In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert.
Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the center of our civilization.
Arta este expresia timpului. Democratizarea actului artistic are aceleasi efecte ca aceea a spatiului public: confuzie frustranta pentru cei mai multi si beneficii pentru cei putini si alesi de asazisa piatza a artei.
__________________________________
Comentarii/Comments:
pulunco
I disagree with Scruton regarding art. He wants art to be aristocratic and exclusive; he thinks only certain people can be artists and only certain things can be art. He then contradicts himself and says "beauty is an ordinary everyday kind of thing. Ordinary things made beautiful."
Beauty IS an everyday thing. It happens everywhere all the time, even in a pile of bricks. I feel sorry for him if needs his beauty to be force fed by a Botticelli on a silver tray.
While I can respect the talent and craft of Michelangelo it is little more than ornate fluff to me and does not engage me the way that conceptual art does. Art can mean different things to different people. To me it is language, and I enjoy the process of translation. And therein lies the spiritual for me, the connection from one person to another.
By the way I think Piss Christ by Serrano is very beautiful.
Like
Reply
1 week ago
11 Likes
S_Stern
Art being about feeling and meaning, you hit the nail on the head. I like art to have a sense of imagination and wonder. Fine art is nice, but leaves me not feeling anything.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to pulunco
SODDOMHUSSER
ART is or can be in any task .....even cleaning a house or clothe can be done with an artistic mind ......
But i do think , we sometimes analyse it too much !!
In the case of " da vinci" its interresting to study coz its full of things to discover ........... but he was one of a kind
Im an artistic producer, mixer ( music ) and sometimes music ISNT an art ..... Depending on the soul of the musician !!
If u are an artist , whatever u do will b artistic ..... if not .... then nothing will be
D
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to pulunco
Adam Sherwood
Art isn't exclusive now? Art has ALWAYS been exclusive and will continue to be. It is exclusive to those educated in the understanding and interpretation of it. Of course there are some pieces and styles more accessible on a superficial level than others, but real understanding of a piece of intelligent art requires a degree of education. If it was not possessed of this depth, it wouldn't be worth consideration.
I think it is foolish to throw out any style. Sometimes, what you need is a symphony, other times it might be a bit of techno, other times a jig. There is a time and place for any style of art with depth and intelligence.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to pulunco
pulunco
One of Scruton's main point is that art is no longer exclusive.
Like
6 days ago
in reply to Adam Sherwood
1 Like
Muzar
a 1 hour long rant about modern art.
Beauty is not absent from todays world at all, we just made room for some ugly. deal with it.
Like
Reply
1 week ago
4 Likes
Joe
Ask most people what their definition of art is and you'll get a blank stare or a statement like "you can't define art". Hence, you have all these ridiculous 'works of art' like a urinal or a pile of bricks. I think that probably most of these supposed artists are just too lazy to get a different job...
Like
Reply
1 week ago
4 Likes
S_Stern
it's not the artists, it's the money. the money has no taste, and the artist creates for them, to get paid. when the money was the church and artists created for their tastes, they wanted the classics - when the money is some dime store nouveau rich wall street tycoon, then that's what you get.
and artists work harder than you think. As an illustrator i can easily put in 12 hour days at my desk. and work doesn't stop. not for weekends or holidays...
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to Joe
3 Likes
Joe
I understand your point. Supply meets demand... The curators and directors at the prominent galleries and museums provide the venue for 'modern art'. And the art critics are just working for their media company to sell magazines or newspapers. Most of these folks should be embarrassed at passing these works off as art. They act as if the public wants to see this stuff - like, hey, we're just fulfilling the demand...The 'artists' being the supply. Ever since the early 20th century art has really been about appealing to, as you say, the nouveau rich. A lot of modern art can be cranked out in much less time and hence it's a more lucrative business than the months and months of study, charcoal sketches, research and months of work and rework on the final piece. It's all tied into the moral degradation of the 20th century where honest hard work at your art is considered somewhat not creative or original. A lot of it moral hijacking. Go tell that to a ballerina or a musician... Do you really want to see a dancer who can't dance or a musician who can't play his or her instrument?? Now some of the modern interpretation of classic operas is another story... Honestly, I just find it insulting to my humanity to call some this stuff you find in a gallery 'art'... Just listen to that interview with Duchamp... or an interview with Piscasso or some other modern artist... it just lacks a sense of beauty or a respect for beauty. I feel like these guys are just laughing... Centuries ago there were crackpots like this but no one paid any attention to them. They were the village idiots but today or a few decades ago these folks were regarded as creative new forces. I've written enough. There really are still great artists out there but you've just gotta search for it. Thanks for reading this. Take care, Joe
Like
3 days ago
in reply to S_Stern
1 Like
Thomas Hogar
I think that Scruton has tunnel vision on the subject of art and beauty. I believe that the freedoms we have in art today are a wonderful gift. Sure there are artists who seem to have little talent and make quite a bit of money from their works but I think the flip side to the coin is that we can pursue a greater understanding of ourselves and the chance to convey a story or message. This may not be just about portraying something pleasing to the eye but a part of our history or to convey a message.
