Y'all, I have something very philosophical to discuss. While analyzing our DSE Literature in English poem "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird", I came across the titular quote. I have seen this quote before, but reading the poem makes me overthink and I want to talk about this. If the beauty of something lies in how the beholder perceives it, then where IS the beauty? Does it lie in the object itself, or in the way it evokes thought and feelings? I think ancient Greek philosophers have previously discussed this in their strolls of Aestheticism, but I want to do it with my take. I find this idea very fascinating because it is a actually cool concept. Beauty is subjective, but we have some universal ideals of "beauty" to an extent, so what exactly determines beauty?
Allow me to use an example. When we look at Van Gogh's paintings, I think most of us can tell that they are masterpieces and they evoke a lot of beauty. But if an Art History major can better appreciate the painting using the analytical stuff they've learned, and all I can say is "wow that is a beautiful painting", does that mean that the Fine Art person has found more beauty evoked from the painting, did they find more beauty from Van Gogh's work than I did? One can argue that this is only the way of how people express their thoughts and feelings evoked from viewing art, it does not measure the "beauty" from the art itself. However, that is the point of art! The point is to express your thoughts and feelings! Therefore, the way you appreciate something measures the degree of beauty you find within! This is the point of studying art you like. To find WHY and HOW they evoke thoughts and feelings. It is all about perspectives. Like the thirteen ways of looking at blackbirds. But that doesn't mean I DON'T see the same amount of beauty in the Van Gogh painting though? Right? I am thinking so much with my big brain it HURTS
Extending my Van Gogh problem to the next level, let's say, hypothetically, that we are looking at a Picasso painting, the beasty ones. The Art History student tells me how much of a masterpiece that painting before us is, yet I cannot appreciate it. I find it very beasty. (Disclaimer: I know how to appreciate Picasso paintings, I am not barbaric or uncultured.) The Art History courses allow the student to find beauty within the painting, but to me, the painting does not align with my idea of "beauty" or "aesthetic". The question remains: does the beauty of this Picasso painting lies in the eye of the art student, or in the painting itself? Does that only mean I am too uncultured to understand the painting? But ART IS SUBJECTIVE! There is NO one correct way of perceiving art! If it does not evoke any sentimentality from within, it is not subjectively "beautiful", right? I can appreciate people appreciating the art, but if I do not find beauty from the art itself, it means nothing to me. You can replace the "Picasso painting" with "BTS' music", "Art History student" with "BTS fan", and this still works. Calm down, I am inducing a conversation here.
I guess the point I am making here, is kind of similar to the theme of Thirteen Ways. Subjectivity and perspectives play a crucial part in how one views art. Does it matter where or how art evokes beauty? Probably not. The fun about art is that it is not concrete or absolute. You just have to feel it. And understand it. I digress, just letting you know that my brain is very big, I love thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird, and I am wasting my time typing this out. Bye