Posted by Syantani (69.230.188.76) on April 21, 2006 at 14:46:12:

In Reply to: perception of beauty posted by Sheela on April 19, 2006 at 20:29:46:

First, beauty and divinity need not be related. Infact, beauty is better off as a secular concept. Second, the purpose of art is to be meaningful, not divine. If beauty or divinity is meaningful to you, then so be it. But that is your taste, not a trait that all art must possess. Being forced to believe in some form of religion and divinity is not meaningful to everyone. I would have to argue, without trying to offend anyone's religious feelings, that art must part ways with religion at some point to stand on its own. So, "real" beauty is nothing but a personal evaluation of meanigful events, people, concepts etc. How can you explain a mother always finding her son/daughter beautiful (not just as a child but even as a fully grown adult)? Surely, it is not beacause we are all divine! And yes, art does offend sensibilities many a times. Heard of Stanley Kubrick? You can be laughed out of any artistic circle for not seeing his films as art. Art does not have to "please" and "soothe". It can shock people out of complacency. Artistic enterprise, like any other, must be meaningful. Whether it is beautiful or not, divine or not, is totally secondary.

   
   



Archived message. You cannot post a
reply.

All rights reserved.