In the interest of justifying my newest nickname, the salmon, which I am terribly fond of, please allow me to swim against the stream yet again.
It’s commonly thought that beauty resides in the realm of subjectivity, and that its children–art, music, literature, and the like–are created in the subjective image of their mother. This notion is exacerbated by the relativistic age in which we live, whereby nearly any notion is relativized and subjectivized. But is it true that beauty is subjective? I think not.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Romans 1:18-23
Paul argues that God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–are clearly known through the creation. He further argues that sinful men did not glorify him as God; instead, they exchanged the glory of God. Here’s the question at hand, then: is not the glory of God beautiful?
Of course it is. It’s entailed in the beatific vision. Is, then, the glory of God a subjective beauty? Heaven forbid. Though all earth pass away, the glory of God will remain beautiful, were there no one there to see it.
Beauty, then, is anything but subjective. Beauty in the natural world derives from God as certainly as logic, moral values and duties, and anything else that requires grounding. Moreover, we as humans made in the image of God, are endowed with the capability of apprehending beauty, just as we possess the ability to recognize its converse. I don’t think this will be that difficult to demonstrate, either for beauty proper, or in its children.
First, there’s an objective standard by which we can judge the children of beauty. It’s not at all problematic to distinguish between the child’s stick figure and the Mona Lisa. It’s not difficult to distinguish between a Pavarotti and the guy behind you in church who is tone deaf.
Secondly, it is not at all difficult to apprehend beauty from non-beauty in our own experience of the natural world. We discern rather easily between a tar covered, polluted, brown water dirty beach, and the pristine, blue water, white beaches of paradise. We naturally distinguish between the odor of a Great Dane dung pile and the rose petal growing next to it. One has beauty, the other does not, until we become flies, that is.
All in all, beauty is objective. The confusion arises when we conflate beauty with our personal likes and dislikes, and when we forget to account for the ravages of sin, that can so alter one’s dislikes that they exchange the objective beauty of God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Subjectivity arises with validity in my personal tastes: I like Dostoevsky, but not Dickens. I like Matisse, but not Picasso. I like oboes, but not tubas. In none of these situations must we deny the inherent beauty of the work or sound, even though we subjectively prefer one over the other. We can acknowledge their objective beauty, while not preferring them subjectively. But in no cases are we allowed to acknowledge the works of the devil as beautiful, though at times we may subjectively prefer them.
Soli Deo Gloria
The next time I beat you at a game, may I call you the Salmon Croakette? 🙂
…excellent post, quixote!
“The next time I beat you at a game, may I call you the Salmon Croakette? ”
I think that’s a great idea!
If you know what I mean 🙂
Marc:
“First, there’s an objective standard by which we can judge the children of beauty. It’s not at all problematic to distinguish between the child’s stick figure and the Mona Lisa. It’s not difficult to distinguish between a Pavarotti and the guy behind you in church who is tone deaf.”
Here you assert that there’s an objective standard, but your example seems to be a subjective one. What gives? And the next paragraph seems to be merely reasserting your position…’EVERYBODY knows THIS is beautiful, while THAT is not’, without actually offering any standard beyond some peoples’ aesthetic opinions.
Some questions- in asserting the objective beauty of this or that particular thing, doesn’t this make anyone who disagrees with your aesthetic assessment axiomatically wrong? Or at least, doesn’t it make one of you wrong? Why is one of you wrong? Do aesthetics boil down to a moral issue as well? And what are some of the criteria used to judge whether something is beautiful or not beyond subjective opinion? Take your first two examples. Your argument seems to infer that neither a child’s stick figures nor a tone deaf’s singing are beautiful, making them by default…ugly? Why? Is complexity a necessary criterion for beauty? Tonal sophistication? Where’s your justification for this, beyond mere assertion, or agreement from, for lack of a better word, other ‘subjects’?
Or were you actually addressing degrees of beauty with your examples? Again, where are your objective criteria?
“We discern rather easily between a tar covered, polluted, brown water dirty beach, and the pristine, blue water, white beaches of paradise. We naturally distinguish between the odor of a Great Dane dung pile and the rose petal growing next to it. One has beauty, the other does not, until we become flies, that is.”
