In Chapter 12, Wartenberg informs the reader of Dewey's belief that art is embedded in the experiences of nature. Humans create art intentionally, while nature is not intentional. For example, a human builds a house because they need shelter. A bird builds a nest instinctively. The discussion in class reminded me of a quote I heard a few years ago.
"To the artist, there is never anything ugly in nature." - Auguste Rodin
I disagree with that quote. We deem things pretty and ugly every day. Ugly is a lesser degree of prettiness. To say nothing in nature is ugly is illogical. How else would we distinguish one aspect of nature from another without the varying degrees of prettiness, including ugliness? To say that all artists see nothing ugly in nature is false because many artists replicate things in nature in paintings, etc. and make them beautiful. If they intend to make something beautiful, doesn't it make the original ugly to some degree?
We experience statements like that quote in everyday life. We try to make things such as nature sound beautiful and ideal because it is so closely related to art. However, in order to differentiate we must use words such as ugly to describe things, even nature.
To conclude, I pose the question; "What other things can provide aesthetic experience besides nature that are often described as if they are always beautiful?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment