alone but about all the arts. I would also see philosophy as an art in its own right. I believe that we need to find new ways of seeing. — Jack Cummins

I'm doubtful whether art can done to the exclusion of beauty considering that beauty is the only thing that gives it a unique identity.

I'm aware that @Possibility and you lend credence to other dimensions to art, specifically that it provides a "...new understanding..." of the world. However, in my humble opinion, whatever "...new understanding..." artists bring to the table it has to be executed beautifully; if not, it fails to do justice to the spirit of the artistic enterprise.

I realise that you believe that art is about beauty. However, your discussion of this in relation to the this seems to be mainly abstract. So, I am just wondering which artists or works of art can be seen as measuring up to this quality?

But the aesthetic VALUE is completely determined by beauty, the aesthetic quality. To speak of one is to speak of the other. You wrote "...aesthetic qualities..." Pray tell what other qualities other than beauty are there in aesthetics?

Not that I want to get into an argument with you but I quoted YOU so if you're not happy, you have yourself to blame for it. — TheMadFool

Aesthetic qualities are the way in which art elements and principles, materials and techniques work together to influence the mood, feeling or meaning of an artwork. They can be gentle, angry, happy, sad, sharp, bright, harsh, languid, etc.

Aesthetic value is the value that an artwork possesses in virtue of its capacity to elicit pleasure (positive value) or displeasure (negative value) when appreciated or experienced aesthetically.

I understand that Duchamp's works, some of them I presume, elicited a response that was negative in every sense of that word from the art critics. For my money, the reason why critics were, in your words, "...horrified..." was because the work was absent beauty in the form that the world and the critics were familiar with up until that point. For Duchamp to be considered a legit painter, an artist in his own right, we must come to the conclusion that he was offering a different perspective, on, revealing another side to, beauty and not outright rejecting the role and importance of beauty in art. That;s as far as I'm willing to go with what you said. — TheMadFool

Duchamp was offering a broader perspective of art - he was disputing the rejection of negative value in a created aesthetic experience.

A "...new understanding of how to see the world..." as I've been explaining ad nauseum isn't unique to art. The same can be said of philosophical positions, scientific theories, and whathaveyou and that being so, art can't be defined by in those terms. To illustrate analogically, we can't use eyes to define human beings because other animals also have eyes; to define human beings, we need to focus on the essence of what it is to be human. Similarly, to define art, we can't rely on features that are present in other non-art disciplines; what we need is something unique to art and that, for me, is beauty. — TheMadFool

But beauty is not unique to art at all - it is ubiquitous in nature. So, by the same token, art can’t be defined in terms of beauty, anymore than new understanding. In my view, what is unique to art is the self-conscious creation of an aesthetic experience. And no, it doesn’t have to be new in order to be art, but it doesn’t have to be beautiful, either. This is what art ultimately strives for: new and unexpected information, rendered with satisfying aesthetic clarity. It’s more a work-in-process than a product in this respect.

I realise that you believe that art is about beauty. However, your discussion of this in relation to the this seems to be mainly abstract. So, I am just wondering which artists or works of art can be seen as measuring up to this quality? — Jack Cummins

I'm forced to admit my abject ignorance on the matter of specific artworks that would validate my position that art is about beauty. Consider my point of view to be one that's extracted from a brief and perhaps too superficial a survey of what's being peddled as art to the general public. Yet, I I'm somewhat confident that if we make a list of artworks that have been bought/sold for huge sums of money, money here the surrogate marker for real art, you'll [probably] discover that art lovers all over the world choose beauty over anything else that art deals with.

Aesthetic qualities are the way in which art elements and principles, materials and techniques work together to influence the mood, feeling or meaning of an artwork. They can be gentle, angry, happy, sad, sharp, bright, harsh, languid, etc.

Aesthetic value is the value that an artwork possesses in virtue of its capacity to elicit pleasure (positive value) or displeasure (negative value) when appreciated or experienced aesthetically. — Possibility

Google definition of aesthetics: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty.

Odd that nowhere in your colorful description is beauty even mentioned in passing.

Duchamp was offering a broader perspective of art - he was disputing the rejection of negative value in a created aesthetic experience. — Possibility

If that's what Duchamp was doing then kudos to him. I too feel that artists should broaden their horizons and expand their interests to be as inclusive of the multi-faceted world that we inhabit. However, they mustn't do this in a way that undermines art itself and they're guilty of doing precisely that when they ignore beauty and get carried away by the novelty of their ideas. For example, Duchamp seems to have been so bowled over by the freshness and originality of his ideas that he completely forgot about beauty.

But beauty is not unique to art at all - it is ubiquitous in nature. So, by the same token, art can’t be defined in terms of beauty, anymore than new understanding. In my view, what is unique to art is the self-conscious creation of an aesthetic experience. And no, it doesn’t have to be new in order to be art, but it doesn’t have to be beautiful, either. This is what art ultimately strives for: new and unexpected information, rendered with satisfying aesthetic clarity. It’s more a work-in-process than a product in this respect. — Possibility

What's unique about beauty in art is that the latter makes the former a value in its own right.

