Philosophically speaking, should art ever be ugly?

[WoundedIcon]

From a philosophical perspective, should all art be beautiful? Is something intentionally ugly truly art? Can art that deals with things dark and evil be considered beautiful? And bringing theology into it, should Catholics strive to only partake in and produce beautiful art? That last point seems to be assumed by a lot of Christians, but is it genuinely the case?

I feel that beauty is a transcendental, and so are goodness and truth, which makes me want to logically conclude that art should strive to be all three, and conclude that art that isn’t all three is deficient in some way. But I hesitate to go there, if only because I like metal (and I don’t want to be one of those people who throws out all of modern art and preaches classical art like dogma.) But br00tal isn’t a transcendental LOL. Although I guess there exist different shades of beauty, which means that something can be powerful and beautiful… not brutal per se, but I’ve always found powerful, controlled, “clear, proportional, and symmetrical” sounds to come across as much more forceful and imposing than chaotic and hyper sounds.

Verdi vs Slayer XDDD

And then there’s the fact that the closer I get to God, the less I like stereotypical metal the more I desire things that fall in line with the philosophical ideals of beauty.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Speaking as an artist, art isn’t necessarily about what’s beautiful or pretty, but it’s often about what’s true. And truth is often very ugly or unpleasant. So, yes, an ugly piece of art (think Goya’s later work) is sometimes acceptable, as long as it isn’t ugly for the sake of being ugly (ie. modern paintings involving elephant feces or human urine).

 

[jmcrae]

There is a lot of junk out there posing as art, and being bought as art, because people think it’s “edgy” or whatever.

Art isn’t necessarily “pritty” - indeed, banal superficiality is *never *a feature of great art, just as ugliness for ugliness’ sake is never a feature of great art.

Great art speaks to the soul and calls it to higher things than material concerns. It tells us who we are and where we came from, using the language of the psyche - symbols, colours, and good, balanced, beautiful, mathematically poetic human-scaled and god-scaled design.

Guernica isn’t “pritty” by any stretch, but it shows us who and what we can become. It is said that Hitler, being given a tour of the art gallery in Madrid, asked Picasso, (pointing at
“Guernica”) - “That’s very interesting. The pathos! The terror! The agony! Who did that?” Picasso is said to have replied, “You did, sir.”

 

[tonyrey]

** There is a magnificent poem by **Charles Baudelaire in his Les Fleurs de Mal (The Flowers of Evil) in which he describes a rotting carcass! I think the beauty of this poem lies not only in its music but in its spirituality which contrasts the ugliness of death with the grace and hope offered by the last sacraments…

There are five excellent translations:

fleursdumal.org/poem/126

But alas, none of them can communicate the beauty of the original words and their sounds:

XXIX - Une Charogne
Rappelez-vous l’objet que nous vîmes, mon âme,
Ce beau matin d’été si doux:
Au détour d’un sentier une charogne infâme
Sur un lit semé de cailloux,

Les jambes en l’air, comme une femme lubrique,
Brûlante et suant les poisons,
Ouvrait d’une façon nonchalante et cynique
Son ventre plein d’exhalaisons.

Le soleil rayonnait sur cette pourriture,
Comme afin de la cuire à point,
Et de rendre au centuple à la grande Nature
Tout ce qu’ensemble elle avait joint;

Et le ciel regardait la carcasse superbe
Comme une fleur s’épanouir.
La puanteur était si forte, que sur l’herbe
Vous crûtes vous évanouir.

Les mouches bourdonnaient sur ce ventre putride,
D’où sortaient de noirs bataillons
De larves, qui coulaient comme un épais liquide
Le long de ces vivants haillons.

Tout cela descendait, montait comme une vague
Ou s’élançait en pétillant
On eût dit que le corps, enflé d’un souffle vague,
Vivait en se multipliant.

Et ce monde rendait une étrange musique,
Comme l’eau courante et le vent,
Ou le grain qu’un vanneur d’un mouvement rythmique
Agite et tourne dans son van.

Les formes s’effaçaient et n’étaient plus qu’un rêve,
Une ébauche lente à venir
Sur la toile oubliée, et que l’artiste achève
Seulement par le souvenir.

Derrière les rochers une chienne inquiète
Nous regardait d’un oeil fâché,
Epiant le moment de reprendre au squelette
Le morceau qu’elle avait lâché.

• Et pourtant vous serez semblable à cette ordure,
  A cette horrible infection,
  Etoile de mes yeux, soleil de ma nature,
  Vous, **mon ange **et ma passion!

Oui! telle vous serez, ô la reine des grâces,
Apres les derniers sacrements,
Quand vous irez, sous l’herbe et les floraisons grasses,
Moisir parmi les ossements.

Alors, ô ma beauté! dites à la vermine
Qui vous mangera de baisers,
Que j’ai gardé la forme et l’essence divine
De mes amours décomposés!

(I have emphasized the spiritual aspect of the poem)

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

From a philosophical perspective, should all art be beautiful? Is something intentionally ugly truly art? Can art that deals with things dark and evil be considered beautiful? And bringing theology into it, should Catholics strive to only partake in and produce beautiful art? That last point seems to be assumed by a lot of Christians, but is it genuinely the case?

Some of Picasso’s work is ugly. Genius, but ugly, and intentionally so! His ugly art was there to serve a purpose, to relay a message. A photo or picture of something terrible can often convey meaning more poignantly than a headline or article or essay ever could. I am glad that major museums have no qualms about exhibiting both magnificent and ugly artwork that makes you scratch your head and wonder. I would dread ever going to a “pretty-only” museum where much truth was expunged. It would remind me of book burnings, banned movies, and other forms of censorship.

 

[edwest2]

Censorship is the closest thing to sin, I think, in the secular world. People can and do censor themselves all the time, even artists and writers. Art can include the ugly but one must be wary of how this ugliness is depicted.

In my college art classes, I was exposed to the various artistic types/movements/styles: impressionism, cubism and so on. I was also exposed to the purposely irrational. I recall watching a documentary about an artist telling his students that the viewer, not the artist, has the job of interpreting the art. Or an artist who took photographs of groups of people and covered their heads with large orange stickers.

I think each one of us has a general and common view of what is ugly. Ugliness either depicts evil or evil intent and should be balanced with normal or even beautiful people recoiling from it or fighting it. From the monsters and heroes from classical mythology to Christian depictions of good and evil, one must understand that art is a communications medium and that it is the job of the artist to convey a clear message to the viewer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[asia53]

Isn’t ugly art subjective?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Censorship is the closest thing to sin, I think, in the secular world. People can and do censor themselves all the time, even artists and writers. Art can include the ugly but one must be wary of how this ugliness is depicted.

In my college art classes, I was exposed to the various artistic types/movements/styles: impressionism, cubism and so on. I was also exposed to the purposely irrational. I recall watching a documentary about an artist telling his students that the viewer, not the artist, has the job of interpreting the art. Or an artist who took photographs of groups of people and covered their heads with large orange stickers.

I think each one of us has a general and common view of what is ugly. Ugliness either depicts evil or evil intent and should be balanced with normal or even beautiful people recoiling from it or fighting it. From the monsters and heroes from classical mythology to Christian depictions of good and evil, one must understand that art is a communications medium and that it is the job of the artist to convey a clear message to the viewer.

Peace,
Ed

What about putting the artwork under the foot of a message? I notice in a lot of popular Christian art (by popular I mean “not classical”) that the art form or genre is basically hijacked and used as a didactic tool. Something feels very off about that to me. It’s like it gets hollowed out and pumped full of evangelism or teaching. It goes against the “gratuitousness” of art I suppose. Ideals should become incarnate in the work of art, and not some type of deus ex machina (sic?) possessing the form.

Christian art has crashed and burned in modern times, and I want to understand why. Usually when there’s a problem with praxis, there’s a problem with beliefs. I believe a part of what is butchering our artistic abilities (and theology and philosophy [and the Mass LOL]) is moralism. I have no idea how to explain what I mean though, because my understanding of moralism is limited. It just seems that people who buy into moralism turn against anything that isn’t immediately edifying or practical. And let’s face it, theology, philosophy, and art (and a lot of liturgical forms) are going to massively suffer from such a mindset. After all, who has time to navel gaze when there are “works” to be performing? UNLESS you re-frame theology, philosophy, and art from that perspective… but then they fall apart.

