Ziay!

s?m

justify ...

compugeek66

Well it depends on what definition you use for "art". There is a school of thought that anything can be art, even natural things. "Found art" I think they call it.

I tend to define art as something created via a human agency, therefore I would say natural beauty is different from artistic beauty in that natural beauty is totally unplanned. Some artistic beauty can be unintended as well, a happy accident as it were, but it nevertheless required human interaction to obtain.

Michirù

Beauty of Nature and beauty of ART are different.

Nature is Silent, while ART is expressive.

Art always talks about itself, about its own creation and its creator. any artistic work of the mind claims recognition and acknowledgment.

Nature does not make such a claim and does not force itself to man. This is a part of her silence.

John S

NO! Natural beauty comes from within primarily. Your heart and soul are reflected and show natural beauty from deep within you. Even your physical looks can relay this.
Artistic beauty can be a very nice painting, or a fine sculpture but the person with this ability could be a mean person or hard to get along with, or a musician that can SING, Man can they sing, but they say things with their mouth that cut to the core!

There is a definate difference.

Picasso said it like this in a wonderful quote by the famous painter.
"Good taste is the enimy of great art!"

That is so true.
Good taste has all to do with being refined and cultured.

If great art has to do with anything it has to do with being HUMAN and not very cultured or refined at all.

Some of the greatest musicians and artist in THE world were not very refined nor cultured people and yet, High society and "culture" claims them all the time. Its funny that way.