Why Beauty Matters is a short film featuring Roger Scruton, a philosopher and writer, discussing why beauty matters in art and in life. Scruton discusses what art is today, and what art used to be. He discusses multiple different art pieces that, in his eyes, changed the meaning of art. Why Beauty Matters brings the attention on to several art pieces this class has seen in lectures, as well as brings attention to very different art pieces we have never seen before. Roger Scruton stated his positions on creativity, art, and beauty all throughout the film, and there are some that are hard to agree with. Roger Scruton stated in the film multiple times that art has lost its beauty over the last few years, and that the paintings do not have the
…show more content…
One art piece talked a lot about in this film is the urinal that Marcel Duchamp titled Fountain. Roger Scruton made it very clear throughout the film that he did not understand this creation, and that Marcel Duchamp used it to make a mockery out of art. It is hard to see how a urinal could become such a highly acclaimed art piece that sparked the start of several strange art pieces that has started in recent years. One thing Scruton said in the film was, “art is a work of art, because we think of it as such.” The viewers of a painting, sculpture, drawing, etc. make art what it is. People saw the urinal and proclaimed it to be art, and that is why the piece is so well known today. It is easy to agree with Scruton’s statement, “art needs creativity.” Growing up children are encouraged to embrace creativity, and that leads to children finding themselves through painting, drawing, or creating music. One piece of art he mentioned that was not creative was the creation of multiple replica statues of David. The reason he said they were not creative was because the artist took the design from Michelangelo and mass-produced it. The artist did not design the sculpture himself; he is just one artist that …show more content…
For instance, Scruton made it clear that art made today has no beauty in it. That is hard to agree with, because that is one man’s opinion and everyone is an artist in their own way. Just because Roger Scruton may not believe it to be art, does not mean someone else sees it the same way. Scruton says that he blames Marcel Duchamp, creator of the Fountain, for getting rid of creativity for future artist. When he was talking to an artist about the Fountain he was not open to the idea of other artwork forms, and it seemed as though he did not understand the meaning. Looking back at early artwork a person can see biblical stories, or paintings and drawings that had very clear meanings. Scruton seemed more interested in artwork that is understandable, and artwork that was appealing to the eye. One artist was mentioned in the film, Jeff Koons, and he creates sculptures and creations that are colorful and childish that are truly amazing to look at. Koons is creative and works hard in the area he wants to be associated with, but still Scruton did not seem to care for the work of Koons. There were a lot of assumptions made by Scruton in the film; for instance, he said that since a building was not attractive to the eye it was empty for that reason. That seems like a generalization that takes no other factors in to account. Scruton discussed the newest architecture style of glass with
One art piece talked a lot about in this film is the urinal that Marcel Duchamp titled Fountain. Roger Scruton made it very clear throughout the film that he did not understand this creation, and that Marcel Duchamp used it to make a mockery out of art. It is hard to see how a urinal could become such a highly acclaimed art piece that sparked the start of several strange art pieces that has started in recent years. One thing Scruton said in the film was, “art is a work of art, because we think of it as such.” The viewers of a painting, sculpture, drawing, etc. make art what it is. People saw the urinal and proclaimed it to be art, and that is why the piece is so well known today. It is easy to agree with Scruton’s statement, “art needs creativity.” Growing up children are encouraged to embrace creativity, and that leads to children finding themselves through painting, drawing, or creating music. One piece of art he mentioned that was not creative was the creation of multiple replica statues of David. The reason he said they were not creative was because the artist took the design from Michelangelo and mass-produced it. The artist did not design the sculpture himself; he is just one artist that …show more content…
For instance, Scruton made it clear that art made today has no beauty in it. That is hard to agree with, because that is one man’s opinion and everyone is an artist in their own way. Just because Roger Scruton may not believe it to be art, does not mean someone else sees it the same way. Scruton says that he blames Marcel Duchamp, creator of the Fountain, for getting rid of creativity for future artist. When he was talking to an artist about the Fountain he was not open to the idea of other artwork forms, and it seemed as though he did not understand the meaning. Looking back at early artwork a person can see biblical stories, or paintings and drawings that had very clear meanings. Scruton seemed more interested in artwork that is understandable, and artwork that was appealing to the eye. One artist was mentioned in the film, Jeff Koons, and he creates sculptures and creations that are colorful and childish that are truly amazing to look at. Koons is creative and works hard in the area he wants to be associated with, but still Scruton did not seem to care for the work of Koons. There were a lot of assumptions made by Scruton in the film; for instance, he said that since a building was not attractive to the eye it was empty for that reason. That seems like a generalization that takes no other factors in to account. Scruton discussed the newest architecture style of glass with