aesthetics and creative freedom
Aesthetics can be decided in the eye of the beholder, it's obvious that things work this way, whether I think something is beautiful or whether someone else doesn't. Or that I consider a work of art to hold values of good aesthetic appeal and others don't. No one can say that Henry Moore's sculpture is beautiful on the whole, there must remain a possibility for opinion on this matter, otherwise art cannot be art in its deserved state of freedom. Whether something has qualitative aesthetics or not or whether something is beautiful or not must remain a subjective decision reserved for the individual spectataor alone. No one can dictate to me what good art is. I can't dictate that to you either, this is is the nature of art and the reason why it will stay a fair game so to speak. If this state of liberality doesn't stay open-ended, there can be no option to go ahead and make beautiful things and most importantly in the way that you as an individual feel like expressing yourself. This is why I steer away from anything that tries to tell me how aesthetically prolific any one work of art is. It's your prerogative as art fan/critic to take the liberty deciding yourself, that way you can call your experience of that exhibition or whatever it was by which means you were confronted with the work, your own. You had a personal experience with that art medium. Also you can take your opinion of the artwork and add it into the divine equation/ formula that you are continuously in the process of working out. It refers (or doesn't) somehow to those theories of yours relating to life, the universe and great art-making. Most importantly you're in a position as humble art-maker to say whatever the hell you damn well please which is where you should be. Being bigotted is not a danger, it might sound that way, but only in theory. One cannot be close-minded and truly creative at the same time. The subjective nature of this process states that the practitioner can make aesthetic claims- about objective concepts(!). In this realm there is therefore room for ammendment and development. Room to breathe. Also, on the topic of lyricism, one can be as poetic as one chooses to, regardless of having to prove to his/her audience that their work falls within the standards of what's hot and what's not. Someone is bound to think it's not anyway. There's a lot to be said for the allowance of a fighting chance. At the end of the day, there are things we all agree on as well, like some inter-connected pool of appreciations that somehow cross-wire to form a general common conception of `beauty'.
POLLOCK
POLLOCK
KLEE
ROTHKO
RICHTER
RICHTER
RICHTER
HENSON
HENSON
