Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction Chapter 2 Reading Assignment

In the first chapter of Art Theory: A very short introduction, writer Cynthia Freeland delves into the topic of beauty in art and what it’s purpose and meaning is in this subject. The first chapter titled “Blood and beauty” touches on early uses of blood in art. She mentioned briefly that blood may have appealed to so many early artists because of it’s paint like appearances and properties. These days some of us would say blood is thought of as a gory, horrific and intense substance used to display danger and action, like when a character in a movie gets injured.

Although blood is a very interesting medium to use in the art world. It is often controversial depending on the context that it’s in. Cynthia mentioned artists controversial art displays like “Artist Ron Athey, who is HIV-positive, cut the flesh of a fellow performer on stage and then hung blood-soaked paper towels over the audience, creating a panic.” Some wouldn’t consider this to be appealing art because of how horrific this act is. Not a lot can say this is ‘beautiful’ art. But what about it makes it not beautiful? In the chapter Cynthia goes on to talk about a Scottish philosopher named David Hume. Hume says he doesn’t use the term ‘aesthetics’ but rather ‘tastes’ “a refined ability to perceive quality in an artwork.” (Page 9) Taste can tell a lot about the person who is viewing the artwork. Someone might prefer one piece of artwork that differs from the one I may prefer. But where do we get our ‘tastes’?

“Hume emphasized education and experience: men of taste acquire certain abilities that lead to agreement about which authors and artworks are the best. Such people, he felt, eventually will reach consensus, and in doing so, they set a ‘standard of taste’ which is universal. These experts can differentiate works of high quality from less good works.” (Page 9) I found this piece of the chapter to be very interesting and relatable because thoughts like these have crossed my mind before, but with no significance. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can think whatever they want, but their opinions and ‘taste’ might not be ‘right.’ I’ve grown up in a society where what we categorize as ‘good and bad’ is very universal. Cynthia labes a cockroach as something that’s ugly, while a rose is considered beautiful.

“When I perceive the red rose as beautiful, this is not

quite like putting it into my mental cupboard of items

labelled ‘beauty’—nor do I just throw the disgusting

cockroach into my mental trash can of ‘ugly’ items. But

features of the object almost force me (‘occasion me’)

to label it as I do. The rose might have its own purpose

(to reproduce new roses), but that is not why it is beau-

tiful. Something about its array of colours and textures

prompts my mental faculties to feel that the object is

‘right.’ This rightness is what Kant means by saying that

beautiful objects are purposive. We label an object

beautiful because it promotes an internal harmony or

‘free play’ of our mental faculties; we call something

‘beautiful’ when it elicits this pleasure. When you call a

thing beautiful, you thereby assert that everyone ought

to agree. Though the label is prompted by a subjective

awareness or feeling of pleasure, it supposedly has

objective application to the world.” (Page 6)

I think that this whole paragraph sums up how I feel about categorizing beauty. If the object has a good purpose and presents itself in a appealing matter, then it can fall under the category of “beautiful.” Sure, someone can say the cockroach is beautiful, and I would agree, but I don’t think it is beautiful in a ‘tasteful’ way. More of a purposeful way. The cockroach still doesn’t have the appealing presentation or look that you would typically think of when the word comes to mind. Our minds do not connect a cockroach to beautiful. But I can be wrong about the cockroach and the rose too. We are the beings that made up the definition of beauty. Somewhere along our entire existence, the definition could have been completely flipped on it’s head and rethinked. The roach would be beautiful, and the rose would be hideous.

Why and how would this get turned upside down? My answer is our human experience and education could have been completely different. Somewhere along the line of humanity, an event could have happened that changed our whole experience of beauty. We could have had a bad experience with beauty and then from that moment on thought of a rose as horrible, or foul. And our experience with a rodent or roach could have been indifferent or ‘beautiful.”

I believe that I could have been a completely different person if my experiences and education had been changed or altered along the way. What if my first experience with something was a terrible one. What if my first time riding a bike ended up with me crashing and needing to get stitches or surgery. So from then on my perception of bikes was soured because I feel and had a horrific experience and I never felt the need to ride one again. Would I be the bike nerd that I am today? If I didn’t have this activity in my life, would I have the same health that I have today. I personally don’t think so.

I do believe David was right about people's taste was developed by experience and education. Our preference of art could have been changed by an event or how much we’ve been educated on a particular subject, so what seems ‘right’ might just be because of how people have experienced it and what people have been told about the subject.

Freeland, Cynthia A. "Blood and Beauty." Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. 6,9. Print.

#arttheory #psu