The artist's dilemma: If my art is beautiful, will it still be considered great?

When the human condition is so harsh, can art afford to be pretty?

An occupational hazard visual artists face these days is making work that might appear to be pleasing and beautiful and have it declared “decorative”. For a work of art to be called beautiful has become a veritable kiss of death in the institutional art world. No serious painter wants to be known as a maker of “pretty pictures”. This is a global phenomenon.

There seems to be a dominant sentiment in contemporary art that artists should resist making work that is pleasurable and beautiful because given how much is wrong and ugly in the world such art would be an irrelevant distraction and a distortion of reality. Art should focus on rendering what is troubling, ergo not beautiful, of which there is indeed plenty in our world.

This conflict between beauty and the socio-political reality emphasised in art these days seems to be based on some inherent tensions between form and content and, also, because of confusion about the levels of beauty in art.

Art is often divided into form and content. Form includes the materials used, the style employed – realism, impressionism, cubism, abstraction and so on. These determine and influence the way space, light, line, colour and texture are used in a painting or sculpture. Form is also an artist’s individual style, their particular nuances, mannerisms and habits. Using their style, artists could express a variety of content – a flower study, a landscape, an autobiographical moment, emotional states, a portrait, social commentary, a political statement and so on.

Styles differ. They can be more restrained or less, subtle or in your face. Some are more pleasing than others. Just because an artist has a style that is gentler, less abrasive, it does not necessarily mean it cannot be used to address harsh and uncomfortable content. Protests and calls for change do not always have to be screamed and shouted, they can be spoken gently, in persuasive yet steely whispers too.

The question we need to ask is whether a painting of someone being raped or killed, of someone suffering an illness, someone dying, of garbage and waste or urban ugliness can ever be done beautifully or would that be untruthful?

[Anjolie Ela] Menon insists there is a difference between what is pretty and what is beautiful and argues forcefully for a place for beauty in art. In her work, she explains how content and subject matter are a distinguishing criterion between beauty and prettiness. For example, if there is an image of a severed head, the painting could not be pretty but it can still be beautiful. She suggests that authenticity is critical to beauty, which is typically absent, ignored or excluded in prettiness.

In an essay in Uncontrollable Beauty – Toward a New Aesthetics, Arthur Danto questions whether art that connects to the subject of human waste, for example, can be beautiful and aesthetic. Can the content of waste be rendered in a beautiful painting and, conversely, could the forms connected with human waste, such as Duchamp’s urinal, ever be considered beautiful? In other words, doesn’t the content of a painting circumscribe its beauty and since a urinal is about piss, which is ugly, how could we ever consider it aesthetic?

This offers important insights into the prevailing art establishment’s attitudes towards beauty. First, beauty is not considered possible when dealing with pain, angst, cruelty, poverty, injustice, ecological damage and so on. Second, having enthusiastically embraced as art a urinal that Duchamp exhibited under the title The Fountain as a challenge to the establishment’s notion of what art is, beauty could no longer be a valid criterion for art.

Duchamp’s urinal launched a whole new direction for art and we find that beauty has no place in what would, thereafter, be considered cutting-edge contemporary art. This is exemplified by the kind of art that keeps winning the Turner Prize in the UK every year.

In the same essay, Danto argues that if something is beautifully rendered, this gets transferred to the content of the work itself. He tries to make a distinction between the beauty of a painting and the beauty in it. He describes a Tibetan thangka (scroll) depicting the Buddha’s death, which takes place in ‘an achingly beautiful garden, with green lawns under blue skies, rainbows fluttering like pennants, ornamental birds and plantings’. He says this beauty would ordinarily be dissonant with the subject of death. However, he allows that in this case it is not because he thinks it is in sync with the Buddhist view of death and dying.

What he perhaps means is that the internal beauty in the thangka comes from the level of meaning it depicts. The Buddha’s death is also the moment of ultimate release, his mahaparinirvana, which is a joyful, positive and beautiful event. Therefore, at the content level of meaning, this painting suggests that death is not necessarily ugly. As such, an alternative understanding of death itself would allow for these beautiful elements.