Again, what are your criteria beyond consensus? And what of those aesthetic appraisals touching on more controversial objects d’art? You mention Picasso, for instance, and insist that we cannot deny the ‘inherent beauty of the work…’. But many people find Picasso’s work to be perfectly hideous. The same can be said of many, many, MANY examples of formal art, as well as many aspects of the world in general. Is anybody who hates Picasso objectively mistaken? How in the world can you prove something like that?
Furthermore, consider the natural revulsion many children and adults have toward insects. Can’t it be argued that their attitude is a reflection of the objective ‘fact’ that insects are ugly?
Your last paragraph demonstrates the dilemma the objective aestheticist (I think I just made up a word there…lol!) puts him/herself in. Take aesthetic objects A,B,C and D. How do I discern which are beautiful, and which are not? Personally, I happen to love A, like B, am ambivalent about C, and absolutely despise D. But wait! I’ve neglected to ‘account for the ravages of sin, that can so alter one’s dislikes that they exchange the objective beauty.’ So how can I know if I’m actually liking ugly things, and hating beautiful things, since my subjective likes and dislikes don’t count? Furthermore, what is my duty here if I go ahead and accept somebody else’s ‘objective’ standards for beauty? Should I then force myself to dislike any jazz pieces formulated under the aegis of opium induced thought processes, then go out and buy all of Stryper’s albums?
I’ve actually had this same discussion lots of times on some poetry sites I frequent. There are lots of factors contributing to our feelings about ‘what is beautiful?’ I’ll agree there are some ‘almost-universals’, though even these are often culturally inflected. But many standards of beauty change through time, though none of us are entirely immune to the wish for a deontological fashion sense, often not recognizing that yesterday’s cutting edge often becomes today’s laughingstock. Just another Quixotic yearning for permanence, I suppose, founded in the immortality we wish we had.
Thanks for the time!
Jim, to paraphrase one of Marc’s favourite axioms:
Ugliness exists. Therefore, so does some objective ultimate beauty.
To ask how we derive it contains as much controversy as establishing a moral contract from differing premises, but in no way negates the existence of the underlying concepts, a fact for which subjectivity cannot account.
Naturalistically, plenty of theories abound as to the survival value of what we call ‘beauty’. Bird feathers and mating, flower scents and pollination. Just another Quixotic yearning for permanence, I suppose? 🙂
“Furthermore, what is my duty here if I go ahead and accept somebody else’s ‘objective’ standards for beauty? Should I then force myself to dislike any jazz pieces formulated under the aegis of opium induced thought processes, then go out and buy all of Stryper’s albums?”
I love that.
Cheers,
Cat
“Here you assert that there’s an objective standard, but your example seems to be a subjective one. What gives?”
Hey Jim,
You’re OK in my book, so don’t take the following as belligerence: if you’re unable to distinguish between a stick figure and the Mona Lisa with regard to beauty, I’d have to apply myself to honestly consider anything else you had say on the matter 🙂
“Your argument seems to infer that neither a child’s stick figures nor a tone deaf’s singing are beautiful, making them by default…ugly?”
That would be you drawing a inference, my friend. And why would you indicate that all non-beautiful in the artistic sense is ugly? I wouldn’t make that leap. Smacks of false-dillemaness…
“You mention Picasso, for instance, and insist that we cannot deny the ‘inherent beauty of the work”
You’re well within your rights to dislike it subjectively, but to deny the objective quality of the artwork itself I think is utterly wrongheaded.
“Is anybody who hates Picasso objectively mistaken? How in the world can you prove something like that?”
No, but you’re conflating hate, which is a subjective term, with an objective appraisal of the artwork. You’ve done that several times in your comment (with words other than hate)…I’ll just note it this once.
“Furthermore, consider the natural revulsion many children and adults have toward insects. Can’t it be argued that their attitude is a reflection of the objective ‘fact’ that insects are ugly? ”
And in the next argument, you’ll explain to me that it’s an objective result of our evolutionary heritage. A little consistency, please, Jim 🙂
“Your last paragraph demonstrates the dilemma the objective aestheticist (I think I just made up a word there…lol!) ”
Hey, I like that…
“How do I discern which are beautiful, and which are not? ”
Personal incredulity has just never been convincing to me, Jim. Now, I’ll grant that some cases present more difficult evaluations than others, but I maintain that those who cannot distinguish between the Mona Lisa and the stick figure, the brilliant sunset and the polluted sky, the rose and the dog crap, are simply engaging in obscurantism.
