Abuse of Beauty

Is the modern age absent idealism? In the Enlightenment we seemed to strive to figure out a utopia, while in the Romantic era we were convinced that beauty was salvation. Danto suggests that in the modern era, art's role toward utopia is less clear. A new philosophy of not trying to change the world. Douglas Huebner wrote in 1969: "I'm just, you know, touching the world by doing these things, and leaving it pretty much the way it is." After the decline of Romanticism, have artistic ideals really been crushed by reality? Huebner's bleak assessment of his role in society is depressing to me, as I believe art does have the power to change people and the world.

The definition of art has either devolved or become more inclusive in the twentieth century, and Danto states that "x is an art work if it embodies a meaning." How vague! I suppose most things could be considered art, but what does this really mean? Such free inclusion seems to cheapen the very idea of art, if it can bemade anywhere, out of anything, by anybody.
  At the same time, this has a democratic empowering as art is not only available in the digital era to everyone-- more people can participate in its creation in new ways than ever before. And this removal of limits and definitions seems to promote the classic American ideal of freedom: freedom to innovate and transcend boundaries and preconception however one's artistic and creative faculties lead.

  Danto touches on the most central issue of the artist's struggle: the search for meaning. I believe art is either the act of searching or the object itself of meaning.
  I found Fry's response to modernist art exhibitions in London interesting as he blamed ignorance and unfamiliarity. But I am troubled by the equation in art of beautiful and understanding. The very notion that something is ugly until it is beautiful! I wonder why beauty is not always self-evident? If we have to take a class on something to understand it, is that work natural? We appreciate natural beauty before we understood the mechanics behind it...

  I am not sure I agree with all of Danto's suggestions, but I am glad he raises important questions. Many of them are ultimately unanswerable: If beauty is not the point of art though, what is? And the discussion on Kant and equation of morality and beauty: "The beautiful is the symbol of the morally good."
  Kant's confusion of tattooed islander demonstrates to me that art is always more than its external appearance: art is always in dialogue with its socio-cultural associations, whether the artist intended or not. Not only does art require interpretation, the piece is always a part of the conditions that formed it as well as part of the life of the interpreter. Each person has a unique reaction to a work because we experience it through the lens of our own life story.

There is a fascinating discussion of disgust in art: this topic is problematic because art is intended to cause pleasure and disgust "in accordance with nature," cannot produce pleasure in normal viewers, except in perverts. Danto arrives at the subject of the danger of beautification which seems especially relevant in modern America. Art seems to seek to cover up blemishes and whitewash everything in a sea of cosmetic gentrification. And in the discussion of depravity and ugly in art, I think Danto is headed toward the central crisis of modern art: the artist confronting audiences with ideas and emotions that are not positively affirming. This issue has driven a huge wedge between audiences who refuse to acknowledge the dimension of art's exploration. Music that is disconcerting or disturbing seems to be especially objectionable to certain audiences who seek in music a comforting refuge.

 Danto covered a lot of ground in this essay, often by means beyond my philosophical grasp, but I appreciate his conclusion that beauty is one dimension of art. He seems to imply that other modes of expression are also valid, a claim which I think can be extended to composers' adoption of post-tonal compositional techniques to express certain less gentrified sides of human existence.