I can´t argue against this. Denis Dutton has a pretty convincing argument one way or another, but how true is it? His theory suggests that what we perceive as beauty is as evolved as our bodies are, that the shape of a diamond is eerily similar to that of a pre-historic stone spearhead, and that these stones weren´t just made to kill animals but to show off abilities for the purpose of mating. Think, a man makes a stone not to kill, but to show that he´s capable of creating such a stone, and therefore more likely to procreate. 

He also suggests that a typical landscape painting is considered beautiful by all cultures regardless of whether that culture has this landscape or not. That´s because a particular landscape that´s considered beautiful across all cultures specifically resembles the Savannah, and has plenty of trees to climb out of danger, grasses for hiding, water for drinking, and animals for eating, etc.

Or how about the fact that cute animals are cute as a defense mechanism? One thing for sure, his theory is controversial, but if he´s right then it turns the whole art world on its head. If beauty is evolved then what´s the point of viewing it in monetary terms? What´s the point of criticizing art in terms of beauty or innovativeness if all it´s for is progressing humankind into the next generation. Are we talking about the right things in today´s world? Should we be talking about art as if it´s meant to move us from one advanced state to a more advanced state? If so, then what happens when we find "the answer" to Life, The Universe and Everything (RIP Mr. Adams)? Does applied art then start to look like a pyramid where only the best art that pushes us in the best / right answer becomes acceptable? Will we get to a point where a singular artist is capable of putting the final piece on top of the pyramid? Is that where we´re heading? If so, the conversation needs to change, and I think that´s something the auction houses may not embrace. After all, if art is a pyramid then so is oligarchy.

Again, it´s an interesting theory that has given me some ideas for future paintings. First research, but I´m looking forward to getting started. I´m curious to know what you think of this. Please comment below.

​

Nothing irks me more in art than criticism that uses modern fashion as a justification for it's existence. In fact, if a piece of art is being criticized because the piece fails to follow modern fashionable conventions then the piece is very likely by definition "art". I don't say this meaning that art must or even should break conventions (I don't believe that at all). But art that conforms to prevailing fashions intentionally is missing something, and that missing piece is truth.
​

Truth is nothing new in art, but what the truth is, unfortunately, is a topic that will be debated for more centuries in the future than it has been debated until today. However, in art, truth is what the artist says it is. This is an extremely delicate definition as it can never be known if an artist has deliberately conformed to the market or not (conforming to the market is one element that I use to define of art, and as a side note puts Community Art on a slippery slope due to the number of grants available to this genre). However, if a nude painting of a woman is criticized because the painted woman has arm pit hair then this is bad criticism. It may or may not be good art, whatever, but complaining about it is bad criticism. Body hair on women is fashionable or not depending on the culture of that community, but this was in London where female arm pit hair is generally frowned upon. I don't think it matters if a person likes it or not. I personally don't like it, but I'd rather see it in a painting than hear about some art critic whining about it. Why? Because if the model has arm pit hair then the painter has an obligation to decide if leaving the hair in or out is telling the truth. If it stays in the painting, then the artist is telling the truth (or a truth, if you want to look at it that way). That's the truth of the situation, and denying that truth is unproductive. Not putting the hair there while maintaining the truth would require another element to the art. In other words, not putting the hair there makes a statement. The critic needs to focus on if the statement is bad or good, and then secondarily if the piece of art needs to be beautiful in order to fulfill it's purpose. Saying that the arm pit hair makes the painting unbeautiful and therefore bad art is just dumb.
​

So what if the artist decides not to put the hair there, and what if that's a statement in of itself? OK, fine. In fact, the hair doesn't even need to be there. There's nothing wrong with that, unless the artist isn't telling the truth. The truth doesn't need to be what's actually there. The truth needs to be what the artist is saying the truth is. Not putting the hair there because it goes against fashion is not telling the truth because there's no statement there. The artist is merely conforming with the market, and that lacks artistic value.
​

There are many writers who have talked about the truth in their form of art. Stephen King in On Writing wrote that fiction is a lie, but that the truth is the foundation that gives that lie believability (I'm paraphrasing here because my copy of On Writing is in storage on another continent). He has been heavily criticized for saying (again, paraphrasing) that a character took a Coke out of the fridge instead of a "soda" or "pop". To him this is crazy because the character took a Coke out, not something else. That's what was in his head, that's what the character did, that's what the truth is. Criticizing him for using a brand name instead of a generic word is stylistic at best and doesn't get to the heart of the matter (if there is a heart, of which if there isn't really makes the critic look really bad because he or she is wasting time on something unimportant). It's not good criticism. Good criticism would talk about if he said something in a way that made the reader (or the viewer) believe that it was true. After all, art is a commentary on real life. If there's no substance to it then what's the point?

And yes, Stephen King is one of the most commercial writers out there. He won't be winning a Nobel Prize any time soon. My point here is that even commercial work has artistic value and deserves to be criticized in the same way. If King writes in a way that a few billion people like, then have it, as long as he's telling the truth. The truth doesn't need to be Gabriel Marquez just like Damien Hirst doesn't get to be an artist just because what he does is different (he doesn't even do all of his own work these days). In fact, I'd argue that Hirst tells the truth less than King does because King actually set the market whereas Hirst has had numerous copyright infringement cases agaisnt him. Would King leave the arm pit hair out? Would Hirst? Does it matter? Only if the art world ignores it if it's left in, because only then will the critic understand why it's there.