[wozniacki]

This is a most pertinent debate to introduce Roger Scruton's most excellent & eminently watchable "Why Beauty Matters"[1]

I don't know how much the readership of HN is versed in contemporary American popular culture's obsession with the round rejection of traditional ideas of beauty.

I would go as far as to say that the current leitmotif seems to be 'embrace ugliness & dullness' for the sake of it and little else.

These general themes are found in all aspects of our current culture.

Perversion for the sake of perversion.

Bawdiness for the sake of bawdiness.

Irony for the sake of irony.

One can speculate on why and to what end this obsession with these revolting themes is so commonly found in these self-professed avant-gardes.

[1] Why Beauty Matters (Por que a beleza importa?) Roger Scruton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

[nemo1618]

One of the things I love about art is that it is almost defined by its resistance to definition. You say "art has to be beautiful," and art says "no, fuck you, a urinal can be art." You say "well, art at least has to mean something," and art says "no, fuck you, a big red square can be art."

Personally, I'm hoping to see a post-ironic return to traditional values of beauty, purely as a way of flipping the bird to a society that finally embraces the new paradigm.

[rmsrmsrms]

Art expresses something ineffable about the self of the artist. Or at least this works for me, so far.

[jamesdelaneyie]

Interesting video. You might find this account of a debate (that happened the same year as that BBC doc) interesting as well. Roger participated in it. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/mar/22/national...

[clock_tower]

I'm not surprised that it's a hatchet job, given that it's _The Guardian_ on a conservative position; but even by their standards, it's kind of low to ask one of the principals of a debate to write an article about that debate!