Concepts of Beauty in Art

Concepts of lulu in imposture trick Keats saucer and justiceIn his famous apostrophe to the Grecian Urn, the immortal poet, can Keats, wrote Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe than ours, a star to man, to whom thou sayst, ravisher is justice, truth bang, that is each ye know on e fraudh, and all ye need to know.This very famous statement on Beauty and Truth and their interchangeability poses a very important doubtfulness in the postmodern era. Art and its convention of the Beauty/Beautiful has imperceptibly changed over the decades, from something that should conjecture the I allot (and in reality, twice removed from it, as per Plato), or in essence consummate(a) and offering pleasure to the senses to something, that expresses the unique consciousness/angst of the creator. Art has thus rediscovered its definition for dishful.If beauty is truth, then(prenominal) it may dare to be grotesque too, for truth may be harsh or horrific. Beauty does not suggest somethin g beautiful in the real sense of the term, further that, which comes closer to the true expressions of the self and the vision of a generations psyche, that is fragmented, kitsch- standardised, complex and beyond the metanarratives of a suffocating conformity. Beauty has evolved into a freedom for expression. Contemporary prowess, particularly questions the paradigms of aesthetic values, with artists like Chapman Brothers or Justin Novak producing artwork that are clearly meant to elicit reactions and challenge t iodins of beauty, that had its roots in Kants Critique of Judgment (1790). It contemplated on the subtile aesthetic baffle of art consisting of a disinterested observer, pleasing for its throw sake and beyond any utility or morality. Now, the very article pleasing may have different boundaries and contemporary art is try to escalate their claims. If Marcel Duchamp made a fountain out of a urinal in 1917, that hurtled the Dadaist movement and that later amplified into a surrealist tendency looking into lowbred art for their subconscious inspiration, to reveal the mental process, then the essential need behind the whole thing was subversion.If primitivism was motivating a naked as a jaybird dimension by which beauty of the mind was revealed, then Picasso altogether subjectified art and personal experience into a fourth dimension and take a shitd a cubist movement to claim a break down of a ordinance that no longer held on to techniques, symbols and least of all universal criteria for mind anything. There are many socio-ideological pressures behind the same and the destructive founding Wars had many reasons to question the notions behind the traditional idea of Beauty, and it addressed the subjective, abstruse and alienated psyche of modern man. Metaphysical hopelessness gave absurdity to beauty, go the meaninglessness of this Being, made beauty see more akin to grotesque, either by derision or by the light of their tragic truth. What makes the question more intriguing is that, whether contemporary art has found a give out form of beauty (constructed to please and create a certain dianoetic paradigm) in the grotesque, since it frees us from any moral and political/ideological constraints? corporation it be linked to greater dimensions of teleological magnitude, or should it be enured as an alternative method of understanding true aesthetic, if not the complete aspect of aesthetic itself? Is grotesque possible without the knowledge of Beauty itself?I shall attempt to answer the following questions that I raised, with a few examples. unmatchable must first understand the idea behind perception and the dialogical force that surrounds it. If the world is raised as an illusion in ones mind then the mind has been symbolically trained to read it as a language. This ground substance of complex spontaneity is paradigmatically and syntagmatically (Roman Jakobson, 1987) being challenged, when Grotesque plays the part of Beauty. The Dystopia arises out of a shattered archetype that must restructure itself to include elements of the grotesque within the beauty, and reach towards the same aesthetic experience the grand. But interestingly what produces sublime is shock. But one must not confuse this with the cathartic experience of the Tragic pity and terror, but something quite opposite to an ideal communicatory situation that all such art produces. thus this element of mimesis and/or representation of the ideal have given way to an infinite subjectiveness (Hegel, Lectures on ok Art, given in the 1820s), or the abyss of the human mind and condition. But the self is interpellated as per Lacan and later Althusser too estimated the impossibleness of a single position from where one can judge, since the self was fix with a lot of logocentricism (Derrida), which are again socio-culturally specific as per Barthes. hence there is a complete inquiry into art through the artists genius or self (or selves).Justin Novaks disfigurine often conforming to the bourgeoisie values, distort them to such an ironic extent that one cannot miss the counter realism that it offers. very much it serves to offer no alternative reality, but just launches one amidst a grotesque re-examination of old values and with its attendant disillusionment. Once there is a silent barrier between class and sex is dismantled, the escape is into wind the sublime height of vast unending solutions and this underscores the definite presence and the horrors of eonian conformism. If truth is beauty, then Novaks artworks reveal the finer sides of it by shattering the golden and compartmentalized thought processes with which one can intentify art from a safe distance. The grotesque closeness of these truths gives beauty to the mind by psychotherapeutic it from the shackles of confinement and over superpowering illusions. Truth is not universal, but a power to accept the inextricable complexity of human behaviour, mind and his/her social, cultural and diachronic environment. Is Grotesque a rebellion? Or is it an inextricable element of beauty?Disfigurines 2006, by Justin NovakGrayson Perrys ceramic works portray this polemic by making them superficially beautiful (as beauty has been notoriously claimed to have been) and underneath it dust the darker motives of an artist who tries to wrest with disturbing truths (or shall one call them home truths, with a larger social back drop to them). His works like approaching Out Dress 2000, Weve Found the Body of your Child 2000 or the muffled Cool People 1999 (reminds one of Eliots famous lines from The Love shout of J. Alfred Prufrock In the room the women come and go, Talking of Michaelangelo). Not only does he deal with issues like cross-dressing, child abuse and social sterility (spiritually hollow sang-froid fashionistas), but also he plays with this abnormal interrelation between beauty and grotesque. He raises questions about ta ste and the sublime. In short he subverts the notion of beauty with beauty that is skin deep Reality is a blame faade and Perry questions whether hegemony denotes or connotes the medium of taste in art.Transvestite to transgression, the Chapman Brothers question the inevitability or orthodox value of the canon. This reflects in their works, defacement and torture figures create the complete picture of Beauty. They usher in a new audition with taste, bad taste and the notions of good taste. Art moves into the realms of public or band low category, which becomes an essential democratic medium for evoking or carrying forward a provocation to rouse the sense of that horrifying answerless void. With the Chapman brothers there is a sadist tone attached to their insult or reiteration of Goyas influence especially in the irrecreation of his Disasters of War, which inflict bold horror. But the grandeur of that horror is reduced to a trivial and yet a sardonic good sensetaste comes off th em. They twist the sensation of violence into an aestheticground and arouse a variety of physical and mental demands for perceiving Beauty amidst such a squandering grotesqueness. Beauty here lies in the give up from holding back appreciation, awe and complete shock. Violence does not stand-alone and nor does any other human emotion. Sex, 2003 is thus desire, decay, diabolical, deliberate, freedom or defeat. honour is not that far fromits pornographic mockery of it and they are interrelated in their apparent verisimilitude.A true representation of kitsch art, their works like zygotic Acceleration, roused shock as they attempted to portray the sexualisation of children due to the media and increased gender awareness. These treatments nevertheless push questions about morality that grotesque beauty in truth challenges. Thus morality and beauty in its aesthetic straight forwardedness seem to flatten out newer boundaries of experiences, which the Chapman brothers challenge through the ir craftsmanship.Traditional Sculpture, especially in the hands of the Chapman Brothers and Justin Novak or Grayson Perry are objects of anti-canonical parody, grotesque imitations or thought-provoking reverse-discourses. alone these postmodern artists are challenging aesthetic experience. All these artworks succumb to one the power of the grotesque that sublimates beauty with its truth, and they make us realize that truth is not about a fixed standard, but accepting the actual absence of it. What makes contemporary art more beastly in its beauty is the power to derive happiness (or sado-masochist satisfaction) out of this grotesqueness. The grotesque shocks but this is a pleasure in itself, because it is the very representation of the consciousness. Theatre and artwork met with experimentalism in the stage by Artaud, who made audience a spectator to cruelness that is harsh, exceptionally brutal and yet beautiful. By shattering estrangement and by creating something that allows no objectivity (in the likes of Kant or Brecht) Artaud demands a complete involvement of the senses. Moreover, this is where art threatens to change the soul of the perceiver by its dominating beauty, which horrifies the perceiver with its verity and unique angst.Wittgensteins concept of seeing-as, allows contemporary art to shun master narratives completely and standout on their own purely as visual sensations. From British caravan art that confuses common and the uncommon (like use of mannequin by Chapman Brothers or genitals replaced by the faces in their remake of Goyas Disasters of Wars series). Grotesquerie is about inquisitive the status quo, about unflinching self-criticism and about embracing outsiders. From Simon Carroll deconstructing the chronology of ceramic vases with his pastiches like Thrown Square Pot2005, engages the observers mind with complex questions that he poses through the s construction of his surfaces.Thrown Square Pot2005, Simon Carroll.The artists seem to dwell on the apparent hyperreality of contemporary situation, where art has become a vastly reproduced object fractured beyond identity. Formlessness becomes the beauty without symmetry and deliberate cruelty an aesthetic grotesqueness. Thus the gap between what is apparent and what may actually exists gives the artists ample situation to bridge this defined categories with crushing forces of expressions that though grotesque to the shocked senses is in the end beautiful by virtue of its truth.Works CitedEliot, T. S The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Prufrock and Other Observations. London The Egoist, Ltd, 1917 Bartleby.com, 1996. www.bartleby.com/198/. 30.01.2007. ON-LINE ED. Published May 1996 by Bartleby.com Copyright Bartleby.com, Inc. (Terms of Use).Hegel, Lectures on Fine Art, (edited by Hotho) Aesthetics Lectures on Fine Art, Vol. 1.translated by T. M. Knox, 1973. Poetical Works. London Macmillan, 1884 Bartleby.com, 1999 Jakobson, Roman. Langu age in Literature. Ed. Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy. Cambridge, MA Belknap, 1987. see influential essay Linguistics and Poetics by Roman Jakobson, in their battle array Language in Literature (1987).