Why Was There So Much Ugly Art in the Twentieth Century?

by David E.W. Fenner

Two of the most common challenges that teachers of aesthetics have to face in their classrooms today are, first, the presumption that since “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “there’s no disputing taste,” every aesthetic judgment is as good as every other one. The second is that the content from which aesthetics courses commonly draw for examples and for the impetus for contemporary philosophy of art theory — and by this I mean art from Post-Impressionism to the present — is made up of “stuff I could have done when I was four years old.” The substance behind these two challenges — that aesthetic judgment is highly or perhaps exclusively subjective and that twentieth-century art does not demonstrate care of technique, or that it is simply ugly1 — are intimately connected. This connection is the focus of this essay. The answer to the question, “why was there so much ugly art in the twentieth century?” may be that the tradition of showing beauty to be a highly or purely subjective phenomenon renders beauty apparently less valuable than if it were objective in character, and so we have, in the twentieth century, a move away from the production in art of beauty to that which is simply “artistic” or “artistically important.” I want to come at this thesis not through a discussion about either the location or the reality of aesthetic properties. Instead, I want to focus on the “ugly art.”