Does art have to be beautiful?

Does art have to be beautiful? From my perspective, art exhibits not only beauty but also ugliness. Beauty and ugliness are opposite and ugliness does not mean the lack of beauty.

I ask one of friends the question above. He tells me that art is an expression which show emotion in a different form exceeding language and why it needs to be beautiful is out of the need of making money. He sets example of Hollywood’work which is produced following industry rhythm. I do not totally agree with him but he indeed provides another perspective for me. Is it because we tend to enjoy beauty and are disgusted with ugliness that art is always beautiful. Does art purposely satisfy our normal taste? Of course it is not wrong to pursue beauty and beauty deserves eternal appreciation. I am not sure whether the emphasis of exhibition of beauty to some extent limits the possibility of art.After all, when I think about art, I unconsciously stand in a presupposed position that art should be accepted by the audience or at least by people of art career. I also have to admit that I prefer beautiful art and I could not bear some kind of art such as bloody art we watched in last ACA course.However, does my feelings affect its quality as art?

When I talk about the necessity of beauty for art, I seem to talk about the function of art. In this week’s reading materials, the author introduces and analyzes the difference and connection among beauty, art and aesthetics. Desmond mentions that “the ugly and distasteful passions Van Gogh sought to reveal in his painting would not be the interpretation viewers would have today when looking at it.” In this light, it seems that art constantly refreshes our appreciation and expands its border. Maybe I can say one function of art is to explore possibility all the time. It is based on human sense and emotional expression but also involves intension to shake the present social framework which reflects art’s social functions.

Let me come back to the definition of beauty now that I am discussing if art has to be beautiful. It is obvious that I cannot make an accurate definition nor can I firmly support one philosopher or an artist’s opinion. What I can try to say is that beauty relates to individual experience and meanwhile there seems to be a common sense to beauty among human beings. For example, even if a child who does not have the concept of beauty will smile when he or she sees a flower or the bright moon or the blue sky, etc. The appreciation of beauty roots in our instinct while the appreciation of art which I might call aesthetics needs cultivation. Personally, I do not think prehistoric art which is kind of naïve comparing with modern art is very beautiful, but I know it is art. With learning of history of art, I gradually know I should appreciate them (maybe in order to show that I am not ignorant) although their value to support study of history and culture is more than their form as beauty. Therefore, as for today’s art which seems more and more diversified and more bravely explore the expression in an ugly way, I still do not accept some extreme exhibitions, but I respect them and I guess one day the way I cannot bear today will be normal and understandable. Although then we may put forward another question: can the border of art expand unlimitedly? If interpretation makes a difference, how do we know it won’t develop to sophistry?

【沙发】

……为什么我没有填上次的坑呢……这真是一言难尽，如果我想到了好的后续，我会努力把它写完的5555

这次是例行的课程作业，讨论艺术是否必须是美的？胡说八道发散了一通，语言小白，见笑了。另外的排版对长篇英语不是很友好，难为读者了。

感谢阅读。