The Objectivity of Art and Beauty

A familiar sci-fi television show begins, “You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone!” In Season 2 of the series, there is an episode entitled “The Eye of the Beholder.” This episode is about a woman from the Twilight Zone who has a series of surgeries to make her face look like her cultural perception of beauty. Yet there is a catch—in the Twilight Zone, what we would consider beauty is ugliness and what we consider ugliness is beauty. While she is what we would consider beautiful, everyone in the Twilight Zone (including herself) thinks that she looks monstrous. While this is a principle believed by many, whether it can be applied to the actual world is debatable. When it comes to the dimension of art, are certain things that are seen, heard, or imagined objectively or subjectively beautiful? Below I have summarized the thoughts of Cowan and Spiegal from their book, The Love of Wisdom, as well as my own thoughts as to why beauty should be thought of objectively.

Before going over the arguments for the objectivity of art and beauty, the definition of art should be considered. However, this is much easier said than done. Art is a very difficult to define, so many possible definitions have been suggested:
1.      Art is any human-made object.

This definition suffers from being too broad, because it would include obviously aesthetically displeasing objects in the category of art. Yet, it is strong because it grants that art is the result of purposeful activity (420).

      2.      Art is whatever is presented as art.

This definition is weak because it makes art into something arbitrary. Surely, if I decided to call human waste art, it would not be art just because I said it was (420). This definition would also make it so something could be considered both art and not art at the same time depending on who is presenting the piece.

      3.      Art is the product of the artistic process.

The weakness of this argument is that it begs the question, as the artistic process must itself be defined. On the bright side, this definition does remove the problem of arbitrariness found in the third definition of art (420-21).

      4.      Art is whatever brings (or tends to bring) aesthetic pleasure to those who experience the object.

This definition is on the right track. It does seem that every recognized piece of artwork does bring aesthetic pleasure. However this too has problems, as aesthetic pleasure is somewhat difficult to define. This definition raises many questions such as, who must gain aesthetic pleasure from a piece to make it artwork? Must it be everyone, or some? If it must be just some, then who are these some? Questions like these make the fourth definition incomplete (421).

      5.      Art is a collection of things with shared characteristics.

This definition is a part of the paradigm case approach, which looks at recognized pieces of artwork and finds what they have in common. Then whatever else has this characteristic is said to be artistic. The problem is it is very hard to find characteristics that are only found in art. For instance, much art has the characteristic of bringing enjoyment. Yet, other things that should not be considered art are meant to bring enjoyment, such as a vending machine (421-22).

      6.      Art is any human-made object created to be enjoyed for its beauty.

While the strength of this argument is that it does not make the errors of definition 4, it is weak because not every human-made object that is created to be enjoyed for its beauty should be considered art.  A person’s desire for something to be artistic does not automatically make it so (422).

      7.      Art is any human-made object that is enjoyed for its beauty.

While this definition has the same strengths as definition 6, it is too broad. It makes no mention  of poor or ugly art. Some art is enjoyed for reasons other than its beauty, such as its historical significance, etc. Also, definition 7 has the problem in number 4: who must enjoy its beauty for it to be considered art (422)?

As shown, art is extremely difficult to define. So much so that some give up defining the word, and try to identify art by other means. Spiegal and Cowen suggest that one good way to do this is to seek the advice of a skilled artistic professional, just as you would go to a medical doctor to diagnoses an illness. The greatest strength of this option is that it is the most practical. However, problems may arise when art critics do not agree about an art form or when they have not stated their opinion yet (422-23).

         

 Now that the different ways of defining art have been discussed, consider several theories regarding its function:

Mimesis: 

This theory is that art is to act as a mirror. Its purpose is to imitate something that exists. Though, this is true for some pieces of art, it cannot be said of other artworks, such as some abstract art. So while this theory is strong because it recognizes one aspect of art’s function, it is weak because it makes no mention of the other functions (424-25).

 Expressionism: 

This theory argues that art is to function by expressing emotion. This is true to some extent: most pieces of art do evoke some emotional response. Yet, “most” should not be confused with “all.” Some artwork seems emotionless. Another problem this has is that it applies emotion as a necessity of all art forms, but it cannot be applied so broadly to include even culinary arts or architecture (425-26).

Formalism: 

Art functions by maintaining the formal structure of art. Formalism and Expressionism seem to be on two opposite ends of the spectrum, the former attributing structure to be the function and the latter attributing emotional. However, like Expressionism, Formalism is lacking because it neglects mention of the meanings or emotional aspects of art (426-27).

Marxism: 

This is the theory that art functions as political and ideological tool. It is true that art does function in such a way, but this again is only one of the ways in which it functions. A painting of a sunset may not have much political force, but may have aesthetic merit which should classify it as a work of art (427-28).

Christian Aesthetics: 

This view is very broad, because there are so many differing opinions about the function of art among Christians. Primarily, all true art brings Glory to God. Art is a gift from God, who was the first artist to ever exist. There are six fundamental properties of Art that Cowan and Spiegal mention: communicates something between artist and audience, evokes emotion in the audience, conveys some truth about the world (confirmatory function), illuminates valuable insights about the world, models how the world can be improved, and consoles us with a hope for the future (428-29).

Of all the attempts to pinpoint the function of Art, the Christian attempt is the most accurate. In attempting to describe the function of art, it seems appropriate to begin with the first Artist who created art itself. The six fundamental qualities of art provided by the Christian perspective are neither too broad nor too narrow but adequately describe most art forms.

