Philosopher Roger Scruton on beauty and desecration:
At any time between 1750 and 1930, if you had asked an educated person to describe the goal of poetry, art, or music, “beauty” would have been the answer. And if you had asked what the point of that was, you would have learned that beauty is a value, as important in its way as truth and goodness, and indeed hardly distinguishable from them. Philosophers of the Enlightenment saw beauty as a way in which lasting moral and spiritual values acquire sensuous form. And no Romantic painter, musician, or writer would have denied that beauty was the final purpose of his art.
At some time during the aftermath of modernism, beauty ceased to receive those tributes. Art increasingly aimed to disturb, subvert, or transgress moral certainties, and it was not beauty but originality—however achieved and at whatever moral cost—that won the prizes. Indeed, there arose a widespread suspicion of beauty as next in line to kitsch—something too sweet and inoffensive for the serious modern artist to pursue.
(Via: Douglas Groothuis)
May 10th, 2011 | 11:04 am
HANS URS VON BALTHASAR got it right about those who spurn beauty:
“We no longer dare to believe in BEAUTY and we make of it a mere appearance in order the more easily to dispose of it.
Our situation today shows that BEAUTY demands for itself at least as much courage and decision as do TRUTH and GOODNESS, and she will not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance.
We can be sure that whosoever sneers at her name as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past—whether he admits it or not—can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.”
May 10th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
I wonder if the denial of beauty, particularly transcendent beauty, is a kind of buffer against the awareness of our moral ugliness. To relegate beauty to the category of kitsch, to marginalize it by whatever means, and thereby to devalue it, is to effectively remove its testimony against us.
I realize that what I am saying here could be applied to the relativizing of truth and goodness, but beauty is a unique kind of witness, because it is the most embodied and concrete, and is therefore more imposing than truth and goodness
May 10th, 2011 | 5:02 pm
Scruton has a good BBC 1-hr long series on beauty as well. You have to follow the prompts for parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhVaLbBglQ&feature=related
Also a good book called Beauty, or paperback called Beauty A Very Short Introduction.
May 10th, 2011 | 6:09 pm
Who is this ‘we’, kemosabe? I ain’t takin’ the heat for aficionados of Frank Gehry, Martin Creed, and Snoop Doggy Dogg.
May 10th, 2011 | 7:07 pm
This post may be about a generation behind the times. And even then it’s about half right.
My sense of classical music, to make a foray into one artistic medium I follow, is that neo-tonalism is part of the mainstream among Eastern European composers, Gorecki, Part, Rautavaara. And it has been for at least four decades.
And even in the 20th century, you could find beauty, if you knew to look to Hovhaness, Copland, Diamond, Hanson. Huh: funny they were all Americans, eh?
I think beauty is an admirable goal, but it’s not the only target of art. Nor should it be. Variety is good.
I’m much more concerned about angry music than ugly music.
May 10th, 2011 | 7:50 pm
I think beauty is an admirable goal, but it’s not the only target of art. Nor should it be. Variety is good.
Variety is good and art should reflect the ugliness of life as well as its beauty. (And the beautiful is not limited to and goes far beyond prettiness). The problem here is when contemporary artists focus exclusively on the ugliness, or as with the ideologically driven opera directors Calixto Bieito and Gerald Mortier, impose ugliness on beauty.
May 10th, 2011 | 7:51 pm
“christ in the piss jar” may not be beautiful, but it is “true.” that’s exactly what happened on calvary. my piss and your piss.
methinks true art is good art.
May 10th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
Might I also recommend Fr. John Saward, “The Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty”?
May 10th, 2011 | 9:45 pm
Andrew — I would think that the crucifixion image itself adequately expresses the ugliness of the event. Many crucifixes are pretty gruesome. I know you may be playing devil’s advocate here, but don’t encourage these people. Although I suppose it is theoretically possible to do so, how many people do you think really read that piece as a contemplation of the crucifixion in a Christian spirit (along the lines of, say, this piece)? Considering the context of the contemporary art world, it was pretty clearly designed to offend Christians, or “transgress the boundaries,” or whatever the current lingo is. There is no sense of reverence or redemption as you would see in Christian art. It’s 100% ugly.
Todd — What other target should art have beside beauty (widely understood as more than merely pleasing or orderly)? Why should art damage or degrade us? Would you agree that there would be something fundamentally awful about a chef serving up human feces to eat? (Hey, there’s an idea for a conceptual art project.) Why do we accept the same from “artists?”
May 10th, 2011 | 10:03 pm
Patrick wrote:
What other target should art have beside beauty (widely understood as more than merely pleasing or orderly)? Why should art damage or degrade us?
Why does art that isn’t beautiful necessarily damage and degrade? Do images of, say, war, necessarily damage and degrade us? Good art is a good lens on reality.
I would think that the crucifixion image itself adequately expresses the ugliness of the event.
Not if you’ve seen it a thousand times without each time stopping to reflect on it. Serrano said his work was intended to reflect how Christ’s image has been commercialized and deracinated.
