> There are historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art that make it beautiful beyond the aesthetic.
Those are in the eye of the beholder though. In many cases they are things I still don't care about after learning about them. An ugly painting doesn't become any more interesting to me when I learn about the struggles the artist went through - a lot of people do find it more interesting - good for them, but it isn't for me. (then again the paintings I'm thinking of most people thought were nice even before they learned about the artist...)
> An ugly painting doesn't become any more interesting to me when I learn about the struggles the artist went through
Personal struggles? Sure. An ugly painting that opens the door to me learning about a war or revolution or system of government I was previously unaware of? Or a style or medium enabled by a new technology of the time? That can be fun.
I live near a large collection of wildlife art. I can't say many of them are beautiful. But noting how wolves have been portrayed over millenia, and across cultures, was a genuinely interesting exhibit. (In America, they went from ferocious creatues to essentially dogs. Most wolves in art today are not physiologically wolves. Akin to how most butterflies in art are dead.)
That can happen, but often the story isn't interesting (at least to me). It is the same story: someone decides the world is out to get them and they won't "sell out". I don't care, I don't agree with their world view, and in any case they are not unique. If anything they need mental help - but they are plenty of other people around who also need such help who didn't paint.
Do not mistake what I said for some claim that all art is bad/ugly. There is a lot of art I do enjoy. What I enjoy is personal. I do not fault someone else for enjoying art that I don't enjoy in general.
I saw Da Vinci's drawings and smaller paintings and they were fun, with the investigation of flowing water and (illicit?) anatomy and various devices with wooden cogs in. Not exactly educational, but historically interesting and oddly aesthetic. Does that count? I mean, art galleries can show lots of different kinds of art. It doesn't have to be monotonous self-expression.
I have no idea how your replp fits in with my comment. I find some 'art' ugly and knowing about the artist doesn't change a thing.
I find Da Vinci the engineer makes things I find nice to look at, but he did many other paintings and I would need to see each to make a judgement on it. Knowinghis issues just makes me wish he lived with modern medicine where we might be able to treat him - and wonder what he could have done if he had modern training - many of his machines have obvious flaws that his day was not advanced enough to know about. That is me though, maybe you are different - this is a personal thing and so it is hard to call anyone wrong.
> when I learn about the struggles the artist went through
The comment you responded to was about "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art". Which is something entirely different.
This really reads like someone knee jerk dismissing something they never bothered took at, but just assume it's stupid.
I have looked just enough to know that my dissmissal is correct for me. I do not find those parts of interest.
you can enjoy them that is okay. Just don't think I'm wrong for not.
My argument was not about those things being interesting or not. My point was that you are wrong about what the content it.
"Artist struggles" is not what art museums writeups are about. They are not even caricature, they are just something people who do not go to art museums imagine to be there. Mostly because the only thing they know about art is that some artists struggled.
Also "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" dont have all that much to do with "artist struggles".
I see the misunderstanding - you are placing too much emphasis on "artist struggles".
I have seen "about the artist" writeups and museums, and I've been to about the artists talks - both talking about struggles. The idea that they don't exist is false in my experience. However generally writeups by the art itself is "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art".
The "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" do not move me at all. I've seen plenty of writeups on them next to art I enjoy - I've learned to not bother reading those place cards (and I love reading!) because they are a waste of time. I know what I like, and those writeups are uninteresting to me.
If you like them fine, but they harm my enjoyment. For that matter if art exhibts were about something else than "historical, thematic and philosophical aspects to art" I would likely enjoy art more. (and I supposed artists would scream about the museums selling out)