[slg]

>art is the field of human interest with beauty as its transcendental ideal.

I have no idea where this definition is coming from. I don't think many people would agree with it.

The most obvious counterexample that comes to mind is Picasso's Guernica[1]. It is one of the most renowned pieces of art of the 20th century. It is also ugly. There is no color. The characters are distorted in grotesque ways. It is too large, too chaotic, and almost confusing to look at. This is all intentional, it is after all a depiction of a war crime. It is a work of art that isn't meant to please its audience, it is meant to upset and challenge them. Is it bad art?

[1] - https://www.pablopicasso.org/images/paintings/guernica3.jpg

[geocanuck]

To your first point, would you argue art is not the field of human interest with beauty as its ideal? Would you argue art strives for ugliness? Art holds ugliness and "badness" as its ideal? I find that to be a very untenable position to hold.

"To produce the beautiful, art must imitate nature. Yet not every imitation of nature, merely because it is an imitation, is therefore beautiful, as realism pretends. The reality imitated by art must also be beautiful, or art must add to it the idea that will give it beauty." Br. Louis de Poissy

"Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty." Summa Theologica P1 Q5

Guernica imitates reality as it is a depiction of a war crime. However, just because it is a depiction of reality, it does not mean that it is beautiful. Further, it does not depict the beautiful nor give it an idea that makes it beautiful. As you say, the grotesqueness, horror, and chaos depicted was intentional. You yourself say it is ugly, and I agree. Following Aquinas's thoughts above, if beauty and goodness is fundamentally identical, then it follows that the antithesis of beauty and goodness is also identical. Therefore, since this work of art is the antithesis of beauty (ugliness, as you yourself say), it is also bad art, not to mention that the bad is not praised as the beautiful. I hope this answers your question.

[slg]

>To your first point, would you argue art is not the field of human interest with beauty as its ideal? Would you argue art strives for ugliness? Art holds ugliness and "badness" as its ideal? I find that to be a very untenable position to hold.

Originally maybe, which may be why your quotes are so old. There are certainly some segments of the art community that put beauty as the ultimate ideal. If you are looking for decorative art to display in your home, you probably want something that is nice to look at. However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction. Sometimes the emotions that an artists wishes to evoke are negative in which case ugly or upsetting imagery might be more appropriate.

>Therefore, since this work of art is the antithesis of beauty (ugliness, as you yourself say), it is also bad art

I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.

[geocanuck]

>which may be why your quotes are so old

Does their age determine their validity?

>However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction

That does not mean that what they produce cannot be ugly or bad.

>I really don't think you are going to get many art critics to agree with a "Guernica is bad, actually" take.

...Okay? Does the existence dissenting opinion mean that I am incorrect? Let's say my claim about Guernica is true. It is indeed ugly and bad art (remember, this is objective). Art critics saying "No, Guernica is beautiful and good" essentially say "the truth is false". So, if Guernica is indeed the antithesis of beauty, it matters little what dissenting art critics say, as they are incorrect in stating that something is not what it actually is.