[BIBLEDRB]Sirach 38:25-39[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Speaking as an artist, art isn’t necessarily about what’s beautiful or pretty, but it’s often about what’s true. And truth is often very ugly or unpleasant. So, yes, an ugly piece of art (think Goya’s later work) is sometimes acceptable, as long as it isn’t ugly for the sake of being ugly (ie. modern paintings involving elephant feces or human urine).

There must be distinction. You forgot that. An artist does not forget distinction regardless. Even if the anticipated viewer-listener… or even if the self unconscious in the artist can provide. Distinction is important. An interesting subject, the OP is obviously confused, above atheist comments are best.

 

[the_phoenix]

As an artist, I specialize in landscapes that are either representational, whimsical-fantasy-sci fi, or modern art in the sense of nature abstracts … photos that tend towards peacefulness with wide open spaces and vivid color.

There are a couple photos where I’ve censored myself based on the feeling of the landscape or the story it might evoke.

There’s one photo which, in my very limited knowledge of Goth, I like to consider as Gothic … it’s the bare branches of a winter tree silhouette surrounded mainly by a vivid surreal purple, and I happen to like the looks of it.

As for Guernica, while it ain’t “pritty,” it definitely looks like great art to me.

…

 

[FurtherSuntime]

As an artist, I specialize in landscapes that are either representational, whimsical-fantasy-sci fi, or modern art in the sense of nature abstracts … photos that tend towards peacefulness with wide open spaces and vivid color.

There are a couple photos where I’ve censored myself based on the feeling of the landscape or the story it might evoke.

There’s one photo which, in my very limited knowledge of Goth, I like to consider as Gothic … it’s the bare branches of a winter tree silhouette surrounded mainly by a vivid surreal purple, and I happen to like the looks of it.

As for Guernica, while it ain’t “pritty,” it definitely looks like great art to me.

…

Sorry…theres no absolute peacefulness in your art . You are deluded.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Isn’t ugly art subjective?

Beauty is actually considered to be an objective thing in Catholic philosophy and theology, because it teaches that God is beautiful (and good and true) and therefore all beauty (and goodness and truth) derive from His. Thomas Aquinas defines the beautiful as what is symmetrical, clear, and proportionate. Science tends to back this up as well, in what it has found to be the most attractive in people’s faces for example. Of course we humans have subjective biases and predispositions which can render us unable to appreciate certain forms of beauty (i.e. I can acknowledge Angelina Jolie’s objective beauty but find her completely unattractive) or cause us to find ugly things beautiful (i.e. There are people who find torture beautiful).

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Beauty is actually considered to be an objective thing in Catholic philosophy and theology, because it teaches that God is beautiful (and good and true) and therefore all beauty (and goodness and truth) derive from His. Thomas Aquinas defines the beautiful as what is symmetrical, clear, and proportionate. Science tends to back this up as well, in what it has found to be the most attractive in people’s faces for example. Of course we humans have subjective biases and predispositions which can render us unable to appreciate certain forms of beauty (i.e. I can acknowledge Angelina Jolie’s objective beauty but find her completely unattractive) or cause us to find ugly things beautiful (i.e. There are people who find torture beautiful).

Ok…your initiative is unorganized. Are you feeling weird because of an attraction to violent, anti social freaky heavy metal music…? Because that is exactly what your OP is saying…

Now… like all conscience related issues , once the bait is set, and some attention comes…you want to twist things around a little…keep it going…your conscience is lifted having produced the inquiry itself.

I’m not letting you away with it…

Lets have it…why…do you…enjoy…anti social violent music?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Maybe the question I stated should be rephrased. Despite the philosophical view that beauty is objective, it doesn’t logically follow that art must be beautiful. There needs to be some other rationale that I’m missing. However, anyone who HAS made a beautiful piece of art has followed this philosophy in one way, shape, or form. The Golden Ratio, etc. etc. But that raises the question: has there ever been a time beside our own (or within a few centuries of our own) where people have actually striven to make ugly art? I can think of beautiful art dealing with ugly topics (pretty much every Crucifixion scene ever LOL), sure… but genuinely ugly art? The Greeks? The Romans? Anyone? It just seems like a modern phenomenon to me, but we moderns seem obsessed with it. Now, if what I’m noting is actually a recent phenomenon, what philosophical/religious/ideological changes precipitated it?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Maybe the question I stated should be rephrased. Despite the philosophical view that beauty is objective, it doesn’t logically follow that art must be beautiful. There needs to be some other rationale that I’m missing. However, anyone who HAS made a beautiful piece of art has followed this philosophy in one way, shape, or form. The Golden Ratio, etc. etc. But that raises the question: has there ever been a time beside our own (or within a few centuries of our own) where people have actually striven to make ugly art? I can think of beautiful art dealing with ugly topics (pretty much every Crucifixion scene ever LOL), sure… but genuinely ugly art? The Greeks? The Romans? Anyone? It just seems like a modern phenomenon to me, but we moderns seem obsessed with it. Now, if what I’m noting is actually a recent phenomenon, what philosophical/religious/ideological changes precipitated it?

