Please post your discussion question in the comment section below.
Why do you think that the definition and meaning of beauty changes each century? What do you think causes this change in peoples views?
Danto discusses the difference between natural beauty and artistic beauty. His reasoning suggests that artistic beauty is superior to natural beauty. Do you agree with this statement? What is it about artistic beauty that separates it from natural beauty?
Danto discusses two types of beauty that can be seen in art: aesthetic beauty and the beauty that is internal to the meaning of the work. Do you think that one is more important than the other? Is it okay to have just one type of beauty and not the other or should there be a balance of the two?
“The meaning of a work of art is an intellectual product, which is grasped through interpretation by someone other than the artist, and the beauty of a work, if indeed it is beautiful, is seen as entailed (necessary part of) by that meaning.” (Pg. 64)
Is the perception of beauty something primal and nature? Is it merely a form of aesthetic agreement with an ideology? If you find a work beautiful, to you agree with that work’s meaning?
The author describes a separation of dissonance and beauty. Is it possible to see both aspects in one piece or do you have to see one over the other and enter in different entrances to the exhibit, like he suggets.
1.Danto refers to Hegel’s argument that “artistic beauty seemed ‘superior’ to natural beauty” because “it was ‘born of the spirit and born again,'” in other words, “artistic beauty was in some sense an intellectual rather than a natural product.”
Do you agree with it?
2. Danto talked several times about the dissociation of aesthetics from art by introducing the example of Duchamp’s fountain and Warhol’s Brillo boxes. Some of the work are either anesthetic, or anti-aethetic. Yet, he still cannot avoid talking about the works by trying to find a way to explain the possible beauty or aesthetics within the work.
Do you think that Danto is struggling to make the connection between contemporary art and beauty in a far-fetched way?
Danto talks about how art has lost its aesthetic touch and has created a sense of being unfair when it comes to judging more than one piece of work. He believes that if that is the case then both works have to be pretty if aesthetics are concerned. So what would you say to the artist who likes the originality of things and capitalizes off of that in his or her work. Since their work looks like the original object, is it not pretty? Is it not considered art?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.