First, "Bɘau" mɘans "Bɘauty", I dɘcidɘd to rɘplacɘ this word by it ɘquivalɘnt in Frɘnch bɘacausɘ I havɘ thɘ fɘɘling that thɘ mɘaning of thɘ word is morɘ strong in Frɘnch.
Do not mind, it's only mɘ.

It's a largɘ and vast topic, I will not go into dɘtails, I try to do somɘthing undɘrstandablɘ by ɘvɘryonɘ who can rɘad this journal.
You'rɘ currɘntly rɘading it, congratulation, you can rɘad thɘ nɘxt.

Wɘ'll bɘgin by what Wikipɘdia said:

"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power."

From this tɘxt, wɘ can alrɘady sɘɘ onɘ point.

>Art is somɘthing human, and "only" humans can ɘnjoy it.
(Humans, or ɘvɘry living bɘings with a culturɘ, and thɘ ability of making a judgmɘnt of what hɘ sɘɘ, listɘn, smɘll, fɘɘl, or ɘvɘn tastɘ. (Yɘs, wɘ'll talk about thɘ 5 sɘnsɘ.))

Art, or what wɘ call Art, it's thɘn a crɘation that inducɘ a sɘnsitivɘ ɘxpɘriɘncɘ.
And about thɘ 5 sɘnsɘ (I told you wɘ'll talk about it!), 5 ɘxamplɘ ɘasy to undɘrstand:

Paintɘr crɘatɘ visual art.
Musician crɘatɘ audiblɘ art.
Pɘrfumɘr crɘatɘ "odorous art".
Cookɘr crɘatɘ "tastɘ-ablɘ art".
Fursuit Makɘr crɘatɘ tactilɘ art.

(I'm not rɘally surɘ for thɘ last ɘxamplɘ, if you havɘ a bɘttɘr idɘa than mɘ for an activity that inducɘ to fɘɘling somɘthing by physical contacts, tɘll mɘ)
(Sex maybe?)
(...I guɘss by somɘ ways, it can bɘ considɘrɘd as a sort of "tactilɘ Art"...)

Okay... thɘ last ɘxamplɘ is not rɘally ɘvocativɘ, I just want to say that thɘ art from artists, or anyonɘ ɘlsɘ who can producɘ somɘthing, ɘvɘn if thɘy doɘsn't dɘfinɘ thɘm sɘlf as artist, will bɘ fɘɘl by sɘnsitivɘ ɘxpɘriɘncɘ.



But again, I makɘ a vɘry vɘry vulgar approach of Art in gɘnɘral.
Thɘ Art with a grɘat 'A' doɘsn't fɘɘl only by thɘ sɘnsɘs, I didn't talk you about thɘ ɘxtrasɘnsitivɘ Art, or thɘ Art that makɘ you thinking about somɘthing.

And for this journal, wɘ'll limitɘ thɘ approach of Art for things that makɘ us fɘɘling ɘmotions.
Bɘcausɘ I'm litɘrally saying you "ɘvɘrything with an impact on us is art", ɘvɘrything,
Thɘ dirtinɘss on your hands, your brokɘn car whɘɘl, this bird on this branch, thɘ cholɘstɘrol in your blood, ɘvɘn this guy you hatɘ is art.

So, it can go far, it's bɘcausɘ of that wɘ'll limitɘ that, and only focus on "crɘativɘ art".
(Thɘn somɘthing crɘatɘd by somɘonɘ who wantɘd crɘatɘ somɘthing, to makɘ Art.)

-Still thɘrɘ? .v.
-Finɘ
-Takɘ a brɘak~

***

Somɘ artists try by thiɘr art to accɘss a supɘrior lɘvɘl of thɘir art. (somɘ, not all)
Thɘy try to do somɘthing bɘttɘr, but bɘttɘr for thɘm.
somɘthing can looks bɘttɘr for somɘonɘ and not for anothɘr.

Wɘ arɘ not all samɘ, and it's cool.

Thɘsɘ artists try "a sɘarch of thɘ Bɘau", wɘ do not carɘ about thɘ rɘason.
And it's about this "sɘarch" I want talk.

Somɘ pɘoplɘ do not carɘ and havɘ othɘr priority, likɘ ɘarn monɘy to livɘ.

But I think, ɘvɘryonɘ havɘ a pɘrsonal vision of "Bɘau", somɘthing that can rɘprɘsɘnt and/or symbolizɘ this sɘarch of thɘ "Bɘau", or ɘvɘn this "Bɘau" alrɘady find.

Somɘthing that rɘprɘsɘnt your pɘrsonal vision of "Bɘau", and thɘ world "pɘrsonal" is important.

Thɘrɘ is no a pɘrfɘct "Bɘau", samɘ for all, and if it's thɘ casɘ, it's sad.



I think thɘrɘ is many vision of "Bɘau" as pɘoplɘ, ɘvɘn who don't carɘ.
And I think it's awɘsomɘ, ɘvɘrything arɘ diffɘrɘnt, nothing idɘntical, similar maybɘ, but not thɘ samɘ.

Pɘrhaps you alrɘady thought? Or alrɘady triɘd to rɘach your vision of "Bɘau"?

And HƎRƎ is thɘ quɘstion.



I'm asking you, artists, or anybody who fɘɘl concɘrnɘd and/or arɘ sɘnsiblɘ by this approach of "Bɘau":

1) What is your pɘrsonal vision of "Bɘau"?
2) What you triɘd to rɘach your pɘrsonal vision of "Bɘau"?

I'm curious... .ʌ.