Detail from Christ Carrying The Cross, (1515-1516), Hieronymus Bosch
Introduction
Ideas of beauty have been central in our appreciation of art for thousands of years. From the roof of the Sistine Chapel to ancient Greek statues, art has provided a medium with which to celebrate man's ability to create work of the highest visual order. The idea of beauty, and its represention in art, has not only provided seemingly unending subject matter for artists but has helped provide criteria with which evaluate art itself.
So what of beauty's counterpoint, ugliness? It was not until German philosopher Karl Rosenkranz’s “Aesthetics of Ugliness”, published in 1853, that the 'Ugly' was systematically treated as a central notion in art. By calling an art work 'ugly' many people would deem that the artist has failed, implying the beauty is one of the main attributes for a successful work. So does ugliness define itself as merely in its oppsition to beauty? Or does it hold its own intrinsic attributes? And what criteria do we use to describe something as ugly in the first place?
Moving into a contemporary art context, we find the idea of aesthetics as the most effective criteria for evaluating art being strongly challenged. Increasingly, many artworks are purposely designed to be judged on the concept behind the work, rather than the way it looks. So it is ever relevant to call conceptual art ugly?
Through the study of the ugly in art we will explore some of its varying definitions, historical and contemporary examples and the role of aesthetics in evaluating art. If ugliness is seen as the unecessary cousin of beauty, and even aethestics become less important in evaluating art in a contemporary context, where does that leave ugly?
So what of beauty's counterpoint, ugliness? It was not until German philosopher Karl Rosenkranz’s “Aesthetics of Ugliness”, published in 1853, that the 'Ugly' was systematically treated as a central notion in art. By calling an art work 'ugly' many people would deem that the artist has failed, implying the beauty is one of the main attributes for a successful work. So does ugliness define itself as merely in its oppsition to beauty? Or does it hold its own intrinsic attributes? And what criteria do we use to describe something as ugly in the first place?
Moving into a contemporary art context, we find the idea of aesthetics as the most effective criteria for evaluating art being strongly challenged. Increasingly, many artworks are purposely designed to be judged on the concept behind the work, rather than the way it looks. So it is ever relevant to call conceptual art ugly?
Through the study of the ugly in art we will explore some of its varying definitions, historical and contemporary examples and the role of aesthetics in evaluating art. If ugliness is seen as the unecessary cousin of beauty, and even aethestics become less important in evaluating art in a contemporary context, where does that leave ugly?
Definitions
Anytime a word is in bold you will find a definition at the bottom of the page.
Aesthetics: A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
Aesthetics: A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
