Before this discussion begins, we must realise that the beauty of the world exists independently of human consciousness.
There has been science that shows we are attracted to forms that are symmetrical, so maybe it is possible that there is some biological truth of what is beauty for human beings. Since ancient times, the most vital concept underlying beauty and harmony, is the concept of symmetry. Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras believed beauty was centred around a kind of universal harmony. A thought which is shared by German mathematician Hermann Weyl, according to whom “Symmetry… is the idea by which man for centuries tried to comprehend and create order, beauty, and perfection.” (Testov, 2020)
However, Baudelaire and Courbet critique this notion in promoting the idea that beauty correlates with the time in which one lived. That beauty is conditional and dependent, not eternal. In Baudelaires' best-known work, "The Painter of Modern Life," he argued that true beauty captures the essence of its contemporary context, reflecting the prevailing moods, fashions, and struggles of the time. This was a stark departure from the classical ideal of beauty, which aspired to timeless perfection and universal standards. In similar fashion, Gustave Courbet rejected academic art's romanticised and idealised representations of beauty. It’s not incidental that both artists in a period marked by significant social and political upheaval in France. Both Baudelaire and Courbet's approaches underscore a critical shift in the understanding of beauty.
Leading us to the question of “who determines what is beautiful?” In our modern world, we are very comfortable with the concept that beauty is determined by one’s experiences. An individual’s attachment and connection to the artwork, that is deeply personal, has become more appreciated in the 21st century. Old forms of authority that would have dictated what is beautiful do not exist as they did years before in the 19th century, when art academies decided what was and wasn’t beautiful - and what they relied on was ancient Roman and Greek culture. This fact explains artistic focus on idyllic proportion, of the human body especially. The academies steered artists in the direction of what they conceptualised to be the ideal, and thus all of art education was geared toward teaching one to be able to achieve that kind of beauty - an education that must have been truly suffocating and oppressive for artists.
Circling back to the necessity of beauty in art or the lack thereof, artists of the 21st century are not the only ones who are able to separate art from aesthetic and appeal. Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, implies that the beauty of art lies in its ability to reveal deeper truths and meanings, "The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." Many artists agree with the concept of art as a vessel of the truth. Georges Braque, a pioneer of Cubism, claimed “Art is meant to disturb. Science reassures.” As a pioneer of one of the most well known movements in art history, you would expect his art to be made to be beautiful, but instead he implies the purpose of art is to challenge and provoke rather than comfort with beauty.
In conclusion, the question of whether art must be beautiful remains as relevant today as it was in ancient times. The perception of art transcends mere visual appeal, encompassing emotional resonance, historical context, and personal experience. As society evolves, so too does our understanding of what constitutes ‘beauty.’ However, the definition of beauty has evolved, and with it, the purpose of art itself. Beauty, once considered a fixed and universal ideal, has been reshaped by cultural, historical, and individual influences. In a world where art is increasingly seen as a reflection of the human condition rather than a pursuit of aesthetic perfection, the notion that art must conform to traditional standards of beauty becomes obsolete. This ongoing discourse challenges us as observers, and artists as creators.
Art, in its truest form, is a mirror of our collective and individual experiences, capable of capturing the full spectrum of human emotions—joy, despair, love, anger, and everything in between. It can be as beautiful or as unsettling as the truths it seeks to convey. As we continue to explore and challenge the boundaries of what art can be, perhaps the most significant realisation is that beauty, in all its forms, is just one of the many facets of art. The freedom to create without the constraint of beauty is what allows art to be a powerful, transformative force, capable of not only reflecting but also shaping our world.
In this light, the question "Must art be beautiful?" becomes less about finding a definitive answer and more about embracing the diverse expressions and purposes that art can fulfil. Art does not need to be beautiful to be meaningful, and it does not need to be aesthetically pleasing to be impactful. The true beauty of art lies in its ability to transcend definitions and expectations, to challenge, to disturb, and ultimately, to inspire.
Comments