Art should imitate nature

>art should depict ideal beauty
only retards think this

>Emotions are objective

>nature and ideal beauty are mutually exclusive

Yes they are.

art should bring nature to its ideal consummation by way of man

read Schopenhauer

>Being this retarded.
Emotions are no more subjective than say "ideal beauty".

Pick up a dictionary.

I edit one. Somehow, I've never come across anything relating to an objective notion of ideal beauty. In fact, in other pursuits, I've seen multiple different approaches to what would constitute ideal beauty, heavily implying that such a thing is objective.

You know that art isn't one single painting right?

An objective ideal not being discovered does not mean one doesn't exist. The case for many artists (not of the imitation school) has been to find this ideal and depict it. But emotions are always felt internally (there is nothing that inspires emotion universally) and as such they are subjective, and far more subjective than the pluralistic idea of objective ideals.

>Art is subjective

>An objective ideal not being discovered does not mean one doesn't exist
It also doesn't mean that one does exist. And until you prove that one does, you have no case.

>Argumentum ad populam
Not a good start. Many artists have also been trying to inspire emotional states, or even political actions! How terrible, I know. Not to mention your "art is subjective" meaningless tirade being itself a form of subjective argument, namely that art should be objective. Hell, you can't even have your dichotomy in some form of non-visual art. How do you apply it to architecture, or to poetry?

Art is propaganda

Art should depict the ideal natural beauty.

>And until you prove that one does, you have no case.

Yes I do. Regardless if one exists or not doesn't mean that some artists aren't trying to depict it.

>Many artists have also

So you admit there is no single purpose of art to inspire emotion. You just lost.

>namely that art should be objective.

Not my argument.

That's just the ideal.

mixing the two is the essense of art

Can't have both.

Not all ideals are natural.

None of them are.

That depends on how you define ideal.

>Yes I do. Regardless if one exists or not doesn't mean that some artists aren't trying to depict it.
An artists subjective (we're bouncing around there again, funny how that works) motivations does not apply to art in the abstract. Moving away from art and to something more concrete, Richard Gatling is on the record of inventing the Gatling gun to reduce the number of soldiers necessary to wage war. Turns out that wasn't the purpose of the Gatling gun as used. Oops.

>So you admit there is no single purpose of art to inspire emotion. You just lost.
No, I admit that artists have multiple motivations, which is distinct from the purpose of art.

>Not my argument.
Then when did you jump into the chain of replies after? Why are you taking up those same talking points?

>artists have multiple motivations, which is distinct from the purpose of art.

Nah.

Well then, if the purpose of art is simply an imperfect attempt to articulate the will of the artist, then you're left with an easy answer, or lack thereof to the original question. There is no clear answer, just what this or that artist thinks is important for a given piece.

i second the shit

I agree with Kant's take on aesthetics.
There is natural beauty and idealistic artistic beauty. The perception of beauty in nature is based upon the harmony of understanding and intuition, which results in the joy of fulfillment of purpose, even if it is a mysterious purpose.
High quality art manifests examples of principles as brilliant ideas viewed together as proclaiming some kind of message.