It is often remarked that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. With the rise of genres such as abstract expressionism and postmodernism, the standards for what constitutes art have been repeatedly questioned. What might seem like random scribbles to most are sold as some of the most expensive paintings, and mundane objects have been labeled as exquisite artworks.
With relativism pervading our culture today, there is no doubt that objective standards are often disregarded, especially when it comes to seemingly subjective matters such as artistic beauty. At the very core of this is the concept of personal creativity and innovation. The world of art has glorified the notion of self-expression, where people are always striving to do what has “never been done before”—this has been termed the highest level of creativity.
Yet while the arts are highly subjective in nature, we must not neglect the importance of objective standards. The issue with forms of art such as abstract expressionism is that they tend to lack a sense of clarity, which is key in differentiating artworks from mere scribbles. To the regular viewer, the subject of a non-objective artwork simply does not exist.
This begs the question of whether or not there are truly objective standards that govern our perceptions of the arts. The golden ratio—a pattern seen everywhere in nature—comes to mind. Used in some of the greatest masterpieces, it continues to astound many until today. This is one of many patterns that serves as a testament to the intricate nature of our brains; certain signals trigger corresponding neural reactions, which is ultimately how we differentiate what looks beautiful from what looks ugly. And so, we see that underneath this seeming web of subjectivity lies a solid foundation of objectivity.
Of course, we must admit that beauty isn’t the only metric that matters. Many genres of contemporary art were designed to awaken our natural curiosities and let our imaginations roam free. The few that are successful in doing so work exceptionally, yet the reality is that this ideal is rarely achieved. The irony is that in seeking to create a novel form of art, many take a step backward and achieve an ingenuine form of creativity. Furthermore, the desire for openness and non-elitism has only resulted in the opposite effect. It is quite paradoxical that the freedom offered by purely subjective works has stifled our imaginations—we are so free to decide the meaning for ourselves that we get lost in a sea so full, or should we say devoid, of ideas.
For instance, consider a white dot on a black background. This may be considered to be a masterpiece of creative genius simply because it challenges our presumptions regarding art. Upon further glance, however, we can see that the creativity it imbues is no different from the plain absence of creativity. Just like how a step backward in innovation is not considered to be innovation in itself, we cannot call something creative just because it is unique.
It is true that some of the best artists frequently break the rules. Yet, these rules were placed for a reason and must thus be broken not solely for the sake of being broken; rather, for creativity and innovation to arise, one must only break the rules and deviate from the norm after truly understanding the reasons behind such conventions.
The ideals of creativity and imagination for all, painted by contemporary art, are indeed beautiful, much more so for artworks that manage to achieve this. However, we must not forget the very thing that pursues these ideals—objectivity. Creativity and imagination must not be suppressed in favor of traditional objective standards, nor must objectivity be neglected in our increasingly postmodern world. Instead, we must strike the perfect balance to have hope that someday, these ideals will become reality.
Comments