Nehaveigur

The artist is the creator of beautiful things

Oscar Wilde

In high school, I got into an argument with my art teacher. For a project counting towards my final grade, I wanted to create a naturalistic drawing. My teacher objected, claiming that naturalism lacked creativity. She became more agitated than I did, perhaps due to her emotional nature, which only reinforced my sense that I was onto something. In the end, I drew my realistic kingfisher, and she awarded me a low, but passing, grade.

For at least a century, the art world has been divided between those who believe art should primarily be beautiful and those who regard beauty as secondary. As long as I can recall, those who prioritize beauty have been in the minority, and I proudly count myself among them.

My only demand for art is that it must be something I want to be around: it should be beautiful and interesting. If it cannot be interesting, beauty alone will suffice.

Since many regard this view as reactionary, allow me to elaborate. If an artist must make their work ugly to be interesting, I believe they have failed. However, my demand for beauty pertains to the form, not the content. A novel must be beautifully written, even when it deals with disturbing events. Similarly, a painting must be beautiful to look at, even when portraying horrific scenes. This does not imply that art must always carry a message; it’s entirely acceptable for art not to have any meaning. Art can be political, it can change minds, but it’s under no obligation to do so. Instrumental music exemplifies this principle.