Bear in mind art does necessarily reside in the subject matter.
2006-11-02 09:05:03 · 16 answers · asked by Sophist 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The question should read: would the painting still be beautiful?
2006-11-02 09:06:49 · update #1
If a beautiful artist who ONLY painted ugly pictures painted a self-portrait, would the painting still be ugly...?
Yup.
The answer to your question is in the very question itself:
An ugly artist paints only beautiful pictures;
This ugly artist renders a self-portrait;
thus
It logically follows -Greek style- that the self-portrait is beautiful.
2006-11-02 09:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it is seen by the viewer as a beautiful painting it would be just that...a beautiful painting. It wouldn't matter how ugly the artist is. Only the artist can paint the ugliness or the beauty in a portrait. It's how we take to the portrait that will determine our liking.
2006-11-02 09:21:24 · answer #2 · answered by Smahteepanties 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know he (the artist) may have a beautiful personality or beautiful spirit....even though the physical may not appear so. The reflection of the inner being could indeed be captured on the canvass as the true protrait of the artist. So in this respect the answer would be yes.
On the flip side have you heard the saying: Beauty is skin deep, ugly to the bone, when beauty fades away ugly holds it's own.
2006-11-02 12:33:55 · answer #3 · answered by Sage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on if the artist thought of himself as beautiful or not. He may paint only beautiful pictures because he find beauty in all things he paints...and if he finds himself beautiful I think he could make anything "ugly" to the majority beautiful if he's a really good artist...meaning he doesn't have to manipulate his actual face but put it in a beautiful light.
2006-11-02 09:47:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The painting would be a beautiful painting of a ugly artist. Spare us the relativism and stay in the real world.
2006-11-02 09:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Because his paintings are beautiful.
2006-11-02 11:15:16 · answer #6 · answered by Mayonaise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on whether or not the artist was truthful. You can always paint beautiful lies, but not necessarily always beautiful truth. The question rests on what he felt his truth to be and whether or not he accepted himself for who he was.
2006-11-02 09:11:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hey think of it this way, Van Gogh painted himself without a friggin' ear! It's not really the same but that's a really famous picture now, and lots of people admire it.
2006-11-02 09:22:56 · answer #8 · answered by The Young Philosopher 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course.
He could paint a beautiful painting of his ugly self. No one says it has to be photographically representational.
2006-11-02 09:09:53 · answer #9 · answered by loon_mallet_wielder 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sounds corny but, remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It would be gorgeous to some, ugly to others etc..
2006-11-02 09:07:58 · answer #10 · answered by sabor69 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