“I’ve neglected to ‘account for the ravages of sin,”
You’ve taken your first step into a larger world, my friend. Or, in your case, perhaps a step back, as I understand it…
“what is my duty here if I go ahead and accept somebody else’s ‘objective’ standards for beauty?”
I don’t recall forcing my standard on anyone. I only said that beauty is objective, which, logically has nothing at all to do with our ability to accurately spot it 100% of the time.
“Should I then force myself to dislike any jazz pieces formulated under the aegis of opium induced thought processes, then go out and buy all of Stryper’s albums? ”
I’m sure Randy will get me for this, but I wouldn’t recommend a Stryper album. However, are you *really* intending to suggest that “Billy, Don’t Be a Hero” is in any manner equivalent to “What Is and What Should Never Be”? Come on Jim, say it man! You can do it!
“Just another Quixotic yearning for permanence, I suppose, founded in the immortality we wish we had. ”
Cool phrase, Jim & why I sneak over and read you from time to time. Glad you made it by here, btw. Like I said, don’t read belligerence. We’re allowed to disagree. However, let’s not gloss over the obvious implication of your cool phrase: by your standard, or lack thereof, you may just as likely be yearning for impermanence, founded on an permanent mortality you wish we had.
Glad you dropped in…
Hey Jim,
In case you’re listening, I tried to comment over at your place and congratulate you on your book release. Couldn’t make the comment sign in work, though. So…congratulations…no foolin’.
C.L.:
‘Cat’? That’s my ex-wife’s nickname. Small world.
“Ugliness exists. Therefore, so does some objective ultimate beauty.”
Naturally, ugliness would just be the opposite pole of the objectivity under question.
“To ask how we derive it contains as much controversy as establishing a moral contract from differing premises, but in no way negates the existence of the underlying concepts, a fact for which subjectivity cannot account.”
Whether or not they actually negate the underlying questions in a philosophical way, the practical questions generally become so problematic as to render the others moot for all intents and purposes; the devil being in the details, as it were. It’s the same problem for those who posit an ‘objective’ morality. Like it or not, these so-called higher authorities are accepted, rejected, defined and otherwise manhandled according to our own limited understanding and emotional proclivities. Curious, since these are the very aspects of subjective personality whose validity is being called into question in the first place. A conundrum for the objectivists, not so much for the subjectivists.
M.S.:
Sorry you couldn’t comment at my place. I just recently opened it up again; it was becoming a distraction while I was trying to tidy up the loose ends of the book publication. I’ll go over and check the settings. Maybe I screwed something up. Oh, and thanks!
As for the rest, I’ll try to comment when I get a little more time. You addressed a lot of things, and it’s getting late. I’ll touch on the first bit for now, and call it a night…
“You’re OK in my book, so don’t take the following as belligerence: if you’re unable to distinguish between a stick figure and the Mona Lisa with regard to beauty, I’d have to apply myself to honestly consider anything else you had say on the matter
“Your argument seems to infer that neither a child’s stick figures nor a tone deaf’s singing are beautiful, making them by default…ugly?”
That would be you drawing a inference, my friend. And why would you indicate that all non-beautiful in the artistic sense is ugly? I wouldn’t make that leap. Smacks of false-dillemaness…”
I took your stick figure v. Mona Lisa and your tone-deaf-guy v. Pavarotti as contrasting examples of what is beautiful, and what is not. A contextual inference on my part, although I did leave room for the possibility of your comparing degrees of beauty a tad farther down in my comment. Is there another option I’m missing? As for ‘ugly’ are you positing something in the middle? Some neutral aesthetic position. No problem here, though it seems inconsequential to the argument at hand.
The meat of my point, of course, is that you’re asserting an objective aesthetic standard here supported strictly on the weight of your incredulity that anyone might see it otherwise. It’s a ‘just so’ argument, which you’ve since continued in your response to my response. The argument boils down to something like this:
Premise: There is such a thing as objective beauty.
