Does Beauty Matter?

“In such ugly times, the only true protest is beauty." 

Phil Ochs, protest songwriter and singer 

Today, beauty is an industry and its mouthpiece magazines put to despairing so many youth, especially women.

Blame Photoshop editing!

Britney Spears reveals her Pre-Photoshop body in new pics

Art is NOT about glamour!

Right: Lucian Freud painted a pregnant Kate Moss.

Is beauty subjective or can it be objective?

Since ancient Greece, there was established a connection between musical and visual harmony (geometry). This connection  was re-explored during the 15th century Renaissance when the scientific method was taking shape. This is called "Aesthetics", a discipline rejected by nietzschean philosophy and postmodernism. For them, beauty is only subjective and therefore ugliness does not exist anymore for them (however they still harshly critize those who show some "beauty" in their artwork!) Thi argument falls short when one is considering, say, cooking as a form of art. Sure, anyone wouldf agree that shit smells and tastes as shit and doesn't taste "good"! This is an objective fact, not a mere opinion on the relativity of our taste.
When ancient Greeks saw the connection between musical and visual harmonies, this became a proof there is something universal (and objective)!

Note: in music, a string divided by 3/5th generates the major sixth. For example, the interval from C to A is a major sixth. 

More:

• Why Beauty Matters Documentary (video on vimeo)
• More from this author on this subject here.
• Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty

Philosopher Roger Scruton: Why Beauty Matters?

More from this author on this subject here.

Is Contemporary Art stuck in Duchamp's urinal?

'Fountain' 1917 urinal by Marcel Duchamp.

Since Marcel Duchamp's days, today's "contemporary art" has been a mere attempt to ape Duchamp's "anti-Art dadaist statement". Often taken out of context, both political and social (this was during First World War) our today's contemporary young artists look at this superficially and believe that "urinals" are art!
Duchamp was an anarchist, opposed to the war and the political elites associated with it, he therefore was disgusted by pompous "academic art" aka the "Art establishment", the "bourgeois" and all the financial and statutory privileges associated with it. He considered them as guilty by "joint enterprise". This made him feel the need to urinate, hence his "urinal"...
Today the anarchist/punk Duchamp would certainly challenge our "Contemporary Art Establishment" (aka Turner prize, Saatchi, YBA etc) whose members spend most of their time and mental energy asking themselves whether "this is Art or not?" (as if "stuck") to find this comforting answer : money. Contemporary art has just become an empty and vain commodity whose "value" is defined by a greedy speculative market.
Should you be surprised that viewing today's "contemporary art" makes me feel the need to urinate too?

To laugh or to cry? That is my question...

The "twin masks of comedy and tragedy" are used to represent the creative arts, particularly theater. Shakespeare was the master in handling both masks. These concepts were born in ancient Greece more than 2,500 years ago. Their endurance across the centuries reflects the power of drama and the twin themes of joy and despair which bracket the human condition.
Though they can appear separately and indeed evolved as representations of different dramatic art forms, their appearance together holds far more symbolic importance.

(Comic mask with tragic mask in background, Roman, 2nd century CE London, British Museum. )

On that theme, I did two years ago this portrait of 'Funmi Adewole, an artist, a dancer, a poet and friend of mine. The idea was to convey 'Funmi's different facets or her personality, sometimes sad, sometimes happy. The two facets are in a sort of "emotional perspective". I submitted it then to the annual National Portrait Gallery (NPG ) "BP award". It was not even short-listed by the jury.
Should I cry or should I laugh? ;-)



This is a portrait of myself and my daughter. I believe that both expressions, apparently "opposite" (sad and happy) in fact complement each other, just like so-called "opposite colours" (eg red and green. blue and orange, yellow and purple...) complement each other.
Should we cry or should we laugh? ;-)




On that same old theme: Democritus (c. 460 - c. 370 B.C.) and Heraclitus (c. 540 - c. 475 B.C.) are known as the 'laughing and crying philosophers.' Fresco transferred to canvas (Bramante 1477)
Should they cry or should they laugh? ;-)



This is Leonardo da Vinci s Joconda with her mysterious smile: happiness or sadness?
My answer: it is BOTH happiness AND sadness. ;)