Theory and Methods Week Two Discussion
This week in Theory and Methods we read and annotated “Every Man Knows Where and How Beauty Gives Him Pleasure: Beauty Discourse and the Logic of Aesthetics” by Amelia Jones. It was a hard read to annotate but it presented a lot of very thought provoking and important points in regards to beauty standards and how we all individually imply that and then how people apply that when talking about and interpreting art. The purpose of the article was to evaluate how traditionally interpreting beauty in art is not the best for a variety of reasons and how people should interpret art in a way that doesn’t suffocate the standards of beauty down to heterosexual white male standards. The issue is that beauty is completely subjective, what I may find beautiful, someone else may find it not beautiful at all. The other issue is, the people in authoritative positions in the art world over time often set the standards of what is considered beautiful in art, and then hold the art they are analyzing to this. In the article, Jones analyzes and criticizes the way a group of art critics who have gained a reputation for evaluating art, have subjected art to these outdated standards. She discusses Dave Hickey the most in this article.
One of the ideas of Hickey’s that the author comments on is the idea that if an artwork isn’t beautiful, than its not worth analyzing. Within the article it states, “Exclusion—excluding the nonbeautiful from the realm of objects worth con-templating—is the primary function of aesthetics and the rhetoric of beauty as these have conventionally been wielded, Hickey's stated empathy with what he calls the "secular" or "disenfranchised" beholder aside,” (Jones 04)(1). Here the author is denouncing the idea, and I completely agree with that. Number one, everyone has different opinions on beautiful art and for one person to say that “non beautiful” art has no value worth discussing is extremely harmful to art discussion as a whole, because who gets to decide which art is deemed beautiful. Number Two, not all art is made to be beautiful. Art is made for tons of reasons, to be cathartic, to display and retell stories and important historical events, to paint scenes and portraits of people, and just to put lines on a paper, or a mark on a stone. There are plenty of artworks that are famous and well documented and researched and “successful” that have nothing to do with beauty or are not ones typically deemed beautiful. Are those not worth discussing? Are those not worth contemplating and analyzing, do they have no academic value? For me some that come to mind are pieces by Hieronymus Bosch. Any of Bosch’s pieces about death and hell and sin really, but I’ll choose the Hell panel by him that is part of a triptych called “The Garden of Earthly Delights.”
 |
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Hieronymus_Bosch_-_The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_-_Hell.jpg |
This piece wasn’t meant to be beautiful at all in the slightest. It depicts a lot of nightmarish, tortuous scenes about being condemned to hell and being tormented for all of eternity there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people wouldn’t find it to be beautiful, I wouldn’t describe it as beautiful at all. I would comment on his painting techniques and symbolism and state that in my opinion I think it makes it a very compelling piece, but art doesn’t have to be beautiful to mean something. To have value. I think just the act of creating and art piece and putting passion and purpose into something gives it value. And certainly all art deserves to be at least discussed and analyzed.
Sources:
Miles, I enjoyed your summary of this week’s reading. Your analysis of Amelia Jones’ opinions was well thought out. I also liked how you mentioned a piece that we didn't discuss in class, The Garden of Earthly Delights. You showed this piece to remind the reader that not all impactful art is traditionally beautiful. I liked how much you focused on how the message and process of making art is more important than the final viewed product. One thought provoking question, if The Garden of Earthly Delights was traditionally beautiful, do you think it wouldn't be as impactful? Also, one thing to improve on, there was a sentence in your first paragraph that was slightly confusing. The sentence was, “It was a hard read to annotate but it presented a lot of very thought provoking and important points in regards to beauty standards and how we all individually imply that and then how people apply that when talking about and interpreting art.” I recommend just cutting this run-on sentence into maybe two sentences so it's easier to understand. Other than that minor grammatical error, great job!- India Beach
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback! And as for your question, I think it depends on the symbolism the artist would've chosen if it were made to be traditionally beautiful. I think a lot of what makes this piece impactful is not only the horrific display of torture, but the symbolism found throughout the painting. And thank you! I will try to make my sentences more clear!
DeleteMiles, I also thought Jones writing was hard to decipher. But after reading it a few times and discussing it in class it became much more clear. You did a good job highlight Jones main argument in the piece. It would have been nice to see more of the men she referenced in your piece of writing. Although you outlined the position of authority all the late authors claimed with their opinions. I would have to agree with you much of what art is now involves making connections with politics, religions, preferences, and experiences. Art is very much a visual language and artists want to convey a message. The art work included that is quite the opposite if beauty is a wonderful example of an art work that does not fit into many of the theories mentioned in Jones's writing.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback! I wanted to choose an artwork we didn't discuss in class and that wasn't apart of the reading and one that I was familiar with, and I have done a few papers on Bosch and his work so I had a lot of background information. I will be sure to reference more of the people the author talks about in my future writings! Thank you!
DeleteHello Miles,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that people in authoritative positions in the art world have set the standard of what is beautiful. The question is what makes someone authoritative and constitute their criteria as the standard of beauty? It seems the same is true today. For contemporary art to be considered to be meaningful it must be something new and different then what is expected. This is why Renee Cox and Mapplethorpes work has made a name on the art scene today.
Nevertheless, in order for art to be considered subjective my argument is there should be no authoritative position to set these beauty standards.
Thank you for your feedback! I agree with you, beauty is completely subjective and for one person or multiple people to claim that they can deem what is truly beautiful and what isn't is not applicable or acceptable. Not only that art isn't always meant to be beautiful and for beautiful art to be the only type of art that gets to thrive and be talked about is extremely unfair in my opinion. I think art that makes an impact and art that makes you think and changes or helps you look through different perspectives should be deserving of being analyzed and being discussed.
Delete