Patrick defines art as "whatever stands in the world with no other purpose than to move us." Annie suggests it should at least be beautiful. Do you agree with either of these definitions?

On page 250, Patrick defines art as "whatever stands in the world with no other purpose than to move us." Annie in turn suggests that art should at least be beautiful. Do you agree with either of these definitions? What other scenes and situations in the novel speak to the themes of art and beauty?

I do agree with Patrick's definition of art and I also believe that art need not be beautiful, although it is comforting when it is. I am greatly moved by Picasso's Guernica, but I do not find it beautiful, for example.

Both Patrick's and Annie's definitions are correct as far as I'm concerned. To make use of an old phrase, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with Suzanne who reminds us of the phrase, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". I don't think art has to be beautiful if it moves us, so I guess I agree more with Patrick. Art should arouse a feeling in us and it may be a very different feeling than what the artist intended or what he felt when he/she created the work. Also we might look at a piece of art when we are 18 and feel one thing but at age 60 the feeling is totally different. It is very subjective based on our experiences.

Both definitions of art could be seen as correct. Art does not necessarily have to be beautiful, but it does have to speak to us, make us feel something. We do need to connect with the piece whether it be a painting, a photograph or a piece of writing and perhaps that is what Patrick means by "moving us".

I tend to agree with Patrick but for the phrase "with no other purpose". I believe art is whatever stands in the world that moves us just by looking at it.

I disagree with both Annie and Patrick in terms of their definition of art. For Patrick, I think art can have purposes other than to move us - it can be functional art, or unintentional art, etc. And though Annie says it should be beautiful, I don't think that's the case either. Sometimes art is dark and scary. Sometimes it can be meant to spark a reaction of anger or fear or hatred. It can be based on a bad memory, too. Not all art is beautiful.

Patrick is sort of right on. There is much called art that is not appealing in a cozy, comfy way but can still appeal for making us see things through another's eyes and interest us for its use of line, color, form and subject. It is much like admiring the beauty of a coastal scene and the starkness of bare rocky mountain butte. They draw our eye and attention for very different reasons but are both artistic in their own way.

Some of the most significant art is not "beautiful" but art does move us, so I agree with Patrick. Not all items of art move us all, certain things speak to us and and some doesn't. Not everything is art to everyone. Annie took items and made them beautiful-it was the aesthetic that influenced her art.

Art is as personal as food tastes and perfume smells; things that some people love make others gag. In that sense Patrick's definition is correct.

I don't agree 100% with either of these. I think of art as something that moves us but it can absolutely have a real purpose. The design of a smart phone, for example, can be both functional and artistic. A well-written essay or nonfiction book can be so beautifully done as to rival the world's best poetry but still have a purpose. What is art if not the highest level that humankind can achieve in anything? Think of a song. Sung by one person it doesn't have any effect at all. Sung by another it can move me to tears with its beauty.