May 10th, 2011 | 10:57 pm
** Why does art that isn’t beautiful necessarily damage and degrade? Do images of, say, war, necessarily damage and degrade us? Good art is a good lens on reality. **
Insofar as art memorializes the suffering of war in a way that respects the victims, it is beautiful. Insofar as it merely records what happens, it’s a useful historical illustration. Insofar as it glorifies and thereby repeats the violence of reality, it is ugly.
** Serrano said his work was intended to reflect how Christ’s image has been commercialized and deracinated. **
Who is Serrano to accuse us all of lack of reflection? Even assuming that that is indeed the case with regard to Christ’s image, I fail to see how it serves that purpose. The crucifixion was ugly, yes, I grant him that. It is an accurate depiction of sin, something we are all familiar with and which is all too common. We could all try to out-do each other with increasingly uglier and uglier depictions of it, but what purpose would that serve?
May 11th, 2011 | 9:08 am
Patrick, that’s an awfully didactic way to approach art. Artists aren’t limited to memorializing, recording or glorifying. It can also lament, and express pain and outrage. (Now I’m being didactic too).
And who is this “us” Serrano should not accuse of lack of reflection? He’s not accusing you personally – perhaps he’s accusing himself. If the art does nothing for you, turn away from it. But by making truly ugly something that in most artistic depictions has a kind of beauty, he’s addressing a real problem. My first reaction on seeing photos of the piece was to be offended. But I was presumptuous.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:45 am
[...] think it was more complicated than that (replacing ugly with beauty). I think the artistic aesthetic which judged art for its beauty got [...]
May 11th, 2011 | 10:46 am
[...] think it was more complicated than that (replacing ugly with beauty). I think the artistic aesthetic which judged art for its beauty got [...]
May 11th, 2011 | 11:41 am
While it’s true that an artist is known by what he leaves behind, human waste is not a fit subject or material for art. It is inherently degrading. This is just basic human culture (which these artists knowingly violate). I would not willingly view or consider such work, even for the sake of art–just as I would not willingly enter into a physically degrading relationship, even for love. Ken has great respect for art, but doesn’t seem to require it to respect him.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
T.B., Serrano used his own urine. Was he disrespecting himself? NASA has plans to recycle human waste for drinking water, fertilizer and electricity. Would that be a degrading practice? We all have a healthy, instinctive revulsion towards human waste, but I don’t think your broad proscription stands to reason.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:25 pm
Ken,it becomes degrading when he presents it to the viewer in their relationship. I don’t care to have such a relationship.
Your NASA example has no bearing whatsoever.
May 11th, 2011 | 1:00 pm
“What other target should art have beside beauty (widely understood as more than merely pleasing or orderly)?”
Aside from truth, which has already been cited, a short list: courage, sacrifice, conscience-pricking, longing.
“Why should art damage or degrade us?”
I’m not arguing it should. But there’s nothing wrong with being challenged by art. Beauty can be damaging and degrading too–just observe how many women pine for the corporate/cultural ideal of youth and sexual allure.
“Why do we accept the same from ‘artists?’”
Do we really? Or is this stuff just fodder for discussion by the outraged?
Another example, the 1962 Pulitzer-winning novel by Edwin O’Connor, The Edge of Sadness. When I described it to her, my wife thought the story of an alcoholic priest was too depressing, and asked why I read it. I wasn’t looking for a novel that painted a character in a totally good light, with a happy ending, and with a well-defined resolution to his problems. I wanted to experience the art of writing in a character study that was true to nature, and faithful to the struggles of living a Gospel life in the shadow of addiction.
Sometimes, it seems as if the critics want to be soothed by beauty, like watching women in beer commercials or Victoria Secret ads.
May 11th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
I disagree, T.B., but I’ll leave it at that.
May 11th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Another example, the 1962 Pulitzer-winning novel by Edwin O’Connor, The Edge of Sadness. When I described it to her, my wife thought the story of an alcoholic priest was too depressing, and asked why I read it. I wasn’t looking for a novel that painted a character in a totally good light, with a happy ending, and with a well-defined resolution to his problems. I wanted to experience the art of writing in a character study that was true to nature, and faithful to the struggles of living a Gospel life in the shadow of addiction.
Amen. I hope you’ve both read Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory!
May 12th, 2011 | 11:54 am
In today’s art, the use of violent, scatological and pornographic imagery for sensationalistic purposes is now routine. I am involved in the arts and come across this tedious stuff daily. The trend, taken as a whole, is obviously silly and degraded. It does not increase our sensitivities or our understanding of the uses of media, blah, blah, blah.
At some point one becomes somewhat bewildered by the ruin of it all. Roger Scruton seems at that point. I don’t know what can be done about it, but at least I can set my own boundaries for what I’m willing to view at length. The goal is not to block out challenging and possibly disturbing work, but to pass over so much cheap and disgusting work. While there may be some admirable work out there created with excrement, I’m willing to take the risk of missing it.
May 12th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
T.B., we’re on the same page there. I just make an exception for Serrano because I believe his explanation.
May 12th, 2011 | 11:35 pm
Thanks, Ken. You’re kind to Serrano and kind to me. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact