Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts

OPINION: Beauty in Art

This is our first response to Theodore Hoppe's opinion piece, posted on May 2. We encourage readers to think about it, do a bit of writing, and send us YOUR perspective!

By Stephen Orloske

I don't apprehend what you'd like to discuss about Beauty. I'll assume we can forgo diatribes about the Golden ratio and comparing our Top 10. If it's a definition you're fishing for then I provide this:

The Anatomy of Melancholy states, "Beauty is the common object of all love," and that's the most concise definition I know of. Beauty is not an inherent quality but rather a result of love. It might be helpful to think of beauty's vulgar cousin money. Money is a result of economy and when we try to envision the "monetary value" of anyone we shudder because, well, it is rather disgusting, yet attempt to envision Beauty in anyone and then you are in a noble pursuit, because that is really an attempt to find love and if you succeed then you actually make Beauty.

The book also recounts an anecdote of a queen who saw "one of the king's chaplains, a silly, old, hard-favored man, fast asleep in a bower, and kissed him sweetly; when the young ladies laughed at her for it, she replied, that it was not his person that she did embrace and reverence, but, with a Platonic love, the divine beauty of his soul." It is a mistake when you say "perhaps in most cases, the fantasy we are chasing is Beauty.” Because it is never, in fact, the case that an artist's fantasy chases Beauty (those are the fantasies of marketers), rather an artist is like the queen, attempting to make contact with the “soul,” with a loving relationship for the totality of a subject, with the reality within it that eludes human comprehension, rather than the appearance (which is oh so comprehendible), and Beauty is a result of that attempt.

OPINION: Beauty in Art

Frequent contributor Theo Hoppe had raised the question of Beauty in Art, a big topic! If you have something to say about this question that you'd like to submit for publication, send your thoughts to one of the editors -- email addresses in the right-hand column.

By Theodore Hoppe

The recent April snowfall gave me an excuse to take a break from my computer, so I picked up my camera and headed outdoors to explore the contrast in seasons. Someone once explained the artistic process to me this way: An artist has a fantasy, and then tries to create a reality that will allow the viewer to share the fantasy. Often, and perhaps in most cases, the fantasy we are chasing is Beauty.


Back at my computer, I was doing some research about a psychology topic and I came across these comments by Chris McManus. They seem to capture of essence of what I was searching for with my camera.

It is from the British Psychological Society, Research Digest, 10/5/09:

Beauty
What is this thing I call beauty? Not "art" as a social phenomenon based on status or display, or beautiful faces seen merely as biological fitness markers. Rather, the sheer, drawing-in-of-breath beauty of a Handel aria, a Rothko painting, TS Eliot’s poems, or those everyday moments of sun shining through wet, autumn leaves, or even a Powerpoint layout seeming just right. Content itself doesn’t matter – Cezanne’s paintings of apples are not beautiful because one likes apples, and there are beautiful photographs of horrible things. Somewhere there must be something formal, structural, compositional, involving the arrangement of light and shade, of sounds, of words best ordered to say old ideas in new ways. When I see beauty I know it, and others must also see it, or they wouldn’t make the paintings I like or have them hung in galleries. But why then doesn’t everyone see it in the same way?
Chris McManus is Professor of Psychology and Medical Education at UCL. His 2002 book Right Hand, Left Hand won the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, the Aventis Prize for popular science writing, and was a finalist for the Descartes Prize in 2004.

OPINION: Children’s Art

Readers are invited to respond to this opinion piece with reflections of their own about children’s art and what values it holds for the viewer and the community. Send your writing to one of the editors, listed at the top of the right-hand column of this blog. – Ed.

By Theodore A. Hoppe

Announcing the beginning of spring, construction paper cut-out tulips are sprouting in the stairwell leading to the children's library at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library in Montpelier, some two dozen or so, lining the winding steps.


They made me wonder if others that saw them would consider this an art display, or merely as a form of children's art. Certainly, Matisse's simple paper cutouts are among the most admired and influential works of Matisse's entire career.

As a critic of art I question whether we have a certain attitude toward the art work of children; do we miss the simplicity and interpretive beauty it holds? More importantly, do we focus on the value of the finished product, and overlook the value of the process?

In "The Art of Teaching Art to Children," Nancy Beal, who has taught art to children at the Village Community School in New York for over 25 years, focuses in part on how to speak to children about their artwork to encourage their creative expression. Adults need to respect
children's ideas and honor their creativity. What can children do when they have the support of a caring adult? I think the answer is "more", they can create more, express themselves more, do more, with art and in life.

This also leads me to reflect about the differences in ways that we view the performing arts as opposed to the visual arts when it comes to children. We frequently hear of a child that can successfully perform a classical piece on the violin or piano and we are eager to use the word prodigy. What word comes to mind when a young artist performs Van Gogh's, "Starry Night"?


The artist, Avery, is four years old.
My Zimbio
Top Stories My Ping in TotalPing.com