Ik schreef de volgend post op een LinkedIn thread waarin men nogal tekeer gaat tegen een moderne benadering van beeldende kunst, ten faveure van een ArtRenewal-achtig conservatisme, een vage notie van schoonheid en egocentrische kunst-autonomie.
"In the above string of comments, there seems to be some confusion on beauty as necessary component of art. Firstly, the word 'beauty' is difficult to define. One can say that an object is beautiful if it invokes some kind of aesthetic experience, but not necessary a pleasing one. This experience can be determined in terms of emotion or in Kantian terms... very difficult. I suspect many of the contributors above use the term 'beauty' without knowledge of the difficulties this term invokes. On the other hand, if beauty is a necessary quality of art, it is difficult to compete with nature, a notion that, perhaps, renders art inefficient. Whatever you paint, nature is always more beautiful. Some respond to that dilemma with the notion that there is something of the painter in every painting, and the mind of the painter is beautiful. "If anyone does not see my beauty in my paintings, well, that is their loss..." But that leaves us with the remaining question: what is so interesting about me that I want to translate it into paintings or other artworks in order to let people have an insight in me? Can't they just meet me? As far as I know these concepts of art do not do art justice. "
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment