Must Art be Beautiful? 

Does art always attract?

Should we say that art should be something other than itself as then becomes bound by ruleset. Would that be wrong? Yet there is clearly common characteristics entailed in what conventionally is received as art. 

Does art always attract? Is that what it’s supposed to do? What is art supposed to do? Art ignites a special state of mind. One of intrigued curiosity. One that is question provoking and in some ways, energising – activating of your mind. Art resonates with the person, it can change the state of your consciousness, and from there, perhaps even your life without you even knowing how profound.  However what could be said is that these attributes, needn’t always particularly be positive. Though true to our nature, we would primarily pursue elating forms. 

We art loving species do love to appreciate it. The feelings we get from art, are a very happy feelings. But that’s not to say that all art is positive. For what the art and beauty of nature itself? It unquestionably is magnificent. The rich green chlorophyll of a plant. The huge variety of terrains and the unique array of life. The crashing roar from a waterfall and the blue hue underneath. And as the magic of life giving water sprays through light does it refracts an array of multicolour.  

What of something that is red though? Something gory that is gut wrenching  and nauseating and wonderfully spectacular at the same time? The art of the heart, the art in arteries? What of, the intricate circuitry of the brain? Is can it only be art capture in some way and retold? Some kind of intended display.

Not real life in front of you? What of other aspects of life, that reek of cruelty and shamelessness in the lawless land that it is? What of disease? Decay? Death? Are these things art? No? Just not to you personally but maybe to some? Is that it? Who’s going about making art with disease??? And if something like that happens in a trend? Fashioning negative disgusting things into art. What could we conclude? 

But whether we could consider it good, or bad. Maybe it is so, that for something to be knighted as art as we true to ourselves would do firstly, it must be appreciated, respectfully. It’s put into a special category that art is, usually met with positivity and desire. But just because it can be feared. Just because it can be repulsive. Does that mean you cannot respect it though how much you reject it in every conceivable way? As if we are then better enough to judge? It wouldn’t be proper to ask who makes ‘art with disease?’ But instead ask, do you respect death?