[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmRUr5MuXuY6R7i8By41zbduUMMzhmZiqwA2kuSLSjCK7o/karl-fredrickson-27504-unsplash.jpg]
The True, The Good and The Beautiful
I have been sensitive in the last few weeks since my return from Italy about the topic of art and beauty. After walking in Rome, the Vatican and through small coastal towns, I came back to Montreal feeling a sincere lack of beauty in architecture.
This prompted a quest about the nature and purpose of art and it's place in my life. I came to the conclusion that the purpose of art is beauty. Like Plato said:
>Beauty is a sign of another and higher order
In Christian theology, God is represented as the very nature of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. That in some way, anything that reflects those attributes is communicating the nature of God. I like that description of the ultimate reality. Whatever you believe about what or who God is, when we hear sublime music or come in contact with exquisite beauty in art, our soul sing. We cannot deny that experience. We are "lifted up" in a way that communicates that we can rise above our suffering and that life is worth living.
The youth feel this existential angst more than most people. No wonder suicide rates among youths aged 15-24 have tripled in the past half-century. In the last century we gave up on the idea of beauty in art, beauty in our neighborhood and our churches, I don't think it is a coincidence.
For my Christian friends who thinks that church architecture isn't important, consider this study that shows that "One in six young people are Christian as visits to church buildings inspire them to convert"...making architecture one of the most effective method of evangelization.
The youths are starving for beauty and one of the last public place left to come in contact with beauty is a cathedral or a church.
[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmUvhuJ4MzDjNnxBvkEmdHMtp4V2Asye7xK7UQfUDQpzbS/justin-main-229852-unsplash.jpg]
"Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder"
It is a chant we keep on repeating as if that if we repeat it again and again, it will make it more true. The idea behind this is that since different people have different taste, therefore all beauty is subjective.
Someone could look at a pile of trash and find "beauty" in it...some would say.
I disagree with this idea.
First, what people find genuinely beautiful doesn't vary as much as people pretend and secondly, imagine a grade 1 class where the students are learning multiplication tables. The range of answers will vary widely yet, that doesn't mean that there are all correct answers.
As people taste improve, so is someone appreciation of what constitutes beauty. Not everything is beautiful, some things are downright ugly. You can brainwash yourself into believing that the picture below is beautiful, but nobody in 200 years will flock like we do to Paris or Rome (Below is a Houston suburb)
[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmewnck3pYy4xUAjEZuc6J1f6tZAM4d8e3Vv6g62juA873/Ella_qn6blp.png]
Edits (added after a few conversations): In a sense, objective beauty is found in architecture, paintings and music that is not only appreciated today in a certain time in a certain place by someone...but across diverse people and across time...natural wonders fit that description perfectly. In 200 years, like I said in the comment, we will still be playing the 9th symphony of Beethoven and not "My Hump" by the Black Eye Peas.
Conclusion
Here is a very interesting video from philosopher Roger Scruton. It might give an interesting survey of the deliberate destruction of art and beauty in the last century...which has been, coincidently, the most murderous in world history.
As he says in the video:
>Maybe people have lost faith in beauty because they have lost their faith in ideals.
I hope that our culture will turn this around and make Beauty as important as the pursuit of the Good and the True.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
-
Photo by Karl Fredrickson on Unsplash
-
Photo by AC Almelor on Unsplash
@aweber | March 8, 2018, 3:21 a.m. | Votes: 1 | [
VOTE ]
Sorry for the late reply.
OK, I can agree more with what you said here, when you say that the purpose of art is to essentially be beautiful, even though that can take many forms. And I think I agree people are naturally more attracted to beautiful landscapes than dirty streets (I know I am, ha), but I'm a little hesitant still to say that certain things are really truly objectively beautiful.
I agree that the ultimate form of beauty is what reflects what is true and good. But not certain if you can boil it all down objectively.
I think some art is higher quality and much more accessible beautiful than other art, which is why they are "timeless". But I'm not entirely certain that someone from a vastly different culture would appreciate Beethoven, or a painting from the Renaissance period, etc.
But then again, gorgeous sunsets are beautiful, and who doesn't like them? I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm on the fence. I see where you're coming from, but personally I'm not ready to say that beauty is objective. I think.
I really appreciate this post so much! I live in former Estern Germany since two years, in a city called Rostock. It once was a fisher town with old and beautiful hanseatic architecture. The center of the city and the area along the coast still has this amazing and beautiful architecture which makes you awe and get lost in the beauty of it. You really feel the passion of the architects, the love they had for their city and how important it was to people back then to create an environment they love to live in and which honors the country and churches which honor god.
On the other hand there are the more modern parts of the city, build in GDR times, when the Berlin wall was still there, dividing the country. The architecture looks so depressing, cold and dead. No live in it. No trace of art. Just some cubic, dark concrete boxes. Like breeders or something like that. In these areas, people seem so depressed. You can also see a lot of people drinking alcohol, feeling lost and looking broken. There is no beauty around.
Here are some pictures (from the internet as I don't have good examples right now on my smartphone) to show you the difference of the old and "new" architecture:
https://www.urlaubsguru.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rostock-germany-istock_000065174161_large-2.jpg
https://img.nnn.de/img/rostock/crop13662636/3954668376-cv16_9-h495/23-79742710-23-79742711-1462901295.jpg
The city quarters with the ugliest architectures are the ones with the most problems. Violence, addiction, people with no jobs and hope.
To me this is no coincidence.
Living in a sad, dark and hopeless looking environment won't make you happy and motivated, I think.
