Acceptable Beauty

There is nothing wrong with the creation and enjoyment of beauty. That is, the appreciation of what one considers beautiful. This can vary from person to person and there is a certain excitement when an artist or producer shares their vision of beauty with others. It both communicates their vision of the world and allows those who share that vision an outlet for what they might not have been able to express on their own.

For example, if I see an artist hold up something that is ugly and blighted and call it beautiful, I know that person has a very demented outlook on the world. Sometimes this can be fun - I was always a fan of JTHM, despite the deliberately ugly portrayals of humanity, because it was darkly humorous. But I know better than to declare it beautiful - it isn't (to me), and that's the point. There's also art I find unenjoyably ugly. Much of R. Crumb's work falls into that category along with large chunks of modern faire.

On the flip side, I enjoy stirring epic pieces and beautiful images and the artists capable of them. And there are people who regard that the same way I see Crumb. This is fine, since it's a matter of opinion - I just wouldn't trust them to create an art history field trip for me.

What there is too much of are people who want impose and enforce their vision of "acceptable" beauty on everyone. They want to limit what can and cannot be regarded as attractive and stirring. Some of them take the form of fashion police who want to mock women who wear glasses or who eschew greasy face paint. Others scream obscenity and oppression at artists who draw women with curved forms in provocative poses.

It's one thing to find that a piece of art doesn't stir you. It's quite another to determine that no one should ever have a chance to be impacted by that same piece. The former means you need to keep looking. The latter is the impulse of the tyrant - the mark of an ugly soul.