Argument: Look at how pretty A is. And look at how non-pretty B is in comparison. Duh!
Now, let’s take a look at this statement:
“You’re well within your rights to dislike it subjectively, but to deny the objective quality of the artwork itself I think is utterly wrongheaded.”
Again, this is just blank assertion, and speaks nothing to the actual claim. It’s the unsupported premise again being inserted into the spot where the argument that actually supports the premise should be.
Ok, that’s it for now. Walk the dog, smoke a cig, and off to bed. Thanks for the convo.
M.S.:
Oh! I just realized that somebody actually DID comment on the blog today, so the settings must be ok. Just a glitch, probably. cya!
Jim
“‘Cat’? That’s my ex-wife’s nickname. Small world.”
And I just met another one yesterday. And here I thought “Cathi” was too ubiquitous.
Congrats on your book, man. That’s an achievement. Allow yourself some basking in it. 🙂
“Naturally, ugliness would just be the opposite pole of the objectivity under question.”
Personally, I’m more in favour of indifference, if I have to pick a pole. But whether there are poles or not, this still fails to address the fact that pure subjectivism renders the concept of beauty practically meaningless, while failing to offer explanation for why the concept is so universally enduring. If it’s that obvious, why haven’t people given up on it ans reduced themselves from “beautiful” to “likeable”?
That said,
“Premise: There is such a thing as objective beauty.
Argument: Look at how pretty A is. And look at how non-pretty B is in comparison. Duh!”
Agreed, it’s insufficient, if that’s what Marc is saying. But that’s not all he’s saying. He repeatedly referenced a transcendent standard which is not at all dependent on his opinions or perceptions, separating the definitions of “like” and “beauty.”
“Whether or not they actually negate the underlying questions in a philosophical way, the practical questions generally become so problematic as to render the others moot for all intents and purposes; the devil being in the details, as it were. It’s the same problem for those who posit an ‘objective’ morality. Like it or not, these so-called higher authorities are accepted, rejected, defined and otherwise manhandled according to our own limited understanding and emotional proclivities.”
Excellent observation, downright Calvinist of you, Jim. 🙂 (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) It’s no problem for me, really, to be unable to implement an underlying philosophical truth. In fact, this reality argues for the existence of truth (and beauty) independent of human pragmatics, along the lines of Marc’s ED post.
What Marc and I were originally arguing about was the question of how to best explain what we observe about beauty, specifically in music. For myself, I see objective, measurable externals, whether human-engineered or existent in the natural realm; a sort of nexus of interaction between a person’s internal world and the external; and the internal reaction or perception which is subjective. To simply say “objective” or “subjective” doesn’t cover the bases, in my opinion.
Cheers,
Cat
Marc
If you’re using Firefox with pop-ups disabled, and Jim’s on a Blogspot, your browser settings may interfere with the word-verification thing that’s enabled on some comment forms. I can’t comment at ICFW using Firefox, and I’ve had trouble with other Blogger locations as well, even after enabling pop-ups — sometimes, oddly, just had to click “submit” twice.
Start by checking your browser settings.
“Argument: Look at how pretty A is. And look at how non-pretty B is in comparison. Duh!”
Yep. That’s pretty much it!
“Again, this is just blank assertion, and speaks nothing to the actual claim. It’s the unsupported premise again being inserted into the spot where the argument that actually supports the premise should be. ”
Premises only require support when they’re not obvious 🙂 Outside of the objective components of beauty we might name, I think we apprehend beauty directly, without justification. For instance:
Suppose you grew up next to a pastoral area with clean air, clear running streams, wildflowers, etc.
Now, suppose you returned decades later to find it transformed into a junkyard, stinking of refuse, oily, streams full of the bloated corpses of dead fish, nature having been banished.
Would you need any premise justified to convince you that beauty had been transformed into, or concealed by, non-beauty? Would you conclude the polluter was justified in his assessment that the junkyard was beautiful on account of his swollen bank account?
Why would I, or anyone, require justification here?
