“Beauty for beauty’s sake” -- We hear this expression as it relates to art all the time. Artist’s attempt to paint what is considered a thing of beauty. We look on things in nature and say they are beautiful.  Art is a thing of beauty.  The beautiful way the artist handled the subject.  Her beauty is made eternal by the artist’s deftness.

The difficulty with the idea of beauty for beauty's sake is determining the definition of beauty -- other than what has become definitive in the dictionary.  I believe nothing in nature has beauty. Conversely nothing in nature is ugly. This may sound like I am playing semantics here but think about it -- Since everyone on earth may have a differing opinion as to what beauty is, is it not probable all things have no inherent beauty when we eliminate the human condition.  If humans didn’t exist, the concept of beauty would cease to exist.  Beauty is exclusively a human concept.  No other species ponders the question of beauty.  Given that we created this idea, is it possible that we condition ourselves to determine beauty based on personal biases or seminal experiences in early development; acquiring tastes based on parental influences or personal relationships?  Throughout history, the concept of beauty changes. What was once considered beautiful shifts with time, attitudes and regimes.  If we understand beauty as universal in all of us, why does it change with changing generations?  Why does one style become obsolete only to be resurrected with future generations?

When we make something we consider beautiful we run into the problem as to what is actually beautiful. It's the same problem as trying to get a consensus as to what is art. Are we not imposing beauty onto things?  Humankind is so varied and unique; experiences so multiple, what one finds beautiful, another may merely consider … ordinary. Of course there is general agreement on many things beautiful, but doesn't that limit the field, especially for artists?  Consider the expression - "a face only a mother can love!" Really now!

Can we artists portray things as they are without bias and hope to find a consensus that what we created has a beauty others will also see?

I wonder if a thing is beautiful only if it is appealing to the eye or is pleasant to the touch.  If it enriches our lives in some way; reaches our senses in such a way that we go all mushy inside.  But if these things are true, it harkens back to previous environmental conditioning.  We consider beauty only from a subjective point of view; belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

Is it even possible to paint without regard to inherent beauty?  The more important question for me is to not make a judgment on beauty and paint with an open mind.  Is that at all possible?  Should beauty for beauty’s sake be a consideration at all when creating a work of art?