The word art comes from the Latin “ars” which means technique. Art and technique designate the same thing: the set of processes by which man seeks to achieve a certain result. It seems to us that a work of art cannot be confused with an everyday object. The work has several particularities, it is unique, original, and beautiful. Beauty is the character of what is beautiful, what provokes admiration, enthusiasm.
However Emmanuel Kant declares that beauty is the character of universally pleasing. This philosopher asks us not to confuse beauty with the notion of pleasant. What is just pleasant is what pleases a person, but which he recognizes that it will not necessarily please others. But Marcel Duchamp with his famous ready-mades, shows us simple objects, the work is not beautiful in itself because it does not provoke any admiration, we surely have the same one in our garage. At first sight therefore, a work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object. Therefore, is a beautiful object necessarily a work of art? Is a work of art necessarily beautiful? Are there other aesthetic particularities that can define art? What feeling can art induce apart from beauty? To answer this question, we will first show that a work of art is a beautiful object. We will then wonder about the fact that a work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object. Then we will look at the idea that the work of art remains above all a beautiful object. First of all, we are going to ask ourselves about the fact that a work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object. First of all, beauty is a concept that appeals universally, that is to say to everyone, but what is pleasant is what pleases one person and not necessarily others. Let's take the example of a well-known piece of music by Mozart. If one person finds this music "beautiful" he expects others to find it beautiful as well. He tells himself that the beauty he perceives through this music, the others should perceive the same thing. So if someone finds the music “unbearable”, “ugly”,… Their first impression would be to say that they are wrong, that they don't understand the music. Beauty does not necessarily rhyme with the notion of pleasant. This music is nevertheless a work of art but can be "ugly" for a person. Then, pop art makes it possible to create works of art called ready made. A ready made is an object that the artist recovers and then exhibits, without changing anything, in a museum. The artist therefore decides that this object will be a work of art. The precursor of pop art is called Marcel Duchamp, very well known with his famous ready-mades, in anticipation of a broken arm, for example, we are exposed to a simple shovel to clear snow, the work is not beautiful in itself because it does not cause any admiration, we probably have the same in our garage. Then, Goodman indicates in one of his texts that the characteristic of a work of art is to call for an interpretation. The interpretation of a work of art depends on the beauty of this object. This interpretation must be made by the viewer. Take for example, a pianist who interprets a score. This score will for example have a certain rhythm. Another pianist could have given another very different interpretation of the same piece. In the room the listener then interprets the piece in turn, one listener will find the piece melancholy and "ugly", another will find it tender and "beautiful". This double interpretation will allow people to find beautiful works of art and other people to find it "ugly". A work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object, it all depends on how the person interprets it. A work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object, since beauty is not synonymous with pleasant, pop art in turn allows the creation of works of art that are not necessarily beautiful and finally the interpretation of an object can be different according to each person. But can a work of art also be a beautiful object? Can a work of art be interpreted by something beautiful, by something that arouses admiration? By what means can one make a beautiful object a work of art? Secondly, we will show that a beautiful object is a work of art. First of all, for a beautiful object to be a work of art, this object must provoke admiration in the person looking at it. Take the example of Immanuel Kant who declares that beauty is the character of what is universally pleasing. For a beautiful object to become a work of art, this object must please everyone who looks at it. An object must necessarily be beautiful to become a work of art. Next, design makes a beautiful object a work of art. Design is a discipline whose object is the creation of objects that are both beautiful and functional. Design has made it possible to create objects that can be reproduced in an infinite number of copies. Thus in 1920 a new current appeared called: Bauhaus, the members of this current wanted to demonstrate that there is no difference between the one who produces beautiful things, therefore an artist, and the one who produces useful objects, therefore a craftsman. For example, L. Mies van der Rohe designed The Farnsworth House which is a horizontal, glass house that appears to float above the ground. As a house it is useful, but it would not be fair to say that this house is "ugly". This house is a work of art from the moment the artist calls the object a “work of art”. A beautiful object can therefore be a work of art thanks to design. Thirdly, we will show that in our opinion, a work of art is not necessarily a beautiful object First of all, an object can be "ugly" insofar as its objective is not to create a feeling of beauty, it can aim to frighten, to disgust, to provoke a feeling of rejection, of indifference. But a work of art can very well be failed, ugly, or without artistic value. Take the example of Picasso's famous painting: Guernica, where the artist painted it to denounce and express himself. In painting it he did not seek to make it beautiful but to shock and disturb. And its main function is denunciation, the work doesn't need to be beautiful, that's not its purpose. Next, a work of art is represented as a symbol. As the German philosopher Hegel clearly showed, the symbol resembles the thing, but it does not represent it perfectly. There is no perfect adequation between the symbol and the thing. He says that the symbol is equivocal. Take the example of a painter who has chosen to represent a cat on a canvas, and that the cat is a symbol. The meaning of such an object is equivocal, it is not obvious, it can be interpreted in several ways. There can be very different meanings. The symbol must therefore be interpreted by each person, that is to say that one person will be able to interpret the cat as a beautiful object while another person will say that it looks naughty. The object can therefore be “ugly” even though it is a work of art. Then, an object must have a symbolic function in order to become a work of art. A symbol is equivocal, its meaning is therefore uncertain. As one of Goodman's texts shows us, the stone on the road that he evokes is not an art object, on the other hand, it becomes a work of art in a museum because there it begins to possess a symbolic function, that is to say that it becomes the symbol of something. It can become the symbol of its shape, its color, its texture… A stone is not necessarily a beautiful object but becomes a work of art when this object has a symbolic function. Conclusion: Some objects are beautiful but not all.
Seen Etudier. © Gerard Van Weyenbergh - www.vwart.com
Comments