As for beauty I think it has been held up as a value for far too long. The lengths that people are driven to to become this type of "beautiful" is leading us down a worse road than what the art of today is. The plastic surgeries and beauty products being sold to us in this quest for beauty is somewhat unobtainable and shallow. We have been sold this idea of beauty for too long. Not that I don't think that beauty does not hold its place because I find many art of today beautiful as many things in the world are but the beauty that Scruton seems to be concerning himself with more to do with class and etiquette than what beauty is really about.
Azilda, . Student of life...call me az
It is not that we are losing beauty, it is that we are homogenizing beauty and it's opposite together. We are more and more allowing everything as art, inhibitions are dropped in all fields. It is left to the viewer to chose, the way a gardener would chose among the million of flowers and shrubs which he uses to decorate his surrounding.
Beauty has a lot to do with energetic self regard and that is why it can surrender a message of "inner beauty" through art. In the end when an artist produce a magnum opus, it is a reflection of his self that is seen in the piece, and if that Self is tortured and dis-enchanted it will show those qualities and if that Self is harmonius and spirited it will show those qualities.
I consider beauty to mean love, those two words are reflection of each other in a pond of energy.
az
Like
Reply
5 days ago
2 Likes
leonardobdas
I have seen pictures of the metro stations in Moscow....and let me tell ya how much better it is to be in it than those in NYC.... so at least in terms of the world's architecture this man is right, at least to me.
It is my point of view to have art as a pinnacle one aims for; a place that is inspired by its founders and true visionaries and only a select feel gets to experience the joys of being their pupils. This way art gets to be reveered, dreamed of, worshipped, and thus functions as a tool to destroy the still soul. I see this "high art" as much as I see it formula 1 racing.... or supermodels.... it is just better than normal isn't it?
I can only hope that people won't soon be demanding to call their blogs "books"....
Like
Reply
5 days ago
1 Like
Kenyoni
Beauty of videos matters too. ...too bad it's in the wrong aspect ratio. it should be 16:9 but displays as 4:3 :(
Like
Reply
6 days ago
el_raptor
I agree with Scruton's premise that beauty is far more important than society today gives it credit for. I myself have thought about "form follows function" and how that should not necessarily be the case. I do, however, find Scruton's idea on what beauty is or can be quite narrow. A favorite recent movie of mine, No Country For Old Men, deals primarily with the ugliness of the world, yet I find it to be an extraordinarily beautiful film. Examples like that abound.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
S_Stern
Very euro-centric in his views - this docu is disingenuous to think that the 'beauty' created in the past was made by creative people for the sake of creating art. art for it's own sake and for that of feeling and emotion, divorced from the classical idealized view of reality is relatively new, starting with, i think, picasso and his african masks.
when the classic beauty broke down and artists created for themselves (not for the church or wealthy patrons) and of what they saw around them, art became more about meaning and feeling, individual thoughts. i don't like the idea that art should be this pastoral soothing pacifier to keep the masses from realizing how dirty the world really is.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
2 Likes
Nick_Sporek
Yeah, but what about the value of quality and craftsmanship?
"Sh!t in a can" might have some meaning to the "artist" who made it and to some of the people viewing it but there isn't any craftsmanship there at all. Just because you can manipulate some objects to make a statement doesn't make that art, does it?
I think Roger Scruton is just trying to separate the "real artists" from the posers and not pushing any Euro-centric views.
Like
Reply
4 days ago
in reply to S_Stern
4 Likes
klimis symeonidis
couldnt agree more
Like
Reply
5 days ago
in reply to S_Stern
1 Like
Beautasia
This is brilliant! Beauty is a state of mind or how we perceive it to be. http://bit.ly/e7inL4
Like
Reply
6 days ago
1 Like
Thomas Hogar
I think that Scruton has tunnel vision on the subject of art and beauty. I believe that the freedoms we have in art today are a wonderful gift. Sure there are artists who seem to have little talent and make quite a bit of money from their works but I think the flip side to the coin is that we can pursue a greater understanding of ourselves and the chance to convey a story or message. This may not be just about portraying something pleasing to the eye but a part of our history or to convey a message.
As for beauty I think it has been held up as a value for far too long. The lengths that people are driven to to become this type of "beautiful" is leading us down a worse road than what the art of today is. The plastic surgeries and beauty products being sold to us in this quest for beauty is somewhat unobtainable and shallow. We have been sold this idea of beauty for too long. Not that I don't think that beauty does not hold its place because I find many art of today beautiful as many things in the world are but the beauty that Scruton seems to be concerning himself with more to do with class and etiquette than what beauty is really about.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
2 Likes
Joe Collapse
Ask most people what their definition of art is and you'll get a blank stare or a statement like "you can't define art". Hence, you have all these ridiculous 'works of art' like a urinal or a pile of bricks. I think that probably most of these supposed artists are just too lazy to get a different job...
S_Stern Collapse
it's not the artists, it's the money. the money has no taste, and the artist creates for them, to get paid. when the money was the church and artists created for their tastes, they wanted the classics - when the money is some dime store nouveau rich wall street tycoon, then that's what you get.
and artists work harder than you think. As an illustrator i can easily put in 12 hour days at my desk. and work doesn't stop. not for weekends or holidays...
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to Joe
3 Likes
F
Joe
I understand your point. Supply meets demand... The curators and directors at the prominent galleries and museums provide the venue for 'modern art'. And the art critics are just working for their media company to sell magazines or newspapers. Most of these folks should be embarrassed at passing these works off as art. They act as if the public wants to see this stuff - like, hey, we're just fulfilling the demand...The 'artists' being the supply. Ever since the early 20th century art has really been about appealing to, as you say, the nouveau rich. A lot of modern art can be cranked out in much less time and hence it's a more lucrative business than the months and months of study, charcoal sketches, research and months of work and rework on the final piece. It's all tied into the moral degradation of the 20th century where honest hard work at your art is considered somewhat not creative or original. A lot of it moral hijacking. Go tell that to a ballerina or a musician... Do you really want to see a dancer who can't dance or a musician who can't play his or her instrument?? Now some of the modern interpretation of classic operas is another story... Honestly, I just find it insulting to my humanity to call some this stuff you find in a gallery 'art'... Just listen to that interview with Duchamp... or an interview with Piscasso or some other modern artist... it just lacks a sense of beauty or a respect for beauty. I feel like these guys are just laughing... Centuries ago there were crackpots like this but no one paid any attention to them. They were the village idiots but today or a few decades ago these folks were regarded as creative new forces. I've written enough. There really are still great artists out there but you've just gotta search for it. Thanks for reading this. Take care, Joe
Like
3 days ago
in reply to S_Stern
1 Like
Muzar
a 1 hour long rant about modern art.
Beauty is not absent from todays world at all, we just made room for some ugly. deal with it.
Like
Reply
1 week ago
4 Likes
pulunco
I disagree with Scruton regarding art. He wants art to be aristocratic and exclusive; he thinks only certain people can be artists and only certain things can be art. He then contradicts himself and says "beauty is an ordinary everyday kind of thing. Ordinary things made beautiful."
Beauty IS an everyday thing. It happens everywhere all the time, even in a pile of bricks. I feel sorry for him if needs his beauty to be force fed by a Botticelli on a silver tray.
While I can respect the talent and craft of Michelangelo it is little more than ornate fluff to me and does not engage me the way that conceptual art does. Art can mean different things to different people. To me it is language, and I enjoy the process of translation. And therein lies the spiritual for me, the connection from one person to another.
By the way I think Piss Christ by Serrano is very beautiful.
Like
Reply
1 week ago
11 Likes
Adam Sherwood
Art isn't exclusive now? Art has ALWAYS been exclusive and will continue to be. It is exclusive to those educated in the understanding and interpretation of it. Of course there are some pieces and styles more accessible on a superficial level than others, but real understanding of a piece of intelligent art requires a degree of education. If it was not possessed of this depth, it wouldn't be worth consideration.
I think it is foolish to throw out any style. Sometimes, what you need is a symphony, other times it might be a bit of techno, other times a jig. There is a time and place for any style of art with depth and intelligence.
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to pulunco
pulunco
One of Scruton's main point is that art is no longer exclusive.
Like
6 days ago
in reply to Adam Sherwood
1 Like
SODDOMHUSSER
ART is or can be in any task .....even cleaning a house or clothe can be done with an artistic mind ......
But i do think , we sometimes analyse it too much !!
In the case of " da vinci" its interresting to study coz its full of things to discover ........... but he was one of a kind
Im an artistic producer, mixer ( music ) and sometimes music ISNT an art ..... Depending on the soul of the musician !!
If u are an artist , whatever u do will b artistic ..... if not .... then nothing will be
D
Like
Reply
6 days ago
in reply to pulunco
S_Stern
Art being about feeling and meaning, you hit the nail on the head. I like art to have a sense of imagination and wonder. Fine art is nice, but leaves me not feeling anything.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu