Week 2 - Beauty

Odalisque

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (French, 1780-1867)

https://art.thewalters.org/detail/18275/odalisque-with-slave/

I really enjoyed viewing this piece in the article and even more in full color!

This article was very interesting to me. Without our Zoom discussion and classmates annotations, I fear that I would still be very confused on what exactly Amelia Jones was trying to get at. Once understanding her argument that we should judge art in a more dynamic and inclusive way, I agreed with her point. Jones is criticizing traditional aesthetic judgements. She explains that this tactic may seem foolproof, but in reality, art is very subjective and each individual will view a piece of art very differently than another.

I have always thought that a person's human experience and situations leading up to this point will influence how they view things in life, especially art. We all view things differently because of personal aesthetic choices, but on a deeper level, art can bring up memories or remind us of a certain person. Jones brings up that even though people have different views on art, there is always still some sort of interest in an art piece. Jones brings up Edmund Burke's text A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful to explore the idea that the woman's body was the original example of aesthetic beauty. Specific aesthetic values are hooked to this body type, which directly affects aesthetic judgements.

Hickey's view of beauty is very ethnocentric because he uses personal taste while trying to influence others about what true beauty of art is. He especially seems to enjoy Western Art which is understandable because that is the culture he is surrounded by. It is not understandable however when he is trying to define the beauty of art and/or judge other cultures' art when he has preexisting liking to certain style or type of art. It is obvious that when brought up or exposed to certain opinions or objects early on, we take a liking to them. By stating that some art is good and other art is just not just because it does not have enough shock value, this becomes an opinion instead of a definition.

I honestly do not think there is a way to make a universal definition of beauty that isn't ethnocentric, elitist, racist, or sexist because I think there will always be a certain group of people or culture that is left out or not equally represented. In the text, it is mentioned that Hickey's opinion is that for art to be beautiful it has to affect the viewer immensely. Whether that means it shocks the viewer, or just has a massive impact on them, it is true that people will have different reactions to certain art. Therefore, I believe that we are all too individually unique to make a universal definition of beauty.

As an artist myself, this article helped me reflect on my own body of work and try to figure out what groups of people it would appeal to most. It also makes me think about how I could include some sort of shock value to appease Hickey's opinions, but also remember that the aesthetics of my art alone will catch the viewers attention. I have never thought in depth about the viewer's reaction (although I should have), but reading this text makes me want to briefly think of them while creating art. Whether that is how it might display in a gallery, color palate or concept.

Overall, this reading was difficult for me but I think I understood the main points and learned a lot about aesthetic judgment and individual art style.

Jones, A. (2002). Beauty discourse and the logic of aesthetics. In Aesthetics in a Multicultural Age (pp. 215–233). Oxford University Press.