relative beauty.

Time here in Florence is going by unbelievably fast. We are now over 1/3 of the way through the trip and my to-do list grows everyday. I finally feel as though I am really living in this country, I no longer look dazed and confused as I walk into the local cafe or market (a large feat considering where we started). The struggle now is to remember to not get too comfortable, but then again how could you ever get used to views like these?

Now to touch on school for a minute...this weeks class discussion raised the standard question; what is art? For anyone that has ever attempted to answer this ambiguous question, you recognize the complexity it raises. Who defines art? What makes a work pleasing? Does "art" have to be beautiful?

One crucial part of history that I have rarely found myself being able to connect to is the cubist movement. The works below, both of the analytic cubism category, are highly significant to the world of art. I understand the concept behind the works and admire the drastic change in style for the time in which they were created but I cannot connect to the pieces. I find them confusing and not necessarily "beautiful." I know this might potentially cause uproar or disgust in the art world but it is my personal opinion and preference.

The Portuguese Georges Braque

The Guitar Player Pablo Picasso

So does art have to be "beautiful"? Beautiful is a relative term so I guess my answer would have to be no. I wouldn't necessarily consider a fair amount of works to be beautiful however I would still call them art. Art then to me would be defined as personal visual expressions that cannot be defined by any specific rules. Picasso and Braque should be admired for their revolutionary step in artistic expression, even if individuals like myself struggle to find the connection to their artwork.