“Excellent observation, downright Calvinist of you, Jim. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) ”
I knew there was a reason I liked Jim 🙂
Ironically, my good Cat, and since you invoked it, this:
“Like it or not, these so-called higher authorities are accepted, rejected, defined and otherwise manhandled according to our own limited understanding and emotional proclivities.”
is a description of semi-pelagians, not Calvinists. The Calvinist submits his own limited understanding and emotional proclivity to the Scripture, where the non-Calvinist utilizes them as justification to describe God other than He describes himself. Just sayin’…
Not quite what I meant, but I’ll get you for that later. I happen to like Jim for his atheism, not to mention his questionable taste in women. Gotta run!
~Cat, on an incorrigible streak
Cat: I’d like to address this one for now-
“But whether there are poles or not, this still fails to address the fact that pure subjectivism renders the concept of beauty practically meaningless, while failing to offer explanation for why the concept is so universally enduring. If it’s that obvious, why haven’t people given up on it ans reduced themselves from “beautiful” to “likeable”?
I think this has a lot to do with our tendency to conceptually objectify our subjective states. I suspect part of this is simply the result of the nature of language. For instance, the word ‘movement’ is a noun, and can be used as an object in a sentence. However, we’re using the word ‘object’ here in a different sense, since movement is actually a description of what an object is doing, and isn’t an entity unto itself. Or take ‘pain’, another descriptive noun that actually describes a subjective sensation.
Another temptation is to grant deontological status to our preferences in order to somehow grant a sort of tangibility to our own likes and dislikes. I don’t just like pistachio ice cream. Pistachio ice cream is GOOD! Gives my personal opinion a bit more authoritative weight, yes? In this context, I don’t really see that subjectivity renders beauty meaningless. Rather, it simply strips away a special status I’d like to grant to my personal tastes.
Now, leaving the concept itself and getting down to specific cases. There are indeed aesthetic judgments regarding particulars which are more or less universal. This shouldn’t be at all surprising, since all of us share quite similar biologies. On the other hand, there are many, many other instances where people are divided as to what is beautiful and what is not. Furthermore, there are trends quite easily traceable across both cultures and times where the general public’s tastes change, and sometimes quite drastically. To my eye, this phenomenon speaks directly against the idea of aesthetic archetypes.
Lastly, ‘meaning’ itself is a word that’s often lifted out of its originally intended relativistic usage, and conceptually grafted onto the universe in such a way as to grant it the status of some sort of autonomous entity. To my way of thinking, meaning simply describes a subjective apprehension of some kind, be it intellectual or emotional. To say that something has ‘intrinsic meaning’ is nonsense talk, like positing intrinsic ‘up-ness’. Meaning is a relational term, and nothing more.
M.S:
““Argument: Look at how pretty A is. And look at how non-pretty B is in comparison. Duh!”
Yep. That’s pretty much it!”
Well, since this all boils down to something like ‘Dragons most assuredly exist because they most obviously do’, I’m not sure where else to go here. I guess I could address this-
“Would you need any premise justified to convince you that beauty had been transformed into, or concealed by, non-beauty? Would you conclude the polluter was justified in his assessment that the junkyard was beautiful on account of his swollen bank account?”
My riposte would be that something I liked had been transformed into something I don’t like so much. The possibility that most folks might share my aesthetic distaste for the changed circumstances only speaks to your particular example, and not to the concept of ‘beauty’ itself. One could offer countless counter-examples where an aesthetic shift would be praised by half the crowd, whilst condemned by the other half. Again, I believe this supports my position, and speaks against the notion of objective beauty.
Jim, thanks for putting up with my wacky sense of humour. I’m short of time this weekend, and normally I screen my first reactions for the sideways factor…not so much when I’m in a rush. All the same, most everything I say is with a smile.
“movement is actually a description of what an object is doing, and isn’t an entity unto itself. Or take ‘pain’, another descriptive noun that actually describes a subjective sensation.”
This is quickly going to shift to a causal discussion, which I think fits too. Movement and pain are not entities in that they are the effects of causes. Being what I am, it’s fine by me to look at beauty as the effect of a cause. It allows for both the subjective, whether tainted by sin or attuned to the divine, and the objective transcendent.
“Another temptation is to grant deontological status to our preferences in order to somehow grant a sort of tangibility to our own likes and dislikes.”
I love this too–the acknowledgement of perceived tangibility to moral impetus is an interesting one. Don’t let me hear you wrong, though–feel free to expand on that. Why would attaching moral imperative add tangibility to preferences?