I would say that my parents certainly came from the same perspective on art being about beauty. I was encouraged to do realistic art by my parents and on courses I have done.

My funny memory was is that of doing an abstract painting, all in black, at age 4, at play school. When I was making I felt like it was a deep statement, but when I showed it to my mum, she was absolutely horrified. So, I told her that it was burnt roast potatoes, and I think that this was the end of my abstract painting career.

I have experimented in symbolic drawings, especially on the art therapy course. My favourite artists do include Dali and William Blake, who are recognised in the 'aesthetic' sense, although many have criticised Blake's lack of drawing skill.

I would like to do more symbolic art at some point in the future. However, I as I have said on a number of occasions I am interested in the arts in the widest sense. Generally, I love alternative perspective in writing and music, including the most experimental psychedelic styles, for looking into other dimensions, for increased experience, transformation and understanding.

I'm somewhat confident that if we make a list of artworks that have been bought/sold for huge sums of money, money here the surrogate marker for real art, you'll [probably] discover that art lovers all over the world choose beauty over anything else that art deals with. — TheMadFool

I would confidently dispute that. If you took a look at the twenty most expensive paintings sold, roughly half of them would not be considered ‘beautiful’ by the general public let alone art lovers, and were certainly not purchased at that price for their beauty. These include de Kooning, Munch, Pollock, Rothko, Lichtenstein and Basquiat - all over $100 million apiece. Many of them, however, are recognised as ‘important’ works in our overall progress of aesthetic awareness. Modigliani, in particular, is indicative of a more ‘respectful’ and ‘sensitive’ treatment of female nudes - although they were considered ‘ugly’ during his lifetime (for showing pubic hair). These artists challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we’d prefer it to be. Their aesthetic value is realised in the knowledge we gain - not just the pleasure - from thinking about how we feel when we look at it.

Odd that nowhere in your colorful description is beauty even mentioned in passing. — TheMadFool

If you can’t see beauty in those definitions, then I doubt you understand aesthetics at all. It’s only after Kant that the term ‘aesthetics’ was commonly reduced to the nature and appreciation of beauty. It’s such a narrow perspective - Kant uses the example of beauty in aesthetic experience to demonstrate rational structure in our capacity for judgement, not to define aesthetics. The sublime is no less important to an overall understanding of aesthetics.

I too feel that artists should broaden their horizons and expand their interests to be as inclusive of the multi-faceted world that we inhabit. However, they mustn't do this in a way that undermines art itself and they're guilty of doing precisely that when they ignore beauty and get carried away by the novelty of their ideas. For example, Duchamp seems to have been so bowled over by the freshness and originality of his ideas that he completely forgot about beauty. — TheMadFool

I would argue that Duchamp never ‘forgot’ about beauty, but that he deliberately downplayed it in his art to achieve the focus he was aiming for. Artists shouldn’t be expected to encompass an holistic view of this multi-faceted world in every piece, nor to create ‘art itself’ - instead, they embody in their work what they believe the world (of art) can learn from their perspective: ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world’. It is the ‘freshness and originality of his ideas’ that he aims to present in the clearest way that he can, and to attempt anything else is hubris.

What's unique about beauty in art is that the latter makes the former a value in its own right. — TheMadFool

Sorry, I just don’t see this.

I would confidently dispute that. If you took a look at the twenty most expensive paintings sold, roughly half of them would not be considered ‘beautiful’ by the general public let alone art lovers, and were certainly not purchased at that price for their beauty. These include de Kooning, Munch, Pollock, Rothko, Lichtenstein and Basquiat - all over $100 million apiece. Many of them, however, are recognised as ‘important’ works in our overall progress of aesthetic awareness. Modigliani, in particular, is indicative of a more ‘respectful’ and ‘sensitive’ treatment of female nudes - although they were considered ‘ugly’ during his lifetime (for showing pubic hair). These artists challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we’d prefer it to be. Their aesthetic value is realised in the knowledge we gain - not just the pleasure - from thinking about how we feel when we look at it — Possibility

I understand where you're coming from but to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we'd prefer it to be" is, to be brutally frank, not an artist's job or if you that doesn't go down well with you, it definitely isn't something unique to art i.e. it fails to define art; plus it amounts trespassing onto territories that rightfully belong to other disciplines/fields.

That said, I did admit that artists should be given the freedom to pick and choose any topic under the sun as subjects of their artistic urges BUT, and this can't be emphasized enough, they should make it a point to leave a clearly visible sign that the topic/subject, whatever it is, has passed through the mind of an artist.

This standpoint is in keeping with how we approach other issues: I remember, quite some time ago, reading a book on critical thinking and there's as discussion in it about how we must get all sides to a story and that, as per the author, involves getting a teacher's perspective, a student's perspective, a parent's perspective, a politician's perspective, so and so forth. The reason why this is done is because each such perspective brings to the table a different take on the issue at hand and, most importantly, each perspective is unique and vital to our understanding.