I visited a special school where art was one of my main subjects as I am a huge art and music lover. And it really hurts in my heart to see how modern society ruins the beauty our ancestors created and start creating loveless cities. How should we become a high and cultivated, happy, beautiful society when even our cities and the homes we live in look hopeless and absolutely uncreative?
What would god say to that? That is actually a question I ask myself a lot. He creates such stunning and wonderful nature, full of miracles, pure beauty and colors. He gave us creativity and the power to create beautiful things. And we abuse this gift and refuse to do so. We only build purposive, uncreative industrial areas and cities. No beauty anmore. No divine architecture and art.
Would god like to spend his holiday in our Western culture cities or would he rather visit the ones with true culture and breathtaking architecture?
To be honest, this is one of the main reasons I want to travel: I want to discover beauty around the world again. I want to feel amazed again.
Just needed to be said :)
Thanks for reading! :)
And thank you to cryptoctopus for your outcry and inspiration to ask ourselves: What are we doing to our cities and environment? Why are we building a concrete hell instead of an architectural paradise?
Best wishes, Linda
I agree with this
> objective beauty is found in architecture, paintings and music that is not only appreciated today in a certain time in a certain place by someone...but across diverse people and across time
But putting the lack of proper art as a possible cause of increase in suicides is an extremely long shot in my opinion.
We can find good art if we want too, in fact, I believe it is easier than ever to find good art today thanks to the internet.
Comparing Montreal with Rome is a little unfair haha, Rome is an historic place with incredible history, while Montreal is a normal modern city, that I am sure is not ugly at all and probably people in Montreal have better lives than people in Rome, but that when it comes to competing with Rome and with its classical looks, well there is no competition at all.
>In the last century we gave up on the idea of beauty in art, beauty in our neighborhood and our churches
I am not sure if I agree with this.
For example, with churches, perhaps the lack of beauty in the designs is because the lack of funds.
And about neighborhoods I think that it also depends. There is ugly ones and pretty ones after all.
Dear heavens. I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am to see this. I am a HUGE Roger Scruton fan, and actually am back and forth with him a little in letters/emails since 2011, recently sending him my CD, which I am happy to say he enjoyed. He was incredibly formative to me and to how I have approached my art--which has cost me severely. We aren't, generally speaking, in a listening world, so I've fought off temptations for years to do something that would be more received and just finally pay the bills, especially when I was working with a record label I eventually chose to leave. Honestly, I don't have regrets, but it has been hard.
Seriously. My heart is bursting to see this on Steemit. It's my whole raison d'etre, the whole purpose behind why I've been willing to fight for so long as an artist (musician and writer).
Our world is starved for beauty. I'm in Saskatoon - and so much of it in unnecessarily ugly. It's heartbreaking; it literally, viscerally, physically hurts me to be here for the reason, although of course with open eyes you can always find beauty. I lived in Europe for 3 years, just outside of Vienna, and it changed things for me permanently. But now life is painful in contrast, and I keep trying to find ways to tell people why this matters so much, only to generally find that it falls on deaf ears. I'm so glad to see this so well-received here! In general, Steemit is better (although don't spend much time in the poetry trending section unless you want to be thoroughly discouraged and wringing your hands at heaven for days after).
I wrote article about precisely this way early on here, but it drained me dry: https://steemit.com/art/@kayclarity/sorry-but-no-not-everyone-is-an-artist & https://steemit.com/poetry/@kayclarity/bad-poetry-online-and-what-we-can-do-about-it & https://steemit.com/beauty/@kayclarity/beauty-isn-t-just-pretty-some-thoughts-that-felt-important-to-share . You handle it better, with more gentleness, but it really comes from the same, desperate heart. When I'm more in that place, I may start writing about it again.
I'd love if you check out the recent album I mentioned - just as a bit of hope that there are artists working hard to bring beauty back as the cultural norm for starving souls!
Anyway, thank you so much for bringing this conversation to the fore here. I'm so grateful any time I see this discussed.
Hello @cryptoctopus! Really interesting text my friend. It brought a lot of provocative thoughts into my head, and I agree a lot with you on your point about beauty being objective and atemporal. But let me just problematize a bit. And before a disclaimer: there's a lot of political arguments to me made concerning this question. I'm not taking sides here. I'm just talking about art within its philosophical territory and concerns.
One of the purposes of art is beauty, but it is not the only one. Beauty, as a philosophical subject, is a historical concept. Even though you can relate its characteristics to other historical phenomena, it still has a limited influence in the history of Art.
Mankind has been making art long before we could define what beauty is. If you could point to a more universal question, in the field and history of Art, it certainly wouldn't be the question of beauty. But rather the more broad insights on sensation and perception, the realm of aesthetics; within which lies the subject in question: beauty. Beauty has once been the main subject and praxis of philosophy and art. It still is, in a certain way and for some schools of thought. But in general, art has never dwelt solely with the beautiful. It depicts also the ugly, the strange, the other, the false, the broken, the stolen, the murdered, the neglected, all the miracles and horrors of mankind...
To restrain art to the question of beauty, is like restraining though to a specific subject, a pleasing one. What about what stays out of subject in question? How we define beauty? Are there other aspects of beauty that go beyond what we might entail?
Beauty is objective due to its historical backgrounds. I'm not disagreeing that there are things and phenomena that aren't beautiful. Of course there are. But we shouldn't restrain artistic thought and praxis only to that which is desired or predefined by a set of accepted ideals and social measures. The main concern of Beauty is beauty. Maybe there's a little bit more about art than that, I think.
Really well thought out text, I was immersed. And its really nice to trade insights with someone in a environment that encourages debate and cooperative ideas....