Comments on: Beauty and More: A Systematic Approach to Reconciling Aesthetic Categories

By: Rondall Reynoso

Rondall Reynoso

In reply to Heather Savage. Thank you for your feedback. Yes, I'll send you a PDF.

By: Heather Savage

Heather Savage

I appreciate the definitions of all these terms. As a musician, I have come across several pieces that I would consider to be both ugly and beautiful, with an element of the sublime. An example of this would be David Gillingham’s piece, Heroes Lost and Fallen. It incorporates some very harsh sounds that bring to mind war, which I hope everyone would find ugly. Yet, the truth in it is what makes it beautiful. The way it can both call out war for the devastation it is and at the same time honor those who fought is what makes it sublime. If someone were to compose a “pretty” sounding work and say it was addressing the topic of war, it would fall into the category of kitsch.

I would very much appreciate a PDF of this essay. This is one I need to revisit, and reading on the computer is very difficult, even without the ads which are plentiful. Could you please email me one?

By: Kirk Jordan

Kirk Jordan

ps. I sometimes feel this question on a different level. I view and respond to art in which ugliness is strong component. Yet I sometimes feel checked in my soul when I intentionally produce such works. It is part of the “Whatsoever” admonition. (Ie, Whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are noble….if there be any virtue, if there be any praise.. think on these things. (Loose from memory) So, while I respond and enjoy works in which ugliness plays a prominent theme, I find I can only go so far before conviction sets in. Same with sex themes. I view more in this realm than I feel comfortable producing, for the same reason. I expect to answer for the tastes I cultivate in myself, and those that I might forge in another. So I never feel the artistic liberty to do what I would, because I feel constrained by the idea that I must answer to God for what I savor — or encourage.

By: Kirk Jordan

Kirk Jordan

A most intriguing subject. I sometimes wonder about this problem on another level. I find that in the photography world, we generally prefer some level of distortion or decay over generic beauty. We prefer to view the weathered face, the ramshackle barn, the peeling sign, the rusted car etc over those forms which are simply pretty in a generic way. Who takes pictures of suburbia? (I know someone does, but on the whole, generic pretty is far more challenging to capture, unless it can be given some kind of Stepford-wive’s vibe. I guess we have our Southern Comfort Magazines and paintings by Kincade (sp?) but we rarely think of those images of styled beauty as being truly artful. So why is it, that we… who prefer to posses a generically beautiful face, or a suburban home (as opposed to a spray painted tenement house…) still prefer the latter in images. The world I seek to create around myself, is not a world I traditionally want to examine with art.

By: Patty Mitchell

Patty Mitchell

I’m not an artist, so you are getting this novice’s take on these works.

It’s interesting to me that Kinkade’s work above might be considered pretty. To my eye it is troubling. Annoying as well. Some of his other work I will admit to being “pretty”, though extremely saccharine. What I can’t say is that his work is deep or that it makes me think. It doesn’t require a second look. It is what it is and that’s that … walk on by.

I find Bierstadt’s work pretty, albeit it a bit troubling as well since it’s not what Yosemite looks like. I have to look at it as its own thing rather than Yosemite, actually. Then I enjoy it. I might say “beautiful” rather than “pretty”. Pretty is fleeting. Beauty is deeper.

Just my take on those words!

I could go on and on, but I ramble too often and just thought I’d at least jump in here, say “hi”, and let you know I’m trying to remember to read your blog! :-)

By: Kirk Jordan

Kirk Jordan

I know you have reasons for using the words you do, but I too will struggle with the word “pretty.” I do agree with the distinction between primarily sensual forms of visual pleasure and those which are perceived through the intellect (or, if we can go that far, through the spirit.) For example, I can envision a woman is pretty, but not truly beautiful. In part, because I see pretty as primarily a surface description, whereas beauty communicates depth beyond the surface. (It would be possible for woman who is not found pretty, to be found beautiful. (And, given yet other usage, I might find that a persona is externally ugly, but in total, beautiul) But even when speaking only in sensory terms, pretty just doesn’t have the same nuance as beautiful. Pretty appears to be a smaller idea, it contains the ideas of detail, fragility, surface, even femininity. Beauty on the other hand, is at home with simplicity, power, essence, even majesty. (while I probably would not use the term, I can more readily see a man as beautiful than as pretty (unless he is in fact, delicate or feminine.) So…In order for this larger diagram to work, I am going to have to make the real effort to “re-hear” the the words pretty, and beautiful.