Just A Thought.

Aesthetics is a whole chapter of it's own on the subject of "art." I like beautiful art, as do most people (whether it be visual, sounds, etc.) It's appealing, and usually makes me happier. (Though what is appealing to one may not be to another-- this is a very broad subject.). But, lack of aesthetics can also contribute to art. And, there can be ugly art that challenges societal norms, to shock people, to bring out emotion in human beings (maybe to bring up a controversial political view, for example? (Though that can be pretty, too)). In general, art that isn't as pretty has a harder time being appreciated. Some don't even consider it art. Maybe because it makes them feel emotion, but not an emotion they want to correlate with "art" itself, because I think that "art" has the connotation of being pretty. (But I'm only dipping into one layer on this subject.). There is a chapter in a book that goes more in detail on this subject. 


I consider most things to be art; but there are lots of different kinds of art, like bad art, and some art I disagree with, and some art I love and can't get enough of. Is "bad art" art? The word is in itself, is my current thought. It's just a brand.... that I loathe. (And I know I say this now, but I bet that someone could change my mind easily because art is so broad that I'm probably missing some points to the definition of "art." Again, I'm only going over aesthetics.). Anyways, aesthetics are a huuuge contribution to art, whether it be full or lack of it, or somewhere in between. I like pretty art a lot-- but "pretty" can go into different levels I think. There's pretty art with no meaning, and pretty art with meaning. The meaning can be as little as the nail on my pinkie toe, or as full as jelly in a doughnut. Anyway, it all depends on my mood, really.

This is a piece by artist Damien Hirst. He is famous for putting dead animals in tanks of formaldehyde and putting it on display. Some consider him to be controversial-- he isn't a true artist-- that he is creating only for the purpose of money. A quote from him in the BBC article, 


"As an artist, all I do is make an object for a single person to have a reaction to. ...Hopefully you make something that will excite people - things they won't forget, that will wake up parts of their brain.'"

I'm still unsure of what my thoughts are on Damien Hirst. There's a relevant quote I found in an interview in the extra features in the documentary, My Kid Could Paint That. 


“If that white canvas doesn’t speak to you, you may wish to try to find out what it’s doing there…. Or you can choose not to. It’s your choice. Art is not an obligation.” --Michael Kimmelman Lack of beauty in his work is a big part of what makes his work controversial. Also, I think understanding the meaning of his art is harder to comprehend. It seems to appear for the majority of people, art is harder to accept if it's not pleasing to the eye. This is just a thought, but successful artists who create unpleasant art are considered by many "pretentious" and "scamming people for money," which I believe there are those kinds of people out there, but I also think that a lot of artists are misunderstood as well. I suppose it's all subjective, there's no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to opinionated things such as "beauty."
-Jess