I..Am..Speechless

[natelox]

I do not believe that art or architecture needs to be, or is, esoteric or elitist (prescribed), but my comments about 'the wrong' reasons for disliking art are indicative of people's lack of interest in actually looking at things closely. Few people are able to verbalize why they find a piece of work ugly. To say that a work of art is ugly because it is unsymmetrical or disproportionate is much better than no rationalization, though it still lacks the further probing question of 'why is it ugly because it is unsymmetrical or disproportionate?' I would much rather hear that a piece of art makes the viewer aggravated because it is unsymmetrical (and thus the viewer wants it to be symmetrical or asymmetrical), than hear that it is ugly. Once the viewer states it is aggravating, then we can ask if that emotion is what the artist intended to derive. Rationalization of acceptance or dismissal is important because it allows us to look at art objectively. E.H. Gombrich's seminal 'Story of Art' suggests people may find certain works of art ugly because of bad past experiences, or associations. If Joe doesn't like the taste of apples, will his judgement of a painting of an apple as 'ugly' have any relevance (this is obviously simplified, but I hope you get my drift). Clement Greenberg, a famous art critic is famous for his statement "all profoundly original art looks ugly at first." It is difficult to move forward if we look at everything with a stagnant mind. Reducing art to a matter of beauty or ugliness is to miss the point.