The Necessity of Aesthetics in Art

Brad, the professor of Fine Arts Department in COD did something stunning in the annual faculty show. People were startled and somewhat offended seeing his pile of six pieces of wood with a pot of plant atop.

The presentation of this piece would not be considered beautiful at all. While other art teachers were trying to elaborate their artworks, thinking that aesthetics-normally of nicely rendering-should be the fundamental element to make something called art. It’s no wonder that they feel offended by Brad’s piece.

Strong statement, challenge are normally what Brad was going for. From the project he cited to me about how he used one single minute sculpture to hold a big space, I somehow am able to understand what he was trying to show...( or was it just me thinking too much!?)

I would guess there were three possible analyses to his possible purpose, since I don’t have the chance to confirm with him. First, but almost the least possibility, he put emphasis on the statement, the concept, so that he discarded the element of nice looking appearance. The reason why I think this possibility least possible is that I can tell from the work of his students that he does have what it takes to be a real artist. There’s no way that he would be unable to take care of any aspect of art, especially the aesthetical part.

So, did he purposely abandon aesthetics in order to challenge people’s "common sense" and cause them to think? Or was he trying to discuss the necessity of aesthetics and put people’s mind of art to test?

I wouldn’t go for sly argument claiming that lacking of aesthetics is another form of representing aesthetics. I do think, however, that purposely abandon beauty doesn’t necessarily mean that the artist denies any element that defines art. Rather, he temporarily took the advantage of its absence to make viewer see how we’ve been taking aesthetics in art for granted.