Artist Inspiration and Beauty in Thought

In this paper I will discuss how an artist’s inspiration is sublime beauty and how they try to produce their art, every time they make an attempt at producing perfect beauty they fail, where is their motivation to continue, so sublime beauty must be achievable if the artist is motivated. Yet it remains a subject of argument as to what art, if any form of art, is perfect, and if there is such a thing as perfect beauty, it would appear that we would know what it is. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to demonstrate that perfect beauty is a deception of one’s sublime thought of beauty.

Socrates states in Ion that when people try to convey their thoughts of beauty in a form of art, that it comes out as a deception of the truth of real beauty. “Then if anyone has not a certain art, he will not know what is said or done well in that art.”(Ion 537C) And since no one man’s art is exactly the same as another, it cannot be conveyed perfectly to reveal his sublime thought of perfect beauty. Since the creator himself cannot convey even his own perception of perfect beauty, than no one can see this true perfect beauty. Man is imperfect and can never perfectly funnel their thoughts into a physical form. Art is only an interpretation which we cannot conduct our thoughts in such a manner to exactly show what is in thought into the physical form.

I will defend against two objections in this paper. I will argue against the objection of all thoughts need an origin, since all thoughts have an origin where does the thought of sublime beauty originate from. I will argue this by stating that its origin comes to us based off our personal experience, based off our experience it makes us think of how that experience would be more beautiful even to a point where one might think of how that experience could be perfectly beautiful. Thus we get the sublime beauty. I will use an analogy the origin of appetite to demonstrate this. The second objection in this paper is that everyone has their own concept of what perfect beauty is and that beauty is relative in thought. I will respond to this by stating that art is relative in thought and no man or woman is perfect. Since they are not perfect they cannot convey their sublime thought of perfect beauty in the any physical form.

Some not espousing this view may contend the origin of sublime beauty in thought needs an account. The account of sublimity in though occurs based off experience, simply because it comes based our experience. Sublimity in thought comes to us by different exposure. An example of sublimity in thought through exposure is when one looks and interprets a painting. One cannot help to interpret the painting. When one interprets something they bring out the meaning behind it. Since the meaning is being interpreted it is being thought on a deeper meaning. The deeper meaning causes one to think of it in a way where the sublime thought or perfect thought can be imagined. The sublime beauty is caused by the individual’s ability think progressively, and how that painting could be made better. Since the idea of how to make it better is only in thought it has no limits to how great it can be. Reality has natural laws which everything has to follow. Contrary to where thoughts don’t have boundaries, any thought can happen. This happens in a similar way to us, just the way that appetite comes from experience. Our appetite happens based off our previous experience. One eats a delicious salad. As he is eating the salad he is enjoying it. After he indulges in the salad one begins to think about how the salad could be better. The next time that person is hungry he is going to want to eat a better salad than that her had, even though the salad was enjoyable. He wants it to be better. He imagines his dream salad based of his previous salad. Regardless of how many salads he tries, one will always imagine a greater salad. The more experience you have the greater amount of sublime beauty you will have in thought.

It comes natural.

One might object to this argument by stating that perfect beauty is relative in thought. Beauty in physical art is relative and not real. It is inspired from his sublimity. But since man is not perfect, neither can the art that he produces that is based off his interpretation of his sublime thought of perfect beauty. Yet, art can still be useful and awesome and magnificent. Art can be useful in the way that it may bring one be inspired by that certain art piece. To see this art as useful and wonderful we need to come in with the mindset that this art is only an approximation of beauty. We can learn from art but only if we know that it is false and that we do not become beguiled by this cunning interpretation. Art can be good even though it is a deception the same way an illusion of an oasis in the desert can be useful to someone lost in the desert. It keeps them moving; it keeps them from standing still it keeps us striving for that perfect beauty. Art is our oasis, it keeps us thinking and imaging what perfect beauty is. It keeps us from not thinking and not pondering perfect beauty. Why do we have so many art museums and value art so much since art is only a deception of the truth? We want to know others interpretation of their sublime thought of perfect beauty and compare it to our own. We like to appreciate people’s artist ability to deceive because we need it. We want it. We can’t live without the lie. We want it so bad to see interpretation of their own thought. Because everyone tries so hard to express their sublime thought of perfect beauty, that when we see someone’s interpretation of their sublime beauty remotely close to our own interpretation we think of it as beauty. Thus there are many different types of art because some people can view some art to be more sensual to the senses because they perceive it to be remotely similar to their sublime interpretation, but do not have the skill to convey it like the artist does. Thus it is only a false hood of perfect beauty because it is not exactly like our sublime thought.

In conclusion, perfect beauty cannot exist nor be created. It is only a sublime thought. An objection that was brought up was that sublimity in thought must have an origin. Sublime thought of beauty comes to us from experience. We interpret different things which in turns make us imagine a form greater than that of our original experience. Since it was our thought is greater than our original experience it must be our idea of perfect sublime beauty. The second objection I brought up in this paper was that perfect beauty is relative and everyone might see it differently. The response is that art is a deception and that not a single being can put perfect beauty into a physical form. It is false and a lie. But this deception can be good if we see it as a deception and not as real. It is not perfect beauty. Perfect beauty cannot exist; regardless of how hard man tries to convey their thoughts in word, paint, sculpture. It cannot be done because man is an imperfect being and will never become imperfect. Thus, sublime beauty can only be in thought. This thesis matters because we as a society must see and understand art to be a deception. If we see some art that we perceive it to be as perfect beauty then we will stop striving to obtain the true perfect beauty which can only be in thought. If we stop trying to see this perfect beauty in the physical form we in essence stop striving for truth. And if we stop striving for truth then we are wasting away and life is pointless. Because truth is the one thing in the world that everyone wants. And we need to strive to become closer to that truth. Thus art is good because it gets us thinking about our sublime idea of perfect beauty.