Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dan Lisuk's avatar

Richard-

Looking forward to these discussions. I find myself pondering this question, “what is beauty?”, or some related question, quite often. Noteworthy, I find confirmation of my thinking when I consider my response to experiences in art museums, daily experiencing of art in my own home, and my thinking about art I see in our region, which, as you know, in my Old Art Building position, I see pretty regularly. That’s not to say my feelings and thinking don’t evolve over time and with the aquisition of new information, however. So I am offering you my current thoughts on such thinking.

On its face, the “beauty is in the mind of the holder” dictum gets us absolutely nowhere- anyone can claim their own idea of beauty as irrefutable truth. It seems to discourage further exploration and growth, resting on one’s own already established values. What your challenge seems to seek in this discussion is perhaps a more universal definition- a standard against which an approach to substantive judgement can be attained. But let’s consider that notion of the”eye of the beholder” as the basis for beauty. Let’s create a corollary question- “As an individual, what do we expect when we encounter beauty? How are we affected when confronting beauty, so that when we encounter beauty we realize that we have, indeed, been in contact with something having that quality?” Now the definition is no longer just internal, subconscious, rather, having had that experience, we can begin to analyse what created that response in us.

Another approach I’ve always enjoyed, comes from Marcia Eaton, a philosophy instructor at the University of Minnesota. I attended a presentation she did for an institue on Discipline Based Art Education, an approach to teahcing art heavily promoted by the Getty Center in Malibu, CA.: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED349253.pdf One of the four major components of DBAE is aesthetics, one of whose main considerations is the nature of beauty. Eaton told about how each of her classes had tried to define “aesthetics” and always came to no concrete conclusion, often ending with “the eye of the beholder” or its equivalent. One class, however decided on a new tack- sometimes you can define a concept more closely if you can define its opposite. “What is the opposite of aesthetic?” she asked. The answer, of course is anaesthetic. “And what do anaesthetics do? They put you to sleep”. By opposition then, what is aesthetic (closely aligned here with beauty)? That which wakes you up. Invigorates you. Makes you more aware. Charges your senses. Connects you to an expanded world.

For myself, I find myself in this notion of what wakes me up in art bouncing back and forth among the visual, the intellectual and what I’ll call the spiritual. These seems to be the levels through which I encounter art. Artworks will most always have a varied balance of these three qualities, but I am rarely moved by an artwork that doesn’t have some amount of each. Something is beautiful for me if it wakes me up visually, intellectually and spiritually. More on these later.

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Dan Lisuk

Expand full comment
Megan Gilger's avatar

This is really incredible you started this Richard. Thank you. I cannot wait to read further. This conversation on beauty is something I have been thinking about a lot as well. I wish we had had more time to catch up a few weekends back at the Harvest Festival. Hopefully we can soon!

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts