“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, or so many of us think. However some art critics disagree. This timeless argument was enlightened by the written opinion of Amelia Jones in her essay Beauty Discourse and and the Logic of Aesthetics. In her essay, Jones directly identifies the flawed and hypocritical thoughts inside of Dave Hickey’s award winning book The Invisible Dragon: Four Essays on Beauty. Jones not only reveals to the reader his flawed logic but also his manipulative tactics he uses to maintain his status as “supreme art critic”.
In this writing, Beauty Discourse and and the Logic of Aesthetics, Amelia Jones discusses the many instances where, in Hickey’s book, he has wrong and outdated ideas on beauty in art. First of all, she addresses Hickey’s misplaced idolization of former male writers. These inspirations of his are Immanuel Kant, Johann Winckelmann, and John Ruskin. These men are mostly from 19th century imperialist Europe, a time and place where men dominated the world even more than they do today. It is apparent that they only value their own opinions on beauty by Ruskin’s quote, “Every man knows where and how beauty gives him pleasure”. This is an example of how self absorbed and close-minded these “influential” figures in art are. He claims only men know how to perceive “good art” which in his mind is art that only gives “pleasure”.
Hickey agrees with the past notions of these men and adds his own twisted perception in his book. He claims that he is a savior for the art world because he wants to combat the idea of political correctness. He claims that he is best at judging artworks because he is truly unbiased and therefore alludes to his superiority over other art observers. Jones also reveals how Hickey purposefully claims “emotional indifference to very reaction provoking artworks. She explains eloquently that he only says he is unaffected to maintain his false façade of being emotionally unbiased in art. Jones uses this example to show how Hickey truly uses this exclusionary logic to maintain his high status.
After all this delving into Hickey’s book, Amelia Jones delights us in revealing the true value of art that encourages emotions, reactions, political discussions, and questions. Which leads me to wonder, as a future art educator, how does the impact of emotions and politics expand and enrich my understanding of art? To answer these, I analyzed the artwork chosen by Jones, Yo Mama by Renee Cox.
 |
| Yo Mama, Renee Cox, 1993 |
Jones, A. (2002). Beauty Discourse and the Logic of Aesthetics. Oxford University Press.
Wow, this is really well written! I have a hard time finding anything wrong in your analysis of the reading, your interpretations of artwork, or quality of the writing. In my own blog I talked about how the viewer brings with them cultural, social, economic and political baggage, which effects how they view a work of art. But, I think you understood the reading better than I did.
ReplyDeleteI like how you summarized the reading, making the text easier to understand. I also appreciate your last sentence where you talk about how you hope to bring the idea of understanding the context of a work of art, and the message the artist is trying to communicate to your own students.
I think you could lose the word "more" in the phrase - "Looking more into the political impact and true message of the piece..." which is in the last paragraph. But, I had to look hard for that criticism. My question: Is Hickey wrong in his idea that "good art only gives us pleasure"? I understand that good art makes us think, challenges our perceptions and forces us to reflect on our biases - but in the end, when we walk away from the piece with understanding and enlightenment, doesn't that evoke a feeling of pleasure?
Well done, India!
Hello India,
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog. I loved how you roasted those men by calling them "close-minded" and "self absorbed". You were able to speak the truth and still sounded so professional. I loved every moment of it. You're example of what you believe in beauty is amazing as well. Good job!
Meg, thank you so much for your reply! The reading this week was very interesting so I absorbed as much information as I could. Thank you for pointing out the use of "more" I will fix that. My answer to your question is yes, I do think Hickey is wrong. I believe that not every new understanding promotes pleasure even though you are learning. Art can enlighten us about things that are upsetting and, although this is important and we learn from it, it is not pleasurable.
DeleteIndia! this was a beautifully written take, you did great at bringing forward the points that amy have been forgotten due to certain behaviors being so normalized, like the superiortiy complex of a man and him thinking some would trust him more than the professionals. I think when we reflect on Hickey's idea of pleasure and in what context we can automatically assume his meaning is sexual, although his stance may be weird outside of context we can change the view, some art is pleasurable because it can bring up a emotion, or happy memory. That may be something to explore next time; flipping the intended meaning on its head and discovering the verse side, otherwise very good work!
ReplyDeleteMakayla, Thank you so much for this comment. I agree art can bring us pleasure through emotion rather than visual. It is a very strong form of communication! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteHi India, the end of your writing summarizes what I think of art, "that art without its true context is only half full." I think that looking at art one tends to lean more objectively but when Hickey says that thinking about politics and social issues is not what should be done when analyzing art, I disagree. It is not without culture and politics that art becomes powerful, it is when one shares those ideas that produces change in the mind of others. Human beings should be more understanding of one another, especially during these times, and artists like Renee Cox are leaders in this movement. Thank you for posting,
ReplyDelete-Anthony