Let's not keep silent about beauty in art. Stefaan Eyckmans, a contemporary Belgian figurative painter, is a case in point. He is a Flemish realist still life painter that does justice to the painting tradition of his ancestors. Mr Eyckmans kindly answered some questions that I consider fundamental in establishing an artist's approach towards art. As his favourite artist Mr Eyckmans chose none other that Jan Van Eyck, citing also Johannes Vermeer, Giorgio Morandi, Jan Davidszoon de Heem and Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin. When asked which one art work he would choose as his favourite, Mr Eyckmans answered that it would be the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb by Hubert and Jan Van Eyck, while stating that other choices would be the Portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan by Giovanni Bellini and still lifes by Chardin and others.

When asked what inspires him, Mr Eyckmans responded that he is mostly inspired by 'the light that travels through the composition, the influence the objects have on each other due to this light, the reflections, the soft and colourful shades due to the diffuse daylight'. Finally, the painter was asked if beauty is important in art. Honestly, I chose questions that even if answered with one word, would have a powerful effect. I wanted to make it easier for the artist. But Mr Eyckmans produced quite an eloquent answer:

'Beauty is very important to me and to my art. I refuse to accept the contemporary adagio of the intellectualization of art, where beauty is not important anymore but other things like shocking, being original and conceptual, etc. ... A painting can provoke many emotions but we appreciate it through sensory perception. So beauty relates to ugliness like other sensory perceptions: silence/noise, pleasure/pain, etc. It's the same with music: I refuse to listen to false tones just because the critics tell me there's a reason and story behind that, it hurts my ears and I prefer harmony ... as I prefer looking at beauty as well'.

 Stefaan Eyckmans, Limes in Chinese Bowl

Bring Beauty Back

Art nowadays, and for quite some time, has been purged from sensuality. Popular culture, naturally, overcompensates for that omission. It is almost as if both the artists and the public are bodiless heads. The art world is ruled by an inescapable and implacable intellect. It has become utterly cryptic and antisocial. By taking into consideration the fact that art since its birth as well as during almost all of its course has been inextricably linked to the aesthetic, it is plausible to say that art has ceased to exist. 

Let me tell you a secret: art is kept in the museums. And even if, by exception, any art would be produced today, it should be left to time to determine whether it deserves a place in the museum. All it has become is a hybrid of play and activism. An amusement for the artist as well as the viewer, embedded with ideas, and an act important in itself, that is supposed to bring about social change. There is nothing wrong with art being embedded with ideas, as long as it is visually independent, as it can stand on its own. The art that is prevalent today and has been for several decades cannot exist without the theory, its theory. Being self-explanatory is irrelevant to this art. Moreover, both the artist that produces it and the viewer that consumes it take pride in its ambiguity. It is as if they are members of the same exclusive cult, of which the critic is the high priest, the artist is the cleric and the viewer is the believer.

In modern societies we live inside our heads, and we are unaware of it. To value beauty in art again, first of all, we need to be conscious of that tendency. All that is needed, then, is to reevaluate our priorities regarding art, in its production, its consumption, and its theory. It would, thus, be possible to reconnect with quintessential art. Art that is viscerally beautiful, not cerebrally useful. If only it were possible to bring beauty back, to bring art back...