As one who has dabbled in free jazz and experimental music - each of which is routinely dubbed "not music" by artistic conservatives - I do not think beauty is necessary for art, not even a bit. It helps, and most great art has tremendous aesthetic appeal, but most art is not necessarily great, good or even competent. Incompetent art is still art, just as a "lemon" PC destined for use as a doorstop is still a PC. A child's kindergarten drawing is art too, just art with a limited audience, ie. the child's parents and desperately sentimental and twee types :)Spraticus wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2018, 11:58 amI suspect that everyone here would agree that all art has some sort of conceptual content. The conceptual movement has chosen to accentuate that aspect, to the point that the artifact can be done away with in some cases. The aesthetic element however, could go into negative territory so "appeal" might be the wrong word. In other cases, such as switching a light off and on, the aesthetic content is elusive to a point close to invisibility. (As is the contribution of the "artist".)
Majority opinion need not necessarily act as a referent. Art - from shallow saccharine sweet blandness to gritty, uncompromising representations of chaos and absurdity - is created by people for the purpose of expressing mind or emotion or attempting to impress on the minds or emotions of others.