In Issue 108 of the “magazine of ideas” Philosophy Now, an extremely familiar yet insightful and thought-provoking question was asked, “What is Art? and What is Beauty?”.
Below are some intriguing answers sent in by readers who come in various aspects of life, and selected by Philosophy Now’s editors. So, let’s delve into them and attempt to get an idea over the means of these seemingly simple terms.
To start with, Joseph Nieters from Missouri, the US, stated that art is an expression of thoughts, emotions, intuitions, and desires. However, art is also an extension of individual personality in that it reflects the way people experience the world. Sometimes words alone are not enough, and thus the various vehicles and platforms of arts are created to carry people’s intents and feelings across.
Joseph also believes that beauty is never about prettiness, but rather a measure of affect and emotion. In the context of art, beauty is measured by how well concepts and feelings artists can convey through artworks, and how well these are perceived by others, and so can never be judged on an objective scale.
On the other hand, Chiara Leonardi from England narrows the fundamental difference between art and beauty to the former depending on the creator, whereas the latter depending on who’s looking.
There are some elements that are considered as “traditionally” beautiful, Chiara admitted, but also added that there are game changers who decided specifically to go against the standards and make their own stands against the norms, such as Picasso, Munch, and Schoenberg.
Similar to Joseph, Chiara defines art to be a means to state an opinion or a feeling, but emphasizes that beauty alone is not art, but art can be made of, about or for beautiful things.
It is also important to note that art is not necessarily positive: and instead can be deliberately hurtful or displeasing. However, whether a thing can be considered as art or not simply depends on one thing: whether it can evoke emotions in people.
Also from England, Catherine Bosley finds art to be where meanings are made beyond language, where somewhat ineffable elements are expressed and evoked. However, Catherine also added her own idea of art being the drive behind civilization developments, taking the lead and revealing changes in politics and morality.
According to Catherine, art is also paradoxically, in that it cannot be fully understood without proper context, and yet can communicate beyond language and time, appealing to the world’s common humanity and linking disparate communities.
Carrying on the discussion, Tommy Törnsten looks into the history of Art, and states the obvious of Art being a word whose meanings alter through time.
In the olden days, art meant craft, something one could excel at through practise and hard work, he stated, before adding that art eventually becomes originality through Romanticism and the birth of individualism.
Now, during the era of Modernism, Tommy calls to look beyond the artwork, and focus on the art world. Art is what the institution of art – artists, critics, art historians, etc – was prepared to regard as art, and which was made public through the institution, e.g. galleries, he claimed.
Allin all, Tommy concludes art as “a fleeting and chimeric concept”, as it always prevails, and yet can only be learned in retrospect, depending on the era one is in.
From Oregon, Derek Halm draws a hypothesis of if a snake makes art to get to the heart of what beauty is.
According to Derek, a snake perceives things completely different from a human, as it has poor eyesight, and its art and beauty would be entirely alien to ours. Fine art to a snake would be sensed, and songs would be felt, and so what a snake considers as “beauty” is simply inconceivable to a human and vice versa.
From this perspective, Derek concludes that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. “The aesthetics of representing beauty ought not to fool us into thinking beauty, as some abstract concept, truly exists”, he claims.
Finally, David Howard from Shropshire questions the very human need to categorize, to organize, and to define.
According to David, there will always be completely different schools of thoughts regarding art and beauty, between those who continue to define art in traditional ways, those who look for originality, and some who abjure both extremes.
In the end, he concludes that because of mankind’s individuality, and varied histories as well as traditions, debates about what is art and what is beauty will always be inconclusive.
Instead of seeking for a definition, it is perhaps more important to celebrate the diversity of human imaginings and achievements, he stated.
