Daybook

I was asked in a recent class to talk about my “personal” definition of beauty. Contrary to the requested personal, particular and subjective definition, below is my quest of a definition of “beauty” that is not subject to the particular or the relative.

The attempt to define beauty in the western culture has a history as long as the origin of western philosophy. Aristotle thinks we are able to perceive beauty because there’s a “universal quality” inherent in things that makes an object beautiful. To simplify, an object is beautiful only if it carries such a universal characters within its existence. In a different period of time, however, Spinoza questioned, “is it because the object itself is beautiful or is it that we like the object we see so we feel it’s beautiful?” The possibility of the sense of beauty therefore has two opposing theories?objectivism and subjectivism. In an extreme case, beauty may be considered entirely individual, subject to one’s like or dislike. In a cultural setting such as contemporary art world, beauty becomes either relative or unquestionable academic formula.

What does beauty mean to me? Before I can define beauty, it’s necessary to acknowledge that there must be an object and a viewer, i.e., there must be a “seer” and “seen” relationship. Hence my point is both the objective (the object and its constituent structure) and the subjective (me, the seer, my individuality) have equal importance in the formation of my sense of beauty. I assume an object is beautiful because there’s certain quality essential to its existence that is capable of arousing my admiration and an inclination of appreciating its existence. The “quality” of that beautiful “object”, I agree with Aristotle, must be innate to its existence and not contingent which would otherwise make its beautifulness accidental. And that innate quality as crucial as it determines the beauty of an object must be “embodied” or “manifested” either on the surface or the orientation or simply the form of that object in order to be perceived. Thus the essential quality of a beautiful object is itself both material and abstract.

On the other hand, even though I as the seer has complete and normal sense organs and am capable of perceiving beautiful things, does that grant me the privilege that whatever I feel beautiful is beautiful? I think the minimal requirement for me to judge that one thing is beautiful and the other is not must because I’m able to carry out my sense organs’ full potential in perceiving the beautiful.

As we often think an artist is “more” capable of seeing the beauty than others, it’s not just because we have sharp sensitivity since we may apply our sharp sensitivity to the wrong situation. What makes a sensitive seer capable of sensing the beauty an object presents to us is the “receptiveness” of that sensitive seer’s mind and body. We all carry a series of personal history in our life and that constitutes part of our subjectivity. We need to be open and receptive enough in our eyes, ears, and our mind in order to recognize the signal of beauty “embedded” in things. We need to be open enough yet without loosing our sense of “direction” to conclude that anything goes; we need a direction and if necessary, the discipline of how to penetrate the innate structure of an object visually in order to recognize what makes it beautiful.

To me, it’s only when both the objective quality and the receptive seer meet, the embedded beauty of the object can be recognized or disclosed.

And I, the artist, the seer, if I’m that receptive seer, is the meeting place of the two. I’m both the seer, the mediator, and the medium of beauty.

So, I define beauty as the harmony between the seen and the seer-when the quality and form of things meet its resonant perceiver-as if a shape finds its missing piece and makes a complete circle.

The seen must be capable of beautiful in terms of its innate structure, which in a work of art is its structure. The structure of an artwork is a composite of both form and matter. Such as the bone structure that determines a person’s entire figure, his/her pose, and how he/she walks and extend his/her bodily movement to his/her living. The seer must be able to “tune” or “channel” his/her sensitivity in order to be able to perceive the innate structure of his/her subject matter. Such a harmony therefore involves a “constant” adjustment and re-adjustment, back-and-forth activity in between the seen and the seer. There’s “rhythm” and a sense of livelihood in the process of reaching harmony. This is my sense of beauty.

As an artist, a creator, I judge my work based on whether it’s aesthetic or not. A work of art has to do with aesthetics, namely beauty. Now I’m not only a seer but also a creator here. I’m also the mediator and the medium between my work and the viewer (known or unknown to me). Through me, my work is either beautiful or not; through my work, the viewer (sensitive or not, visually trained or not) senses the harmony through his/her back-and-forth rhythmic viewing process (a process of engagement) with my work, or not. What I can manage and control in terms of my work is the structure of my photograph, i.e., whether the visual components in my photograph co-work to create a rhythmic visual movement that the viewer can engage with their eye movement and so to provoke in the viewer a sense of harmonic bodily involvement in his/her entire viewing process and experience. I take it that without an appropriate structure for the eye to grasp, no matter how much I try to impose to the viewer with “profoundly” absurd descriptions, all I provide is an empty promise. An artwork that is capable of beauty, that its innate quality unveils and opens to full bloom, is the responsibility of the artist.

Visual must be perceptual, perceptual must be perceivable, perceivable must be structural; structure must be organic, and the life of a work of art lies in the inter-rhythm both its form and matter. An artwork is abstract and material at the same same. The material is supported by a series of creative process invisible from its outlook along with the perceptual structure that shapes the work of art to its finalization; the abstract is derived from the creative process that is specifically tied to the comprehension and empathy to the uniqueness of the material of an art medium, it is also the process itself. The development of the abstract, say, its regeneration, decay, accomplishment, or failure, is parallel to the realization from the material to a work of art.

An artwork is possible when both abstract and material aspects are married through the artist. But a work of art is possible not only because the marriage of the abstract and material, but also because a well welded union of both through the artist’ willingness that both the abstract and the material cease to be self-absorbed monads on their own but become part of something, the work of art. The metaphor of a work of art is the marriage of the artist and his/her medium. Such marriage must exists at the first place within the artist’s identity that it can be transported to be a marriage of the artist and the medium. The knowledge, understanding, empathy, and receptiveness of an artist to the medium results in an adaptable and flexible creative process that allows the medium’s strength be realized through its acceptance to the artist’s unique understanding and working on it. A work of art is the realization of the inter-receptiveness of form and matter. A work of art, like any organic being, is both physical and spiritual, embodied and encamped. And beauty is the embodiment of this livelihood in a work of art.

Here, I would further my claim as Heidegger did that the nature of art is not only the making of the beautiful but the disclosure of “the being of beings”. And an artist who provides the superimposed value to an object to become a work of art is the seer, the messenger, the mediator, the creator, and the discoverer of the nature of beings in the world. I consider this a gift and the ethical duty/burden every serious artist bears.