“this phenomenon speaks directly against the idea of aesthetic archetypes.”
To my eye, it speaks to the question of information inputs, or cause. This is why I think of the idea as three overlapping areas of objectivity, encounter and subjective response. I would go so far as to argue that the question of beauty is harmonized by recognizing that it does not exist of itself, it exists by the design of the artist. I’d hold that to be true whether it’s a sunset or the Mona Lisa.
Attributing universals to the nature of the beast is fine with me–no conflict with the design perspective. Since the arts are communicative media, it’s no surprise to me either to see widespread shift of sensibilities where societal values shift, and individual differences between those who bring different subcultural perceptions to their encounter.
Pistachio ice cream falls flat to me as an analogy, but I’m a bohemian with an affinity for raw and senseless beauty. The point remains that the value “good” must have some basis for existence at all in the first place. As I recall, Marc went to great lengths over this in his dialogue with Ebon, and has done even further here in his posts.
“Meaning is a relational term, and nothing more.”
I can wholeheartedly agree with that, as I see meaning not as intrinsic but derived from God’s attributes, and apprehended through relationship–whether an agreeable or, as your site’s motto puts it, adversarial one–to that first cause. On the other hand, your first cause is yourself–which you’re entitled to, but for myself, I find that woefully inadequate, whether it’s you or it’s me.
—
Okay, Papa Bear, I see you are just begging for some solid Canardian chastening. The Texan hubris!
“semi-pelagian”
Jim opened his paragraph with “whether or not it negates the underlying philosophical premises…” Right, truth is truth independent of our reconstructions and deconstructions, which does indeed speak to the divine sovereignty perspective.
Pardon if your faithful Hobbes gave you an incomplete expression to quack at, Calvin. 😀
“Well, since this all boils down to something like ‘Dragons most assuredly exist because they most obviously do’,”
No, it doesn’t. It would be better to say that it boils down to something like “I have a headache, so obviously I do.” To this basic apprehension of beauty, we need to answer our seemingly universal experience of it. Identifying individual cases where it is not universal does not nullify the cases that apear to be, rather, simply identifies cases that are not.
“Again, I believe this supports my position, and speaks against the notion of objective beauty.”
I disagree. We can agree that there exist a host of gray areas subject to subjective likes and dislikes; however, it does not support your position. Only one example of objective beauty is necessary to establish the notion of objective beauty. The universals I’ve mentioned present a prima facie case for objectivity that you’d need to refute to maintain your position. We’d need widespread evidence of cultures that praise the polluted field and detest the pristine one, or write books praising a leanto, while disparaging the architecture of Notre Dame, for instance.
I get what you’re saying, though, and agree with it in many cases. I just don’t think it can be pressed as far as you would like without denying some of what appears to be our universal human experience.
“Pardon if your faithful Hobbes gave you an incomplete expression to quack at, Calvin. ”
Please don’t apologize, faithful Hobbes. Those opportunities don’t come along very often 🙂
M.S.:
““Well, since this all boils down to something like ‘Dragons most assuredly exist because they most obviously do’,”
No, it doesn’t. It would be better to say that it boils down to something like “I have a headache, so obviously I do.”
My dragon example speaks to statements about supposedly objective facts. Your headache example speaks to statements about subjective experiences. To have a headache doesn’t authenticate the existence of archetypal headaches. Your claim is that beauty exists apart from subjective experience, or so I understood.
” Only one example of objective beauty is necessary to establish the notion of objective beauty. The universals I’ve mentioned present a prima facie case for objectivity that you’d need to refute to maintain your position.”
No example of objective beauty has yet been offered; I honestly don’t see how it could be, no more than objective ‘up-ness’. What HAS been offered is the notion of universal subjective experience. Two points: Firstly, I’m not sure if you can offer anything more than a semi-universal aesthetic apperception. And since simply one contrary opinion would serve to dismantle your evidence in any given case, I’m not sure you ever could. Secondly, even if you could offer such a thing, all you’d be proving is the existence of a universal subjective proclivity, which doesn’t really speak to the subject at hand.
“We’d need widespread evidence of cultures that praise the polluted field and detest the pristine one, or write books praising a leanto, while disparaging the architecture of Notre Dame, for instance.
Why widespread evidence? Not everything has to come down to 50/50. In some cases, people’s aesthetic reckoning is going to lean almost all one way. Not particularly surprising, since like I said before, we all share the same biology. However, in other cases there’s going to be a sharp difference of opinion between one group and the other. Moreover, these opinions are influenced, and indeed shaped in many instances, by culture and history.
Take poetry, a subject I’m somewhat familiar with. Authors and styles which were once immensely popular have for the most part fallen by the wayside of public opinion. Better yet; pick a poet, any poet, and you will find reputable critics on both the sides of praise, and condemnation. Naturally, both sides believe their opinions are the ‘objective’ ones, not realizing that their very perceptions of beauty have been shaped by a variety of factors other than ‘objective’ reasoning.
All of us do this to some degree, though we’re often loath to admit it. And I think the dichotomy you’re attempting to draw between authentic perception of objective beauty and mere personal opinion is an illusive one. Beauty is a matter of personal taste, and nothing more. That we happen to share some of those tastes with others doesn’t even begin to address the notion of an objective beauty which exists outside our singular and collective subjective states.
Cat: I’d love to get into a discussion with you about temporality, and what causality actually implies, but…not today. 🙂 That’s a rabbit hole I’m choosing to avoid for the time being, as I owe Thomas Ligotti a book review, my publisher a film review after that, plus I need to put some energy into self-promotion regarding my book, distasteful as I find all that to be. I’d at least like to see my publisher break even! LOL!
Nice convo, you two. You may have the last word, as I’m out for now. cya!
“Nice convo, you two. You may have the last word, as I’m out for now. cya!”
Better yet, in the spirit of fair play, let’s pick it up from here another time. I’m with you on the time crunch…in the same situation on this end. Best wishes on the book Jim, and on the promotion.
“I owe Thomas Ligotti a book review, my publisher a film review after that, plus I need to put some energy into self-promotion regarding my book, distasteful as I find all that to be.”
So I saw, Jim, when I popped over there the other day. Enjoy your book release. 🙂
Sure, let’s pick it up another time. Nice chat, guys. Thanks.
[…] Quixote threw up a post (I mean, posted an essay, not barfed up a wooden timber never originally intended for human consumption)* on beauty, the concept of which is decidedly lacking from this sentence. A fascinating discussion ensued in which one of the neighbourhood atheists was kind enough to chat with both of us opinionated Christian types. If I get time, I’ll weave the beauty contention into the Musical Argument Clinic. In the meantime, go lookit–I told you something was fishy about that guy. […]
Hopped over when I saw the link on Cat’s site. Music theory goes way beyond me but the question of beauty is a favorite of mine (especially coming from an art background, artists LOVE to talk about art and beauty and subjective vs objective.) My brain is kind of fried from over work so most of the talk is taking too much thought but I would like to throw in my two cents.
Frankly I think the problem here is one of apples and oranges. The heavens declare the glory of God and ALL that God created was good. God created in such a way that we see His creation and are drawn to it, we see the beauty in it when we stop and look closely and think about who must have made such an amazing thing. This is as true of the sunset and the stinkbug, the ocean and the swamp. Sure people subjectively prefer one over another but when you look close and think you see the amazing-ness of what God created and that is beautiful whether it is physically attractive to us or not. When you really, really look even the ugliest creature has some aspect that is awe-inspiring. Just as God by His very nature is Love, God’s creation, by its very nature is beautiful– because HE created it and it was good.
On the other hand, those things that we, as fallen beings create are bound, by our very nature, to fall short of the glory of God. It will also, regardless of what we attempt or of our talents, fall short of our own intention. And so what appeals to one person will not to another, partly because of our sinful nature but partly because of who He designed us to be. When He cleanses us of our sin we do not suddenly all love exactly the same thing. And I doubt we will, upon entering heaven, miraculously all love exactly the same things. One of the very aspects of God’s Creation is that He created us to love different things, to be different people, just as He created each of us with individual talents. How awful would our world be if He had created us to all find beauty in exactly the same things and only those things.
