Vook Bebiew X

As we rebel against beauty, the issue of "design" comes in: not design as composition, but design as - I'm sorry! - a judgement call.
My senior art project in college was my hand-built coil ceramics that were totally non-functional, but meangingful - like a sculpture - and completely unique, but the only hint of beauty I could ascribe to them was an earthy but sparkly glaze that a fellow student-gal kindly lent me. I applied it in a couple different hues, to all the pieces. "Rule-wise" there was no glaze required, but something within judged the whole design as insignificant, if it didn't have at least an attempt at beauty.
That's a judgement call, and that's where the Da-Da ists made their departure. They moved into left brain. They made left-brain choices that became so extreme that they could declare that "extremity" is art, that contrast is art, that anything displayed could be art. But I say:
No design. No beauty.
No standards.
Little art.

Vook Rebiew IX

MEANINGFUL AND UNIQUE, BUT NOT BEAUTIFUL.
In his book Whole New Mind (WNM) Dan Pink says (and I'm paraphrasing) that Right-Brain is "meaningful, unique and beautiful". I like this premise, and he elaborates upon it throughout WNM. To me this is the most pure definition of visual art, whether it's 2- or 3-dimensional, and of music, dance, theatre, authorship, calligraphy, flower-arrangement, singing, public speaking, performances, even stand-up comedy. (I heard it said - as a side-bar - that Jerry Seinfeld says "if you work CLEAN, you can work ANYWHERE," and that to me is where "beauty" comes in, added to "unique" and "funny"!)
But back to Right-Brain as a definition. D. Pink, in WNM, says that "intellectual" is not considered Right-Brain, but Left-Brain. And there's obviously a place for "intellectual". However in art, for example in DaDa-ism, which for many is extremely MEANINGFUL, and of course UNIQUE, (that's a given!), I feel they were clearly rebelling against BEAUTY.

To me, it's a question of DESIGN.
Stay tuned.