What is beauty?
Over the past few hundred years our sense of what is attractive, and beautiful has been terribly warped. We are told that a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine, or a plain toilet in the middle of a blank room is art. Now I think quite a few people, even some non-believers, would say the first example is at the best in bad taste, and at worst terribly offensive, and sacriligious. But the second is, I think most people would say, at worst just odd. Yet, many of the intellectual and artistic "elite" give praise to these things, and many other weird, and extremely distasteful works of "art".
Most people agree when they see a piece by Rembrandt, Michaelangelo, or even Monet, that these are great works of art. How do we decide what is beautiful though? I'm mostly considering art, but this can apply to music, furniture, photography, and many other things. We can say, well its what is pleasing to the eye. But even though most people agree on some of the greats, like Rembrandt, there are also many who say that a red square on a white wall is art. Now, this may not be ugly or displeasing to the eye, but pardon me if I disagree with you that this is art. If we simply appeal to what we naturally feel is beautiful, we can go a short distance on this without too many road bumps. But we soon reach a toilet in the middle of an empty room, or paint randomly thrown at a canvas, and there we start to really disagree. Quite a few would say no to these, but then there are also those who say that this is true art. Another example from music is the "song" 4'33" by John Cage, who was a post-modern musician. 4'33" can be played by anyone, anywhere, with any instrument, and does not even require any noise. It can be complete silence, or the roaring of thousands of people. Certainly depending on what happens it could be very enjoyable, but just as easily be a waste of time. Can we truly call this "song" a piece of music? This is the same as art, most would probably look at least slightly askance at this, but there are others who have praised it in the past. We cannot simply appeal to what we feel is naturally right as I hope you see, so where then do we go?
There is also the issue of the paintings from several hundred years ago, that fit into the profile of what most agree is art. Pieces from some of the greats. They are not part of the modern movement, showing incomprehensible, random shapes, or disgusting images, or just splotches of color. However, they contain nudity ranging from not much, to everything (Michelangelo's King David). Now, I think that the human body is a wonderful work of art that God has sculpted. However, it is not something that is to be paraded to the world. I'm not even considering here the possible implications of these paintings in regards to temptation. So if a painting or carving contains nudity, or fairly severe immodesty, even if its "artistically" pleasing to the eye, in regards to composition, colors, and skill, is it really art, as it is showing something that God did not intend shown to the world?
Is it something that is totally subjective for each person? where each and every person is totally free to decide what they find beautiful, and no one else can encroach upon that? Yes, I understand and agree that there is a certain amount of personal preference in this topic, as there is in pretty much any topic. However, I don't think that this is totally subjective.
Unfortunately God's word does not lay all this out for us. We have no examples of art, and we really don't even have any guidelines along which to guide us. I certainly don't have much of an answer, which is why I'm writing this. I'm curious as to what others have to say, and I hope that there will be quite a few responses.
This entry was posted
on Monday, May 24, 2010
at Monday, May 24, 2010
and is filed under
Discussion,
God
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.
Posts