My best friend in high school was a rotten singer– the worst I had ever heard. And yet, despite that, when she sang praise to God we all joined in. It was beautiful because it was enthusiastically praising God, regardless of her lack of talent. She had no fear even though she KNEW how bad her voice was, because she loved Him so much she could not refrain from singing. And my son’s stick figures have the most expressive action of any artist I know (and I know quite a few) and I know that when He sits illustrating the Bible as we listen to it read that God sees his work and calls it beautiful. So frankly that would be a question of conceptual beauty vs literal beauty. And conceptually, much of what we call beautiful that has been created by man is not, while all of what God has created is regardless of whether it seems ugly to us. (For instance, I have a friend who HATES the hills and mountains here in Western PA, she thinks them ugly beyond belief while I think the flat lands of of her native Eastern Virginia ugly and bland and see God’s hand in the amazing mountains and giant rocks surrounding us.)
I would say that God’s works are complete and beautiful because they are whole, because the Creator is whole. On the other hand I would say that our creations are only beautiful in part, regardless of what it is, because we can never come near the works God Creator.
Wow, that was WAY more than 2 cents. Sorry about that. 🙂
Hey Heather,
Thanks for the two cents! Sorry to be late in response, but I’ve been away.
I’m with you pretty much all the way through your comment, primarily because what you’ve written seems to reflect my own thinking on the matter: God has created things with objective beauty, and we in our finiteness can approximate that objective standard, however, we cannot duplicate it. Moreover, we can disagree in our subjective responses to our approximations.
Now, the trick is always to distinguish between the two. Thanks for the comment, and please drop by again with another 2 cents…
> I’m sure Randy will get me for this, but I wouldn’t recommend a Stryper album.
I’ll do it for you: Soldiers Under Command and To Hell With The Devil are two of the greatest Christian albums ever. No can deny the objective beauty of a song like Together As One. My sister used that for her wedding theme song. I love objective beauty!
Against the Law is the Stryper album to avoid.
I recoil a bit on this subject because I had a prof in college who insisted there was objective beauty, and he knew everything I liked musically didn’t meet the standard but his lame taste in music did.
I’m willing to admit there’s objective beauty, but it’s awfully hard to give examples in art and music. I find great beauty and inspiration in a good blues tune, but my wife begs me to “shut off that awful racket” if I try to share the transcendent moment with her. My daughter created a beautiful drawing in high school that powerfully told the story of mankind’s fall. Someone asked to have it removed from the high school art show because it was “demonic.” You can’t win’em all, that’s for sure.
I agree with you that man has beauty, because he was made in God’s image.
But why does it never seem to occur to some Pulpiteers (to coin a word) that being made in the image of God and ” for God so loved the world’ go hand in hand? My thought on the subject goes something like this:
God loves Himself. He has perfect faith in Himself and quite frankly, thinks He’s absolutely fabulous. He then took all of that greatness and fashioned man in His image. And what well adjusted person doesn’t like looking their own picture? In as much as we are made in His image, He must by default love us. And seeing that man had fallen into sin, God understood and knew that His image was worth saving. Don’t ever let someone tell you that you are not or were not worthy of redemption: God’s image is worth saving.
“I’ll do it for you: ”
I knew you’d get me for it…it was only a matter of time. Against the Law may be the one I recall, Randy. I should probably withhold judgment until I familiarize myself with them again, as Together as One is not ringing any bells for me.
“he knew everything I liked musically didn’t meet the standard but his lame taste in music did.”
I understand, just keep in mind that we do not abandon objective moral values and duties when we read the book of judges, or witness people doing what is right in their own eyes in our own day. Why would objective beauty be different?
“I’m willing to admit there’s objective beauty, but it’s awfully hard to give examples in art and music.”
Then we’re pretty much agreed, my friend 🙂
Hey David,
I’m glad you dropped in. I agree with you that humanity has an intrinsic value based on its creation in the image of God. As the Bible says, God loves his people and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I may very well be one of those pulpiteers-great word, btw-you allude to, with the exception that the idea has occurred to me. No worries, though. We have regular and highly valued commenters here that share your view, they’re our Christian brothers, and I want you to know you’re more than welcome to express these views here. After all, if I’m in error, I’d appreciate it if someone would let me know. 🙂