We need to be wary of mistaking literalness for truth.

What is depicted in art may not define its meaning, for often what is suggested is more important than what is depicted. This principle was understood and emphasized in Indian aesthetics.

Three levels of content or meaning were identified – abidha, lakshana and dhvani. The first two were the primary and secondary meanings that were directly depicted in a work of art. The third, dhvani (literally “resonance”), was indirect and suggestive. Dhvani was considered to be the suggestive quality in art that precedes or surrounds the literal or denotative meanings.

The essence of art was not in its representational adequacy and effectiveness, or in its formal construction, but in its suggestiveness – its ability to evoke a state of feeling. As feelings cannot be communicated directly, their evocation had to be done indirectly, through suggestion and implication, and this is the basis of the well-known Indian concept of rasa. This evocation through suggestiveness was the special and distinguishing skill of great artists. It was recognition of the human ability to sense meaning beyond what is depicted, which gives the arts their extraordinary power to touch and communicate.

Both Ashok Vajpeyi and Menon emphasise the importance of truth and authenticity in beauty. Explaining this, Menon tells us that beauty must be based on an unshakeable truth and this rules out superficiality because superficialities are seldom based on unshakeable truths.

However, she does not see this transference in the causal way Danto does. For her, there are two levels of beauty involved in a painting: on one level is a beauty that is known by how things look and on another level is beauty that is known by the meaning of things. She believes these can be brought together powerfully in art and tells us that we must not lose this precious combined beauty.

Death, illness and old age are inevitable truths and while it may be difficult to make a painting that would be pretty of an old or a suffering person, it can, however, be made beautifully. Another example of death being rendered beautifully is the immensely powerful sculpture of the dying Buddha with a grieving Ananda, in Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka. We have further testaments of this relationship between beauty and meaning in the many beautiful sculptures and paintings of Christ crucified on the Cross and the dying Christ in Mary’s arms in Michelangelo’s Pietà.

It is not necessary to show blood, spilled guts or tears and screams to deal with death and the pathos or loss it engenders.

In this respect, it seems that contemporary art is becoming too literal. It wants to bring the unmade bed and dead cows to us. This suggests another kind of superficiality and a loss of aesthetics. Surely, there is more to truth and honesty in art than this sort of obvious literalism.

Menon cautions us about the reach and impact of socio-political and didactic art, especially in India. In most countries, the art world has become an elite subculture, almost completely cut off from the rest of society that artists and curators might wish to impact. All the protests and calls for change through art are happening in art galleries and museums, which are like little Petri dishes with little, if any, connection with the living biology of the world outside.

Many people find the art being made today both bewildering and amusing. They are not even sure if this is art at all, partly because it does not meet their expectations and needs for beauty. For them, going to an art fair or a biennale is entertainment and may be like going to the circus or a theme park. The dominant response to art these days has become awe and in art, at least, we find “awful” and “awesome” have lost their distinction.

Art has always played the role of providing opportunities for a shift of experience from the ordinary humdrum of life. Whether it has to do this mainly by bringing us a profusion of the bizarre is questionable. Another way the arts have done this in the past is by affording us experiences of ecstasy. And, according to Menon, the pinnacle of beauty is ecstasy and ecstatic beauty is available in painting, in a great piece of music, and in love-making.

She did, however, ruefully remind us that it is a fleeting and ephemeral experience and will remain rare and elusive in art and in life.

Excerpted with permission from The Promise of Beauty and Why It Matters, Shakti Maira, HarperCollins India.

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

How sustainable farming practices can secure India's food for the future

India is home to 15% of the world’s undernourished population.

Food security is a pressing problem in India and in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), it is estimated that over 190 million people go hungry every day in the country.

Evidence for India’s food challenge can be found in the fact that the yield per hectare of rice, one of India’s principal crops, is 2177 kgs per hectare, lagging behind countries such as China and Brazil that have yield rates of 4263 kgs/hectare and 3265 kgs/hectare respectively. The cereal yield per hectare in the country is also 2,981 kgs per hectare, lagging far behind countries such as China, Japan and the US.