Nothing is beautiful without distinction or whats called contrast…now try to figure out what you want to know from there. …and read my first post over…not the one that compelled you to change things around a little…the other one/// Think…even a snowy pretty night is linked to absolute biological degeneration…compared to the cozy inside…this will never get off the ground absent of some very basic stuff

 

[edwest2]

According to my Art Appreciation class in college, artists were upset with the invention of photography in the 1800s. Why, some of them said, should painters spend their time when “real” life could be reproduced as a photograph?

Others did not share that view of course. But different groups or schools of artists sprung up that began to produce non-real or distorted and ugly types of art. Picasso, I found out, was a fine illustrator who decided on distortion later in his career. This decision was also made by a popular (in the 1970s) fantasy book illustrator who decided to publish a book of paintings with distorted faces later on. I found them ugly and stopped buying anything he did after.

Even in the case of fashion, only a handful decide what body type is beautiful at any given time. So, for a period, we ended up with models that were like sticks with beautiful faces. Recently, I read that the gatekeepers of fashion have sent the stick thin models home and announced, “The Return of the Woman.” And what does a woman look like? As any good anatomy book will show you, she is made with an hour glass figure.

And there is a difference between grotesque and ugly. A monster can be ugly but it is not real, while a human being painted to look grotesquely ugly conveys a repulsive message by the artist.

There are real standards in art that involve time-honored graphic design principles. I am disturbed that a number of comic books, fiction books and even movies (like Dark Knight) have the word dark in them. This is a negative trend. “Dark X-Men”? Excuse me? Shouldn’t superheroes be heroic?

I don’t want to wallow in depictions of the brutal and cruel or the ugly, lawless vigilante. In the movie series about Dirty Harry, how close was he to those who “got off too easy”? He was willing to be a be a heartless killer like those who confronted him. “Go ahead, punk. Make my day.”

Art should tell a story with a clear message. Ugliness should be avoided.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

The function of great art is to communicate the truth which is always beautiful even though it may incidentally depict that which is ugly. It is all a question of context.

The suffering and death of Jesus were horrifyingly ugly but His love transforms them into the most sublime aspects of reality in the entire universe…

 

[JohnAlexander]

If it is ugly it is not art.

Because of our fallen nature we are not always a good judge of what is ugly. We often mistake the uly for the beautiful and vice versa. How else can you account for sin? Our intentions are good.

Now some artists set out to offend. They are not artists. They are charlettans. History will forget them.

Not all self expression is art. I express myself daily. Often my self expression gets flushed down the tolet. To expect payment for my expression is the height of arrogance. That seems to be how some so called artists feel. They want public monies given to them for their expression.

Some art is transcendental, it is put in a museum for generations to see. Some art is put on a refridgerator held up by a weak magnet. I suspect that God sees our art just as a parent sees their 4 year old’s drawing.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Guernica isn’t “pritty” by any stretch, but it shows us who and what we can become. It is said that Hitler, being given a tour of the art gallery in Madrid, asked Picasso, (pointing at
“Guernica”) - “That’s very interesting. The pathos! The terror! The agony! Who did that?” Picasso is said to have replied, “You did, sir.”

Nice anecdote, but I doubt that Hitler ever visited Madrid (his conference with Franco was in Hendaye). Also I doubt that Picasso (who wasn’t exactly in favour at the time) would have been invited to meet Hitler if ever Hitler had been in Madrid.

Also, Picasso actually painted, or at least started painting Guernica before it happened, but obviously didn’t associate it with Guernica until afterwards.