Now that we have delved deeper into the function and definition of what Art really is, we can discuss further whether art is really objective or subjective. There are two views commonly taken on the subject, the first being aesthetic subjectivism: “The view that aesthetic judgments do not make claims about the world, but merely reflect an observer’s aesthetic preferences” (451). The second is aesthetic objectivism: “The view that there are aesthetic values that are independent of an observer’s preferences and that aesthetic judgments make claims about the world” (451). The problem of aesthetic subjectivism is not simply that it claims that everything is beautiful, but rather that everything is equally beautiful. Taking this position would mean that there are no superior pieces of art. A simple tune on a child’s toy keyboard would have to be considered as beautiful as the works of Vivaldi. It does not seem likely that this is the case (430-32).

It should also be noted that though an aesthetic objectivist would argue against everything being equally beautiful, they could without logical contradiction state that though not all, some things are equally beautiful or even that most things are equally beautiful. It should not be assumed that a decision between aesthetic subjectivism or objectivism is an all or nothing choice. I would take the view that many things are equally beautiful, yet there are some things that are objectively ugly.

Another topic that should be discussed is the relationship Art has with ethics. Does the beauty of art depend on its ethical value? There are three major positions that attempt to answer that question: Aestheticism is the view that art and the artist cannot be judged on the basis of morality, because they are above morality (451). Moralism is the view that the only standard of judging art is judging it on its morality (458). Ethicism is the position that claims that while the morality of an artwork is significant, it is not the sole factor in determining the worth of artwork (454). Ethicism is a good balance between two extreme positions. Art should be judged on the basis of morality as well as its other qualities (437-40).

While ethicism is the best approach to placing value on art, it can be difficult to determine the ethical merit of a piece of artwork. There are several guidelines presented by our authors to make it easier to do this:

Depiction vs. Endorsement of Evil:

The first thing to notice in a piece of art is its depiction of evil. If the evil actions are endorsed, or promoted, the artwork is then aesthetically flawed (442-43).

Necessary vs. Gratuitous Depiction of Evil: 

If the depiction of evil is gratuitous then the moral value is depleted even more, and thus the aesthetic value is reduced (443-44).

Depiction in Service of Noble vs. Trivial Theme: 

Perhaps the depiction of evil is necessary for the theme or plot of the piece. Yet, the theme itself should be questioned. If the theme serves a noble purpose, then the depiction of evil is justified. If the theme of trivial, then its moral justification is proven less likely (444).

Provision of Insight into Truth vs. Obscuring of Truth: 

Truly good artwork must respect truth. It must attempt to provide insight into the truth of its subject, rather than obscure or alter the truth. (444)

Final Justice and Personal Redemption vs. Moral Hopelessness: 

To balance out a depiction of evil, truly good art culminates in a hope instead of hopelessness (445-46).

Objective Content of the Artwork vs. Subjective Response of the Audience: 

Christians have many different beliefs on what level of depiction of evil is justifiable. For this reason, the objective content of the artwork must override the opinions of a subjective audience (446-47).

Even the way we perceive and speak about things may suggest that beauty is objective. We are constantly giving objects we encounter a beauty value, unconsciously rating everything we see, hear, and think of, on a scale. The lowest rating on this scale would be “ugly”, or the absence of all beauty, and the highest rating would be the most beautiful thing conceivable. When someone says, “that’s beautiful,” or “that’s ugly” they are ascribing to something a beauty value, a number on the scale. This idea of a beauty value makes the most sense alongside an objective view of beauty. If beauty is subjective (that is, dependent on the individual), then everything is equally beautiful and should be ascribed the same number on the scale. If everything scores equally, then there would be no point to make statements regarding something’s beauty value or have a scale at all. However, if beauty is objective, it would make perfect sense to rate something’s beauty value in an attempt to state what that something is actually worth aesthetically. Imagine a scale which would read the same weight no matter what substance was placed on it. Wouldn't such a scale be worthless? So would be our beauty value judgments on art.

Some question that if this beauty value theory is correct, then why do different people ascribe different beauty values to the same thing? Doesn’t this prove that beauty does depend on the individual? Not at all. Remember, the beauty value rating system is just each individual’s attempt at finding the true beauty weight of something. An attempt can have numerous possible errors. Someone could mistakenly think something is ugly when it is pretty, or pretty when it is ugly. Someone could mistakenly think one of two equally beautiful things had an inferior beauty value. (Remember, aesthetic objectivism does not state that there are no equally beautiful things, but rather denies that everything is equally beautiful.) For instance, if Girl A was told all her life that pink is an ugly color, when comparing pink and blue she might say blue was prettier even though blue and pink have an equal beauty value. Culture, lifestyle, health, religion, and many other things can alter a person’s perception of the beauty scale. Religion is particularly influential to the beauty scale of Christians, who should be constantly trying to align their perspectives with those of the ultimate Creator and Artist.

After discussing the definition of art, function of art, aesthetic objectivism vs. subjectivism, practical guidelines for rating art, and the beauty scale theory, it should be clear that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. In this dimension of sight, sound, and imagination, God’s standard of beauty should form our perspectives of art, not the other way around.

Works Cited

Cowan, Steven B., and James S. Spiegel. The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy / Steven B. Cowan, James S. Spiegel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009. Print.