2 comments ↓

#1 haden on 12.27.07 at 1:22 am

Hi Andrea,
I noticed that you did not answer your own question as to wether beauty still belongs in art.
For my part it certainly does, and as a collector it is one of the things I look for in a piece.
I should say that I draw a farly sharp distinction between public and privte art as it pertains to beauty. If I am buying a work of art, I (and my wife) have to live with it 24/7 - and possibly for years. Here we look for a more classical sense of beauty. We want art that will uplift us and nourish us. Technical mastery of the artists chosen medium as well as a strong personal artistic vision is also paramount.
On the other hand there is public art, installation art, and conceptual art etc. Here I am prepared to be challenged and provoked, and beauty is not necessary in this context - but I am only looking at this kind of work for a short time. I don’t have to live with it.
So what is your take on beauty in art?

#2 Andrea Carson on 12.27.07 at 12:54 pm

I don’t think art should be dependent on beauty, but on technical mastery, strength of idea, power to surprise and engage, etc. A lot of contemporary art isn’t thought out well enough - you can see that many young artists don’t engage with the idea of art the way they might do.

It’s been centuries since art has been about beauty, but if an artist has a good reason to celebrate beauty in art, then I’d be open to seeing it…

Leave a Comment