The Creation Of Beauty Is Art

I think that art can go beyond that limit. Some art is not beautiful, but it conveys emotion, or maybe just a concept.
Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, is one somewhat obvious example. The focus is horror and ugliness, and it conveys that message with power.
Art that challenges you to think is another general example. So it need not just be emotion.

What he said.

"The Creation Of Beauty" is one of the facets of art but that doesn't describe what art is. Reversing that quote actually describes it more closely for me... "The Creation Of Art is Beauty".

My philosophy is this...

"Art doesn't have to be beautiful, but it better damn well be interesting".

~ Brian Wallace

Brian, I agree with you :D!

Thank you Xueling. :)

For me, the act of "Creating" is inherently artistic. Often the intrinsic content is subjective.

Art is vast , and vastly subjective . If you feel different after observing it, it's possible you haven't wasted your time.

These are all wonderful comments.

The quote, "The creation of beauty is art," comes from Emerson's book, "Nature", in the chapter on "Beauty."

Emerson elaborates on his definition:

"The creation of beauty is art.

"The production of a work of art throws a light upon the mystery of humanity. A work of art is an abstract or epitome of the world. It is the result or expression of nature, in miniature.

"For, although the works of nature are innumerable and all different, the result or the expression of them all is similar and single. Nature is a sea of forms radically alike and even unique. A leaf, a sun-beam, a landscape, the ocean, make an analogous impression on the mind.

"What is common to them all, -- the totality of nature; which the Italians expressed by defining beauty, "il piu nell' uno." Nothing is quite beautiful alone; nothing but is beautiful in the whole. A single object is only so far beautiful as it suggests this universal grace.

"The poet, the painter, the sculptor, the musician, the architect, seek each to concentrate this radiance of the world on one point, and each in his several work to satisfy the love of beauty which stimulates him to produce. Thus is Art, a nature passed through the alembic of man. Thus in art, does nature work through the will of a man filled with the beauty of her first works."

I would add H.G Wells' quote too: "Beauty is in the heart of the beholder"

Richard, that is a "beautiful" point. If the viewers heart resonates with the artwork, then they perceive beauty. There are two involved here, in the sense of how the artwork is appreciated by the artist who created it, and how it influences others who see it.

No, not close.

the creation of beauty is in most cases just Kitsch - unless we talk about something different than merely outer appearances

To the pure, all things are pure.

I think beauty is one of the lowest and most basic qualities of art.
It should not be the ultimate goal or purpose.

That's like saying, "The creation of rhythm is music."

It depends on what you define beauty as :)

"The creation of beauty is art."
---- Ralph Waldo Emerson


"The DISCOVERY of beauty is art."
------ Robert G. Kernodle

"Beauty" might well be something that we find "interesting", "disturbing", "meaningful", "relevant", or any number of other qualities. ... There is not one definition of "beauty" in my book.

" The desecration of beauty is art". ------Ronald C. Walker----- The issue with beauty is it cannot be defined. It differs greatly from person to person and culture to culture. If you set out to create something beautiful some might say "Wow, dude that is awesomely beautiful!" While others would say, Dude that looks like a festering pimple on a dog's butt!" The odd thing is if you set out to desecrate beauty the responses might be much the same. For me the concept of visual communication hits closer to a worthwhile goal. Oops, forgot era to era as well!

Manda, you are right, there can be innumerable definitions of beauty.

Emerson looks on everything as having beauty. In "Nature", he comments:

"The eye is the best of artists....As light is the first composer, so the eye is the first of painters. There is no object so foul that intense light will not make beautiful. And the stimulus it affords to the sense, and a sort of infinitude which it hath, like space and time, make all matter gay. Even the corpse has its own beauty....Almost all the individual forms are agreeable to the eye, as proved by our endless imitations of some of them."

" The desecration of beauty is art". ------Ronald C. Walker

How totally modern of you. (^_^) ... A very valid historical observation, if not a fundamental truth.

The thing with beauty is that it is somewhat flexible, ... to the point that its negation can be positive too.

Beauty, thus, is a circle, maybe, and the location of its poles depends on your position on that circle.

Very well stated Mr. Emerson
As beauty is more than our intellectual findings.

That beauty means many things to many people is an ugly truth.

I once met a fairly reputable modern sculptress who did very stark installation pieces about war, who used the word "beautiful" to describe simple pedestrian table settings in the rich patron's house where she was a dinner guest - I was bar tending the event.

Sometimes art is NOT abut beauty at all.

Sometimes it IS.

No artist can create beauty ......just extrapolate what they feel is as such on their works. Universally beauty is not a human constant as with other life forms. No artist seeks ugly as a goal except special effects magic companies working for film studios.

Sure is a great goal though to get going in the morning with the idea of making a "beautiful" scene or portrait. I thing there will always be a descrepancy as to what is beautiful between an artist and the common human.

My stuff ain't beautiful but I'm not an artist.

" The beauty of creation is art " .... Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Enjoying beauty and all it implies means that you have a very good taste in spotting what is nice for your eyes to see and what is not. However, having good taste is nothing in comparison to the creation of beauty itself. All this process involves a lot of motivation, energy, and effort and of course imagination and it is called art.

I usually focus on creating decorative wall art attempting to put complimentary colors together. Some prefer the opposite like the macabre art, and that is amazing work...so it's all in what someone wants on their wall, and what speaks to the buyer.

Some want nature photos, and others want microscopic mold or crystals. Art can literally be anything. Some people want nudes and others are offended by such a thing. It's always in the buyer's preference.

If as an artist, you can find a brand new style that everyone finds wonderful, you have hit the jackpot. Usually a product like that is beautiful.

I've never seen ugly art sell.

If you want to check out an eye-opener on the perception of beauty, click on the link below for Denis Dutton's TED talk on "A Darwinian Theory of Beauty". He presents a very persuasive argument on how "The experience of beauty is one component in a whole series of Darwinian adaptations. Beauty is an adaptive effect which we extend and intensify in the creation and enjoyment of works of art and entertainment."

https://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty?language=en