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.
Dan, Thanks for your thoughts. It might be that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but then it's also true that not everyone is equally astute in their ability to see and assess what might be beautiful. My point being that it takes work to be a good thinker, to be well read, to see beauty through the fog of our neoliberal lives.
I'll be writing soon on Iris Murdoch's view of how we see Beauty. She might have agreed with the idea that beauty is in the mind of the beholder, that you do know it when you see it, IF (big IF) your mind is aligned with the good. Whether it is and how do you know it is, thats the big question.
Richard, yes, indeed. A studied and learned approach to art (or anything, I suppose) allows one to peel back more layers of the onion, opens doors to relating meaningful objects and experiences to a broader world. One of the walls that people run into when experiencing art is their unfamiliarity with the deeper layers possible in art and an accompanying fear of being “duped” by the artist, being made the fool. Or interpreting the artwork wrongly and being seen as ignorant. The reality is we all bring our own history to each art experience, and so each response is valid at some level. The trick is to get people to feel comfortable in expanding their experiences through discussion, interaction with others, formal learning. Our project at the Old Art Building this summer, Consenses, developed with Sally Taylor, walks.consenses.org encourages individual responses to artworks, but encourages discussion and a broadening of ways of thinking about artworks. Hopefully more education in the arts will continue to deepen community knowledge and appreciation of the arts.
Dan, wearing your arts organization hat on I can see you saying that. But as an artist I don't think you really believe everyone's response is valid, do you?
Wow, an interesting point to argue either way- an individual’s response is valid or it is not. To say that an individual’s response is not valid smacks a bit of one’s own judgement being considered the superior definer of (let’s say, beauty/art) for that person. By extension, we must allow that anyone who has more experience in art than us can pass their judgement on us and claim that their higher credential validates their opinion as closer to the truth. The fact is, all we, or anyone, can bring to art is what we know at the time of that experience, the current sum of what our life has brought. However, I think what we can rightfully expect of someone, and certainly of ourselves, is to stay open to further consideration, using that experience to seek a deeper understanding, deeper levels of connection with (an artwork), considering how it might apply to our life. We can rightfully ask this of someone because growth in understanding is the basis of a fuller human existence. Continual growth is an expectation, and that is what certainly what artists are about. So, perhaps we can make a case that it is an individual’s unwillingness to reflect on their experience, to question further, that may be a legitimate rationale for judging their response as less valid- they have “locked in their answer”.
[Discussion regarding “good art” and the attraction of “pretty”: I personally tend to look askance at artworks whose primary artistic intent is sentimentality. Of course this encompasses many works that are visually “beautiful” in a classic pedestrian sense. And I am acutely aware that sentimentality is a strong human emotion- I would say most people seek comfort, a place that “feels good”, perhaps a harkening back to some imagined trouble-free time and they seek art that addresses that desire. I’m thinking “pretty” paintings here. For many, that quality of “makes me feel comfortable” is the hallmark of good art [see prior discussion of anaesthetic]. I suspect this is a response to a need for a safe non-threatening world. Typically one gets everything they’re going to get out of these works in the first three minutes of the first viewing. But I also know that those same subjects that lend themselves to sentimental approaches can be handled in artistic ways that encourage access to deeper emotions and bring us to an area that challenges our desire for comfort. Some aspect of a well done artwork should bring an ”aha” moment- even, especially, on revisiting it. Or as Marcia Eaton, whom I have mentioned earlier, says, “good art repays attention”. It should show a handling by the artist that continually re-exhibits a challenging approach visually, intellectually, or spiritually. ]
So I go back to my original thesis, all anyone can bring to an artwork is what they have at that point. We can’t ask more. But it is then up to an individual to be satisfied with that experience (“been there, done that”), or to grow from it. Perhaps “valid response” is not so much a judgement at a given moment but rather an active application of that experience to the future.
Dan, In my next post I'm going to write about the writer and philosopher Iris Murdock who had a fresh and different take on what 'good' meant in philosophy and art. I look forward to your comments.
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!
I really appreciate the way you champion beauty and feel it's aliveness as you investigate it over your lifetime. Thanks too for sharing what you are listen to, reading, and finding your way to.
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
Dan, Thanks for your thoughts. It might be that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but then it's also true that not everyone is equally astute in their ability to see and assess what might be beautiful. My point being that it takes work to be a good thinker, to be well read, to see beauty through the fog of our neoliberal lives.
I'll be writing soon on Iris Murdoch's view of how we see Beauty. She might have agreed with the idea that beauty is in the mind of the beholder, that you do know it when you see it, IF (big IF) your mind is aligned with the good. Whether it is and how do you know it is, thats the big question.
Richard, yes, indeed. A studied and learned approach to art (or anything, I suppose) allows one to peel back more layers of the onion, opens doors to relating meaningful objects and experiences to a broader world. One of the walls that people run into when experiencing art is their unfamiliarity with the deeper layers possible in art and an accompanying fear of being “duped” by the artist, being made the fool. Or interpreting the artwork wrongly and being seen as ignorant. The reality is we all bring our own history to each art experience, and so each response is valid at some level. The trick is to get people to feel comfortable in expanding their experiences through discussion, interaction with others, formal learning. Our project at the Old Art Building this summer, Consenses, developed with Sally Taylor, walks.consenses.org encourages individual responses to artworks, but encourages discussion and a broadening of ways of thinking about artworks. Hopefully more education in the arts will continue to deepen community knowledge and appreciation of the arts.
Dan, wearing your arts organization hat on I can see you saying that. But as an artist I don't think you really believe everyone's response is valid, do you?
Wow, an interesting point to argue either way- an individual’s response is valid or it is not. To say that an individual’s response is not valid smacks a bit of one’s own judgement being considered the superior definer of (let’s say, beauty/art) for that person. By extension, we must allow that anyone who has more experience in art than us can pass their judgement on us and claim that their higher credential validates their opinion as closer to the truth. The fact is, all we, or anyone, can bring to art is what we know at the time of that experience, the current sum of what our life has brought. However, I think what we can rightfully expect of someone, and certainly of ourselves, is to stay open to further consideration, using that experience to seek a deeper understanding, deeper levels of connection with (an artwork), considering how it might apply to our life. We can rightfully ask this of someone because growth in understanding is the basis of a fuller human existence. Continual growth is an expectation, and that is what certainly what artists are about. So, perhaps we can make a case that it is an individual’s unwillingness to reflect on their experience, to question further, that may be a legitimate rationale for judging their response as less valid- they have “locked in their answer”.
[Discussion regarding “good art” and the attraction of “pretty”: I personally tend to look askance at artworks whose primary artistic intent is sentimentality. Of course this encompasses many works that are visually “beautiful” in a classic pedestrian sense. And I am acutely aware that sentimentality is a strong human emotion- I would say most people seek comfort, a place that “feels good”, perhaps a harkening back to some imagined trouble-free time and they seek art that addresses that desire. I’m thinking “pretty” paintings here. For many, that quality of “makes me feel comfortable” is the hallmark of good art [see prior discussion of anaesthetic]. I suspect this is a response to a need for a safe non-threatening world. Typically one gets everything they’re going to get out of these works in the first three minutes of the first viewing. But I also know that those same subjects that lend themselves to sentimental approaches can be handled in artistic ways that encourage access to deeper emotions and bring us to an area that challenges our desire for comfort. Some aspect of a well done artwork should bring an ”aha” moment- even, especially, on revisiting it. Or as Marcia Eaton, whom I have mentioned earlier, says, “good art repays attention”. It should show a handling by the artist that continually re-exhibits a challenging approach visually, intellectually, or spiritually. ]
So I go back to my original thesis, all anyone can bring to an artwork is what they have at that point. We can’t ask more. But it is then up to an individual to be satisfied with that experience (“been there, done that”), or to grow from it. Perhaps “valid response” is not so much a judgement at a given moment but rather an active application of that experience to the future.
Dan, In my next post I'm going to write about the writer and philosopher Iris Murdock who had a fresh and different take on what 'good' meant in philosophy and art. I look forward to your comments.
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!
Thank you Megan for you kind welcome!
I’m here for it. Thank you Richard.
I really appreciate the way you champion beauty and feel it's aliveness as you investigate it over your lifetime. Thanks too for sharing what you are listen to, reading, and finding your way to.
Thank you my love for you constant support and encouragement!