Should Beauty Matter to the Artist?

Beauty has taken a back seat as Modernist and Post Modern artists felt that they had a responsibility to society. They saw art as a tool, and felt that they could use it to make a difference. They believed that there should always be much more to a piece of art than meets the eye - “art was no longer concerned with beauty but its aim was to teach us to interpret the world through different eyes” Brice Marden said in the course of an interview with his peer Pat Steir “The idea of beauty can be offensive it doesn’t deal with issues; political issues or social issues. But an issue that it does deal with is harmony” Artists saw beauty as being associated with consumerism and regarded it as an aesthetic crime as it was used to sell, sell, sell. Artists did not want to be influenced by this so beauty was outcast. Many artists resorted to shock tactics and used blood and other body fluids in their work. Other artists dealt with social and political subjects. But this has become tiresome and the public have had enough of seeing body fluids and the horrors of society represented in art galleries and are demanding a return to beauty. This renewed interest in beauty may be one of the main debates of this century; this debate must not only include philosophers but also the artists who have to decide whether or not beauty should be considered in their studio practice.

Before we can answer the question “should beauty matter to the artist?” we need to have an understanding of what beauty is. This is not easy as what I see as being beautiful may not be your idea of beauty. Not only could my idea of beauty be different from your own but there are also cultural differences. The Greeks saw beauty in harmony and order, tension of the muscles of athletics or pillars of buildings which were slightly larger at the top than the bottom. This was done to counter the tapering effect of perspective, thus the building looked balanced and strong. The Chinese saw beauty in balance in both nature and society and their art is based on the elements earth, wind, water and fire, and their art work could be described as being colourful. Likewise with Indian art which is based on religious beliefs. The Japanese have a saying “wabi-sabi,” which means loveliness of something that is worn slightly asymmetrical but still harmonious. I personally find Japanese art beautiful. Africans find beauty in spirits and a lot of their work revolves around death masks and ceremonies, the Mexicans also saw beauty in the spirits and death. The Renaissance saw beauty in God and nature and painted figures which were illuminated in a holy light. Culture is not the only influence as I am not Japanese but I find their work beautiful and I also find the way light is used in Renaissance paintings beautiful. Kant said that there is a universal understanding of beauty, as the majority of people do agree that a rose is beautiful; we find roses beautiful and this feeling has little to do with the fact that we can pick it and use it in decoration. Kant’s way of recognising this was to say that something beautiful has “purposiveness with out a purpose” – something about its array of colours and textures prompts our mental faculties to feel that the object is right. This rightness is what Kant means by saying that beautiful objects are purposive. I agree with Kant’s view that beauty is something very personal which comes from deep inside and is difficult to pin point, but I also think that culture does have an influence on what we see as being beautiful as I don’t personally find reds, golds or highly patterned fabrics beautiful but there are many cultures which do.

This got me thinking about an exhibition that I had seen during the summer, Venus Rising. The exhibition showed a number of different artists from different cultures and times all of whom had painted the same subject – Venus. The exhibition included Titian’s Venus Anadyomene (Venus Rising from the Sea). All of these paintings were beautiful but in very different ways. All had a certain quality that caught my attention and the overall feeling that I got from looking at these was happiness. But the piece which brought me the most pleasure and which I considered to be truly beautiful was in some ways the most crude and that was the small bronze cast sculpture by Edgar Degas, the original piece of which was made of plaster and rags. I wonder if I would be just as moved by the original or whether the rich colours of the bronze were what attracted me.

A friend and I wanted to see if we could find a common ground for beauty, we knew that this was going to be difficult as we both have very different tastes. We flicked through an art book and on the day at that precise time picked out two paintings. This is important as at a different time day or mood I could easily have picked out two very different paintings. These were St Paul the Hermit by Jusepe de Ribera(1591 -1652) and Lucian Freud’s Night Portrait. The Hermit is about an old man who has gone off to a cave to die. The hermit St Paul, who was normally portrayed in religious setting, is here old, with heavily lined face staring at a skull contemplating his own death. The subject matter is not beautiful but I still find this painting to be beautiful and although it is about death I do not find it sad. The figure is in a dark cave and yet the figure is illuminated. He stares at the skull clutching his heart, clothed only in a rushes, the colour of which merge with the earth as a reminder that this where his body is destined. The mouth of the cave is bright as a reminder that although his body will remain this is not the end. So as Socrates said “beauty is a short – lived tyranny”, is it this that makes something beautiful? When I first saw the Lucian Freud’s painting Night Portrait I found it to be extremely beautiful. I admired the way the paint was applied and the colours and found the awkward composition interesting. However on further scrutinisation I noticed that the skin looked dead. The pose is almost rude, pornographic and intense and must have been difficult for the model to maintain, so on reflection I no longer found it beautiful.

Many artists have been playing with the idea of how much vulgarity and horror they can get away with and still maintain beauty. For example Damien Hirst painted large canvases which were hung wet. He then let loose hundreds of butterflies which got stuck to the canvas and died. These looked beautiful but the way that they were made is horrific. He also did the same thing in reverse and stuck pupae to canvas which hatched filling the room with butterflies.

Other contemporary artists are using beauty to portray very sensitive social subjects. Grayson Perry’s ceramic works are classically shaped vases covered with figures, patterns and text. His chosen topics include child abuse and are disguised by their colourful, decorative appearance. He was quoted saying “ I want to make something that lives with the eye as a beautiful piece of art, but on closer inspection, a polemic or an ideology will come out of it’. Timorous Beasties a Glasgow based design company also play with this notion and have designed a fabric which is an urban take on the original 18th Century French Fabrics Jouey. From a distance it looks beautiful but actually it contains explicit scenes of drug abuse. Not all contemporary artists abuse beauty in this way, some contemporary artists produce incredibly beautiful works of art which are non representative. For example Chris Booth Tranekaer-Varder plays with natural materials, piles of sticks which look too flimsy to support the large boulder on top. The combination of materials, texture, shape and colour all combine to make this piece beautiful. Maybe this is what Plato meant by an “eternal form”.

It is clear that there is no easy answer to the debate about beauty as it is subjective, cultural and a learned response. Also what makes something beautiful is difficult to pin down as beauty can be found in the most unexpected places, for example a ruined building with broken glass all over the ground. In one light it can make your skin crawl but in and other it can have almost a fairy tale quality. Should beauty matter to the artist? In my opinion it should, but not in isolation, and I don’t think that it should necessarily be the sole aim of the artist. As Danto said “most art is not, in fact beautiful – beauty is one among the many modes through which thoughts are presented to human sensibility in art, disgust, horror, sublimity and sexuality all have their part to play.”

Margaret Livingstone, 2007

http://artist-at-work.co.uk

About the Author

Margaret Livingstone is an award winning contemporary artist. Her website can be visited at http://artist-at-work.co.uk