The slow growth of agricultural production in India can be attributed to an inefficient rural transport system, lack of awareness about the treatment of crops, limited access to modern farming technology and the shrinking agricultural land due to urbanization. Add to that, an irregular monsoon and the fact that 63% of agricultural land is dependent on rainfall further increase the difficulties we face.

Despite these odds, there is huge potential for India to increase its agricultural productivity to meet the food requirements of its growing population.

The good news is that experience in India and other countries shows that the adoption of sustainable farming practices can increase both productivity and reduce ecological harm.

Sustainable agriculture techniques enable higher resource efficiency – they help produce greater agricultural output while using lesser land, water and energy, ensuring profitability for the farmer. These essentially include methods that, among other things, protect and enhance the crops and the soil, improve water absorption and use efficient seed treatments. While Indian farmers have traditionally followed these principles, new technology now makes them more effective.

For example, for soil enhancement, certified biodegradable mulch films are now available. A mulch film is a layer of protective material applied to soil to conserve moisture and fertility. Most mulch films used in agriculture today are made of polyethylene (PE), which has the unwanted overhead of disposal. It is a labour intensive and time-consuming process to remove the PE mulch film after usage. If not done, it affects soil quality and hence, crop yield. An independently certified biodegradable mulch film, on the other hand, is directly absorbed by the microorganisms in the soil. It conserves the soil properties, eliminates soil contamination, and saves the labor cost that comes with PE mulch films.

The other perpetual challenge for India’s farms is the availability of water. Many food crops like rice and sugarcane have a high-water requirement. In a country like India, where majority of the agricultural land is rain-fed, low rainfall years can wreak havoc for crops and cause a slew of other problems - a surge in crop prices and a reduction in access to essential food items. Again, Indian farmers have long experience in water conservation that can now be enhanced through technology.

Seeds can now be treated with enhancements that help them improve their root systems. This leads to more efficient water absorption.

In addition to soil and water management, the third big factor, better seed treatment, can also significantly improve crop health and boost productivity. These solutions include application of fungicides and insecticides that protect the seed from unwanted fungi and parasites that can damage crops or hinder growth, and increase productivity.

While sustainable agriculture through soil, water and seed management can increase crop yields, an efficient warehousing and distribution system is also necessary to ensure that the output reaches the consumers. According to a study by CIPHET, Indian government’s harvest-research body, up to 67 million tons of food get wasted every year — a quantity equivalent to that consumed by the entire state of Bihar in a year. Perishables, such as fruits and vegetables, end up rotting in store houses or during transportation due to pests, erratic weather and the lack of modern storage facilities. In fact, simply bringing down food wastage and increasing the efficiency in distribution alone can significantly help improve food security. Innovations such as special tarpaulins, that keep perishables cool during transit, and more efficient insulation solutions can reduce rotting and reduce energy usage in cold storage.

Thus, all three aspects — production, storage, and distribution — need to be optimized if India is to feed its ever-growing population.

One company working to drive increased sustainability down the entire agriculture value chain is BASF. For example, the company offers cutting edge seed treatments that protect crops from disease and provide plant health benefits such as enhanced vitality and better tolerance for stress and cold. In addition, BASF has developed a biodegradable mulch film from its ecovio® bioplastic that is certified compostable – meaning farmers can reap the benefits of better soil without risk of contamination or increased labor costs. These and more of the company’s innovations are helping farmers in India achieve higher and more sustainable yields.

Of course, products are only one part of the solution. The company also recognizes the importance of training farmers in sustainable farming practices and in the safe use of its products. To this end, BASF engaged in a widespread farmer outreach program called Samruddhi from 2007 to 2014. Their ‘Suraksha Hamesha’ (safety always) program reached over 23,000 farmers and 4,000 spray men across India in 2016 alone. In addition to training, the company also offers a ‘Sanrakshan® Kit’ to farmers that includes personal protection tools and equipment. All these efforts serve to spread awareness about the sustainable and responsible use of crop protection products – ensuring that farmers stay safe while producing good quality food.

Interested in learning more about BASF’s work in sustainable agriculture? See here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.