I’ve argued here and elsewhere that a man-made thing that
deals with beauty in some manner is art; the more serious the engagement the
more serious the art. Things that failed to engage beauty were something else, e.g., political statements.
I recently engaged with Van Gogh’s ‘The Night Café. Compare his “Café Terrance at Night, which is beautiful and optimistic, with “The Night Café”, which is a sickly depiction of the dark side of life at the café. (https://leafcollector.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/vicnet-van-gogh-cafe-terrace-at-night.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Caf%C3%A9. “The Night Café” is powerful because it expresses a truth, but it has little to do with beauty, although he was clearly exercising his understanding of color theory in art and was an admirer of the beauty being created by the impressionists. I won’t go into the technical side of the painting as that is not my area of expertise, although his use of red and green in the top third of the painting and chrome yellow in the bottom two-thirds is very effective. But “effective'” to what end? Doesn’t this disprove my thesis that Art involves itself somehow with beauty?
Van Gogh was painting his subjective reaction to the scene, what he actually saw in that sense, and what he experienced was nothing like beauty and he was not commenting or even thinking about beauty, except in the sense that he was noticing the difference between the beauty outside and the depression inside the café. Yet surely the technical skill and honest expression of his feelings, even his nakedness in revealing his feelings, must be Art? No, in it expresses a truth in artistic form, and this form adds to the truth’s power. So, like great art, it impacts the viewer, but in a very different way than true great art. It is great, but not great art.
Blog 88: I was not wrong
I’ve argued here and elsewhere that a man-made thing that deals with beauty in some manner is art; the more serious the engagement the more serious the art. Things that failed to engage beauty were something else, e.g., political statements.
I recently engaged with Van Gogh’s ‘The Night Café. Compare his “Café Terrance at Night, which is beautiful and optimistic, with “The Night Café”, which is a sickly depiction of the dark side of life at the café. (https://leafcollector.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/vicnet-van-gogh-cafe-terrace-at-night.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Caf%C3%A9. “The Night Café” is powerful because it expresses a truth, but it has little to do with beauty, although he was clearly exercising his understanding of color theory in art and was an admirer of the beauty being created by the impressionists. I won’t go into the technical side of the painting as that is not my area of expertise, although his use of red and green in the top third of the painting and chrome yellow in the bottom two-thirds is very effective. But “effective'” to what end? Doesn’t this disprove my thesis that Art involves itself somehow with beauty?
Van Gogh was painting his subjective reaction to the scene, what he actually saw in that sense, and what he experienced was nothing like beauty and he was not commenting or even thinking about beauty, except in the sense that he was noticing the difference between the beauty outside and the depression inside the café. Yet surely the technical skill and honest expression of his feelings, even his nakedness in revealing his feelings, must be Art? No, in it expresses a truth in artistic form, and this form adds to the truth’s power. So, like great art, it impacts the viewer, but in a very different way than true great art. It is great, but not great art.