Alain CULOS wrote:
> 
> 
> I've tried to think about that and I have to disagree.
> I think most people confine the boundaries of art to their understanding of
> beauty, which is much less than beauty in its whole. That is one point. The
> other one being that in my humble opinion some people fail to express their
> ideas through beauty and express them through distress, uglyness, torture, ...
> all evil stuff. I think evrything can be expressed through beauty of some sort,
> but it might take a considerable extra amount of thinking, skill and energy to
> reach such a goal. Yet I am convinced that we should all aim at that.
>

I'll try to be brief since, as Lance so kindly pointed out, this is getting OT.
I can't be too wrong in saying that every artist wishes to convey a message. The
purpose of this message may be to provoke, to alarm, to warn, etc. Why should
this be conveyed with beauty? The goal is not to make the audience feel better.
The goal is to make an impact. Yet is this not art?
And what if the artist feels angry or depressed? These are not 'nice' feelings,
but does he not have the right to express them? It may ease him and also ease
the minds of similar people. Not because they consider it beautiful, but because
they can relate to it.
BTW, I'm sometimes a bit allergic to 'nice' as I'm sure are many others :)
Perhaps it's cynicism, but that's me.

Margus

Post a reply to this message