Extract
[...] Even excluding craftsmanship, the conception of art is not homogeneous. Within the art for art's sake, throughout the centuries and epochs, many artists have voluntarily refused to seek Beauty, or at least to respect the strict criteria that define what is beautiful and what is not. This is the case, for example, of Baudelaire. As a romantic poet, his works, and particularly The Flowers of Evil, certainly bear witness to a beauty, but evil, sadness, melancholy, and disgust also occupy a preponderant place, which went against the trends of the time. [...]
[...] However, it is not the only vision of art that exists, as we will now see. The distinction between art and craftsmanship did not exist before the 18th century. Previously, the craftsman was considered an artist. A work was not characterized by what defined Beauty, it could have a very concrete utility. An ornate chair could be a work of art, as could finely sculpted dishes. There are two very important aspects in this vision of art: technique and utility. [...]
[...] As explained by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, beauty is not a neutral artistic expression. The dominant classes of a society dictate the aesthetic criteria of beauty in art and use it to distinguish themselves from other social classes. This was the case in the 18th century with the emergence of art for the Beautiful, and it is still the case today, where popular art ('mainstream') is largely looked down upon by the most favored cultural circles, and whether it is music, cinema, painting . [...]
[...] Is a work of art necessarily beautiful? The adjective 'beautiful' is often used today to describe a work of art. However, the very meaning of this adjective varies depending on the type of work it describes. Thus, a beautiful film will generally be an emotionally moving film that evokes intense emotions in the audience, a beautiful song will necessarily be melodic, and a beautiful painting will be aesthetically satisfying. Confronted with the diversity of art forms, the notion of beauty changes, adapts. [...]
[...] In his work, the notion of transcendence is omnipresent, as he speaks of genius as an intuition present in the human mind that allows it to create works of art. This intuition of genius is opposed to the reason of ideas, which are tangible. Finally, he draws a distinction between what is beautiful and what is pleasant. What is pleasant corresponds to the subjectively felt beauty, what is beautiful has a universal pretension. The beauty of art is therefore, during this period, linked to the beauty of great things: Nature, God . [...]
