Posted on 08/22/2004 4:22:56 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Good find.
AV
"I wish more ugly and disturbing "art" like that would be stolen. Ugly art debases culture."
Interesting idea. How would this be achieved? How can we define artistic beauty in such a way as to be able to immediately identify ugly art, and dispose of it?
Shouldn't the head line read stolen again?
Wasn't it stolen before and recovered?
How do we achieve the reduction of ugly and pathological "art"?
I parenthesize the word "art" because such displays of torment are just projections of the performer's illness best ignored by we who have it inflicted on us. We celebrate art's beauty. It is unwise to celebrate ugliness masquerading as art.
Are we not better soothed than assaulted by art?
Do you think perhaps that as so much of modern art has become assaultive there may be a cumulative negative effect on western culture because of it?
I think covering our walls with angst is a bad idea.
I am happier for rejecting it. Who but the disturbed could not be?
AV
Thank you for your considered response. I understand your point.
Yet what is light without dark? How can happiness be meaningful without torment? What is beautiful when all around is beautiful?
To me ugly art is not meant to be appreciated as beautiful, but rather to provoke one to admire that which is by contrast beautiful.
Someone who enjoys ugly art may find solace in an image that embarces their own torment, like a counseller to their soul, a hope that someone, somewhere understands how you feel. Only then when this darkness is embraced, is it possible to even dream of the light ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.