Which of these statements do you agree with more?

[Mr. Dictator]

Another thread with no real purpose than to discuss a thought that's popped into my head. Enjoy!

Do you agree that:

A.) Something requires truth to be considered beautiful.

B.) Creativity requires the ability to see past the truth.

Assume for this discussion that creativity's meaning is to create something beautiful, whatever that means to you.

For the sake of avoiding the rut of "well, both", I'd like to ask you to argue for the statement that you agree with more. If you have a view that contradicts both, however, consider it welcome.

 

[amadeus]

I don't understand either statement.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I don't understand either statement.

Lets say you go to a museum. There's a statue on the left that is a perfect sculpture of a human being. Down to every pore. To the right is a Dali style painting, using symbols and set in a semi-realistic setting. Which would you be more drawn to?

To me, while the statue on the left would be very interesting from a technical standpoint, the painting on the right would draw me in faster, because it isn't of this world, but only from the artist's. Its more of an actual work of creation.

Oh crap. Upon thinking of this, I realize I could have just asked "Yo dawg, do you like realism or not in your art?"

Blast you, sleep-deprivation.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Going by the revised question above, I don't mind one over the other.

i.e. both realism and non-realism are neat in art

 

[azzaman333]

Realism is of no importance to me.

 

[Jehoshua]

I would say the question should be looked at more pluralistically, referring both to realism, but also to say a moral or emotional truth revealed in the art. So to use an example Picasso's guernica is not a paragon of realism, but it does indeed reveal something of the truth of the horror of industrialised warfare. Some amorphous blob that passes as art is likewise not realist, but contrarily to my previous reference it fails to convey any truth at all.

 

[Gigaz]

Good art is always a combination of elements that are familiar to us with new and surprising things. In my experience, the more I know about a certain field of art, the more I admire new and possibly unrealistic elements, especially when they go beyond the style in earlier pieces of art. That is true for music, paintings, movies and even for individual coolness.

 

[Yoda Power]

I'm a pretty big fan of Dali, so I guess I vote for B...

 

[Maniacal]

If it is art, it doesn't matter if it is realism or not, as long as it looks good.

 

[classical_hero]

Sometimes the truth is harsh and disturbing, how can it be considered beautiful?

 

[Tee Kay]

Lets say you go to a museum. There's a statue on the left that is a perfect sculpture of a human being. Down to every pore. To the right is a Dali style painting, using symbols and set in a semi-realistic setting. Which would you be more drawn to?

Neither. So, to follow on from that example, I'd be attracted to the perfect sculpture because of how realistic it is; if the sculpture is meant to be or is presented in a way that implied that it should be accurate, but it's not, then I have a problem with it. It's different again if the sculpture was misshapened in a meaningful way.

The accurate sculpture is still creation; it's a representation of a human being, not a copy.

 

[NickyJ]

Neither. If the "perfect sculpture of a human being down to every pore" is of a 400 pound man guzzling a 48 pack of beer, I wouldn't consider it beautiful. Likewise, if the Dali style painting is of yet another set of steamrolled clocks, I wouldn't consider that beautiful either.

Basically, it depends on the art.

 

[Kyriakos]

Worth to note that even in ancient Greek sculpture the movement to make ultra realistic sculptures reached a pinnacle, and then, well, the statues become expressionistic. So it is not as if realism is a static thing, expressionism presents emotions symbolized as alterations in natural form, and it can be said to be every bit about the 'truth' as hardcore realism is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

For paintings, I prefer realism. For sculpture... in the example given in the OP, it would depend on what kind of human being depicted. I remember being shown slides of Greek art in my classical history course in college, and thinking that collectively, the culture became extremely talented and innovative. But in the end, a statue is still just a hunk of dead marble, bronze, etc.

 

[warpus]

Depends on the piece of art for me.. I like some because they're realistic, and some because they aren't.

 

[Narz]

Neither statement really gets my juices flowing but the 1st is stupider than than 2nd. If the 1st were true all performance art would not be art since it's not truthful. One could argue the actor looks to find the truth of that character inside themselves but that's not truth, it's relating to something which is not totally true. Forming lies out of semi-truths (the actor becomes angry to portray anger but it's still somewhat false).

 

[Elrohir]

I think both are generally true, but I voted for A because it needed some lovin'.

I am, of course, using "truth" a little loosely here. Take, for instance, fictional stories: they're obviously not "true" stories. But the best ones, the stories that stick with you, are true in another sense -- they reflect some aspect of life, humanity, or reality in a meaningful way. Even if the stories aren't true, there's definitely truth in them.

That sort of truth is necessary for the creation of true art. It's not sufficient, as usually you have to add to it. But it is necessary.

 

[Zelig]

I have no appreciation for art.

Not that I think it's worthless, I just don't personally have, or feel any need to develop an appreciation for it.

 

[Narz]

You seem to like hearts though. Aren't hearts art?

 

[dusters]

I chose B, because we have photographs for realism. Okay, sculpting as near as possible life-like sculptures requires virtuoso skills, but to my taste, imagining/inventing stuff in your brain and then manifesting it in perceivable reality is what art is about imho.