Is art has to do with beauty?

I am interested in art and before, I wrote poems, but I have some questions. Is art has to do with beauty? Before Picasso, Monet painted beautiful paintings. But Picasso did not try to paint beautifully. So does art has anything to do with beauty? If it is not, what is art? Does art need to have form, or can art be formless?

I think the most important thing that a work of art has to contain something that give rise to a Beauty in the people who perceive it. If it’s a movie, cartoon, work of literature, song, picture – it could be a philosophical idea, not even simple for understanding and definition, maybe like a vague and abstract hint. But this dim hint has to be a message that give rise a beautiful feelings and thoughts in the people.

However, the external representation, the content of this work of art may be very heavy, complicated and sad for perceiving, talk about difficult unpleasant things and so on.

Is beauty the form which truth takes?

or

Is truth the instigator of beauty?

Beauty is difficult to define. Can we distinguish between a recognition of the beautiful not based on personal interests (that flower reminds me of my mother's garden) from a 'pure beauty'? If a 'pure beauty' exists is it true for all mankind across educational and cultural boundaries? Considering the nebulous nature of the concept one is better off simply pursuing one's art without second thoughts.

I think the primary function of art is as a way to express ones self. When what could be a beautiful work of art is presented it can be a reflection of a beautiful emotion that the artist is feeling or it could also represent a desire for there to be more beauty in the physical or interactive realm. In both examples they are forms of expression but one is an expression of inner beauty and in another an expression of desire.

What about Picasso's most famous work: "Guernica" which is a terrible depiction of war. It was commissioned to describe the axis bombing of the city of Guernica. I have heard that art imitates life and Picasso's painting certainly does that. How could beauty figure into this picture? Possibly it is a measure of how well the art itself is an expression of life.

In the case of Guernica I think we revert to the primary cause of art which is to express ones self. Expressing yourself through art does not imply that the art will be beautiful. If we want to assign beauty as a measurement of valuation in works of art I would said the beauty of this work is how well it depicts the ugliness of war and is able to evoke an emotional response from the viewer.

I believe that there is what is called a social unconsciousness and this is something that the Psychologist Erich Fromm discussed in his book: "The Forgotten Language" I believe that the artist who is connected with that social unconsciousness is the artist who can express himself through his work and have an affect of some kind on other people.

What about Picasso's most famous work: "Guernica" which is a terrible depiction of war. It was commissioned to describe the axis bombing of the city of Guernica. I have heard that art imitates life and Picasso's painting certainly does that. How could beauty figure into this picture? Possibly it is a measure of how well the art itself is an expression of life.

There is confusion here between content and form. There are many beautiful paintings depicting Christ on the cross or the martyrdom of Saint Sebastian, two subjects whose content is not in and of itself beautiful, but tragic. Beauty in a work of art is often found in the form, but not the content. That is the case with Guernica, which I used to see years ago at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The form and arrangement of the figures is powerful and moving—hence beautiful—even though the subject itself is a tragedy.

The endless variety of everything in life provides the endless variety of what is called beauty, art, love, tragedy, etc., which is in the eye of each beholder. Beauty, art, love, tragedy etc., is different things at different times to each person. As far as beauty goes - just ask any mother if she thinks her child is beautiful - the answer is usually yes. There are no absolutes in any of these areas.

Beauty is that which pleases our senses the most and remains relative to our own receptors. Extraneous to that there is no such quality.

I feel this discounts the mind as the ultimate receptor and its ability to achieve perspective ad infintum through letting go to systems.

The endless variety of everything in life provides the endless variety of what is called beauty, art, love, tragedy, etc., which is in the eye of each beholder. Beauty, art, love, tragedy etc., is different things at different times to each person. As far as beauty goes - just ask any mother if she thinks her child is beautiful - the answer is usually yes. There are no absolutes in any of these areas.

As far as facial attractiveness is concerned research consistently shows it is not individual—in the eye of the beholder— but common across races and genders. It is the average face that is attractive. Using computer images, faces can be averaged, and the more images you throw into the process the more attractive the face becomes. A demonstration of this in which you can select the faces to be averaged is online at:

http://www.faceresearch.org/demos/average

It's fun to try different combinations, but if you use very many the composite faces will all look alike. There may be others available now.

What is unattractive to humans apparently is deviation from the norm, for example a face that is not symmetric or one in which proportions are unusual. There may be an evolutionary reason for this, namely that such a face might reflect the presence of mutations, making its owner less suitable for breeding.

The original observation that average faces are more attractive goes all the way back to Sir Francis Dalton, who discovered the famous Dalton's law—that offspring tend to regress toward the norm. Children of tall parents will be taller than average, but generally not as tall as their parents. Nature favors the norm.

The endless variety of everything in life provides the endless variety of what is called beauty, art, love, tragedy, etc., which is in the eye of each beholder. Beauty, art, love, tragedy etc., is different things at different times to each person. As far as beauty goes - just ask any mother if she thinks her child is beautiful - the answer is usually yes. There are no absolutes in any of these areas.

As far as facial attractiveness is concerned research consistently shows it is not individual—in the eye of the beholder— but common across races and genders. It is the average face that is attractive. Using computer images, faces can be averaged, and the more images you throw into the process the more attractive the face becomes. A demonstration of this in which you can select the faces to be averaged is online at:

http://www.faceresearch.org/demos/average

It's fun to try different combinations, but if you use very many the composite faces will all look alike. There may be others available now.

What is unattractive to humans apparently is deviation from the norm, for example a face that is not symmetric or one in which proportions are unusual. There may be an evolutionary reason for this, namely that such a face might reflect the presence of mutations, making its owner less suitable for breeding.

The original observation that average faces are more attractive goes all the way back to Sir Francis Dalton, who discovered the famous Dalton's law—that offspring tend to regress toward the norm. Children of tall parents will be taller than average, but generally not as tall as their parents. Nature favors the norm.

While nature favors the 'norm', except where mutations of distortion or extremes occur, the norm is the rule and not the exception. People tend to think their own family traits are more beautiful than other people. The 'norm' is variety. Unattractive or people with distortions are usually attractive to someone and marry and are successful sometimes more so than what is considered the norm. While attractiveness is generalized by these observations, people tend to be attracted to others for many reasons. It is quite normal to see a very handsome male or very pretty female with an unattractive person. It is also normal for one to initially find someone attractive or unattractive but after spending time with them they become the opposite. (pretty becomes ugly - ugly becomes pretty)

Have you ever seen the video of the girl without a face? She was born horribly disfigured but she had the most loving parents I have ever witnessed. She could not speak so they used sign language and told her she was beautiful on a regular basis. The interviews I saw them on the child was mentally normal which I attribute to her remarkable parents. google - girl without a face

While nature favors the 'norm', except where mutations of distortion or extremes occur, the norm is the rule and not the exception. People tend to think their own family traits are more beautiful than other people. The 'norm' is variety. Unattractive or people with distortions are usually attractive to someone and marry and are successful sometimes more so than what is considered the norm. While attractiveness is generalized by these observations, people tend to be attracted to others for many reasons. It is quite normal to see a very handsome male or very pretty female with an unattractive person. It is also normal for one to initially find someone attractive or unattractive but after spending time with them they become the opposite. (pretty becomes ugly - ugly becomes pretty)

That may all be true or not, I have little evidence either way. In any case my observations were only about facial attractiveness, which, as you point out, is only one component of attractiveness.