Likewise, an artist's perspective must be unique for it to be worthy of our attention and admiration and it, for certain, isn't if the artist's intention is solely to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just what we'd prefer it to be". Philosopher's do the same thing with words. Comedians do it with jokes. Thus my insistence that beauty be recognized as an essential attribute of art for it's the only quality that art can claim as its very own and thus the only quality that can make the artist's perspective stand out as a one of a kind among the myriad points of view that are available to us.

If you can’t see beauty in those definitions, then I doubt you understand aesthetics at all. It’s only after Kant that the term ‘aesthetics’ was commonly reduced to the nature and appreciation of beauty. It’s such a narrow perspective - Kant uses the example of beauty in aesthetic experience to demonstrate rational structure in our capacity for judgement, not to define aesthetics. The sublime is no less important to an overall understanding of aesthetics — Possibility

Read above.

I understand where you're coming from but to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just for what we'd prefer it to be" is, to be brutally frank, not an artist's job or if you that doesn't go down well with you, it definitely isn't something unique to art i.e. it fails to define art; plus it amounts trespassing onto territories that rightfully belong to other disciplines/fields. — TheMadFool

Your insistence that we must be restrained by these categories that define our thinking is a fundamental misunderstanding of creativity, and of art. I’m not saying that challenging our perception of reality is an artist’s job - it’s everyone’s job. But to say that artists are ‘trespassing’ by doing so, or that they should have art defined for them by other disciplines, is ridiculous.

That said, I did admit that artists should be given the freedom to pick and choose any topic under the sun as subjects of their artistic urges BUT, and this can't be emphasized enough, they should make it a point to leave a clearly visible sign that the topic/subject, whatever it is, has passed through the mind of an artist. — TheMadFool

You’re talking about creative intentionality. But who decides what a ‘clearly visible sign’ is? This is what I’m talking about - ignorance on the part of the audience does not constitute failure on the part of the artist, anymore than aesthetic awareness on the part of the critic does not constitute creative intentionality on the part of the artist (eg. Roosevelt’s Navajo rug). Not everyone recognises (or is willing to recognise) the creative process at work, especially if it transcends their own capacity to describe it. So much of this creative process is unavailable to the viewer, and even the artist may not be able to describe exactly why their work elicits a certain affect - but it demonstrates awareness, connection and collaboration in achieving an aesthetic experience.

So, how do you gauge creative intentionality? This is part of the question that Duchamp asks in his art. How do you know that an artist made this or that stroke of the brush on purpose? What leads you to assume that Duchamp chose to exhibit the urinal as a joke? Is this something for the critic or culture to determine, or is an artwork inseparable from the artist’s creative process after all? And why do we define art by a judgement of beauty - as if excluding our potential to manifest ugliness and disturbance in the world is more valuable than the truth?

This standpoint is in keeping with how we approach other issues: I remember, quite some time ago, reading a book on critical thinking and there's as discussion in it about how we must get all sides to a story and that, as per the author, involves getting a teacher's perspective, a student's perspective, a parent's perspective, a politician's perspective, so and so forth. The reason why this is done is because each such perspective brings to the table a different take on the issue at hand and, most importantly, each perspective is unique and vital to our understanding. — TheMadFool

It’s the focus on a consolidated uniqueness that I take issue with. Labelling each perspective as such detracts from the importance in the perspective of a teacher who is also a parent, for instance; or an artist who is also a scientist.

Likewise, an artist's perspective must be unique for it to be worthy of our attention and admiration and it, for certain, isn't if the artist's intention is solely to "...challenge us to see the world for what it IS, not just what we'd prefer it to be". Philosopher's do the same thing with words. Comedians do it with jokes. Thus my insistence that beauty be recognized as an essential attribute of art for it's the only quality that art can claim as its very own and thus the only quality that can make the artist's perspective stand out as a one of a kind among the myriad points of view that are available to us. — TheMadFool

Comedians may do it with jokes, but much of a good comedian’s material these days ‘trespasses’ into performance art and philosophy, as well as directly challenging what we think of as ‘funny’. Likewise for philosophers who publish fiction (de Beauvoir, Sartre, Rand, Camus, Nietzsche) or who are also scientists or mathematicians (Aristotle, Descartes, Pierce, Dewey, etc). So, you can insist on everyone ‘staying in their lane’ all you want - but it only limits your perspective of reality if Descartes can be essentially EITHER a mathematician OR a philosopher, but not both.

An artist’s perspective IS unique if it challenges us to SEE the world differently from our current understanding. Whether we take that challenge is not up to the art or the artist, it has to do with our own expectations of what art and artists can achieve. Art cannot claim beauty as its very own, anymore than philosophers can claim wisdom, or comedians humour.

We need to get away from trying to protect institutionalised concepts from change by defining them by some unique ‘essence’ that is nothing more than an illusion of power. Is it so troublesome for your perspective of reality that art aspires to transcend definition and reach beyond our current understanding? Why does that unsettle you so?