Well, duh, of course they are! Now these transcendentals are not separable in God, but in man and creation (especially a fallen creation)? That should be a no-brainer, and yet this came up in discussion a couple of nights ago as it has other times in the past. Just think Hollywood and its "beautiful people." They may have zero amounts of truth and goodness, but they have beauty - in spades. Call it "superficial beauty" or "mere physical beauty," but it is beauty as we commonly understand it and experience it - first through the senses - and according to its definition as "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else . . ."Now, to be honest, I do not consider Paris Hilton the most beautiful woman ever (and I had to go through quite a few pictures in order to find one in which she didn't look simply trashy), but she has an honest to goodness natural beauty (maybe nothing else!) which will only grow as she matures, provided she doesn't destroy herself - something which is still open to question.
Nonetheless, I think that we like to have these things together. Because these transcendentals are together in God, we yearn for them to be together in creation. It can run the gamut all the way from disappointing to dangerous when they are separated, but it happens all the time. I once had a female fellow student in grad school say to me, shocked, "I just learned from a psychology major that when most men see a beautiful woman, they assume she must be a good person, too. Is this true?" Well, yes, it tends to be. With experience you learn better, but there is something to that. (I was shocked that she was shocked. Women don't think that way, too?) I think women are less taken with other women because they know them up close. They know what scoundrels attractive women can be at times - so they are less fooled. I also think women are driven differently in their attraction to men, not excluding looks, certainly, but including other things that don't factor as highly with men. That, however, is not my area of expertise and is, maybe, a matter for another post.
I know what scoundrels artists can be, so I have no trouble with the notion that an artist leading an immoral life can produce something beautiful. Now, I grant you that the darkening of the intellect and the will that comes with a life of sin can have an effect on the art one produces - especially in an age which stresses art as "self-expression." (not a universal concept) Nonetheless, the only way you are going to know that for sure is through the work of art itself, not through examining someone's personal life and then assuming their art must reflect it. After all, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
ALWAYS start with the work of art, first, and judge that. Anything else is a kind of "ad hominem" approach not worthy of people of culture and remember that art is about "making" - techne, facere - a skillful making which some people have through natural talent and/or training in a way that other people never will have. They may not have truth, they may not have goodness - but let's not deny the obvious and try to claim that they don't have the skill to make something beautiful when the evidence is staring everyone else in the face.
I also have no problem with the notion that a work of art itself can be beautiful, but, for example, lacking truth - or let us say the fullness of truth. We would certainly say that about Greek dramas. We don't believe those gods are real, although there may be major truths taught otherwise. I would even say that a contemporary movie like Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors," is, in a sense, beautiful. It also has elements of truth and is very skillfully made, yet comes to a moral conclusion that is just wrong.
It IS beautiful, but it is wrong, just like Paris Hilton, and therefore it is potentially dangerous.
All right class, discuss.
6 comments:
Really good post, in my humble opinion. I think that a lot of us need to think about the fact that beauty is not necessarily linked to goodness but is still capable of being respected in a transcendental sort of way. We tend to be so judgmental about people on the surface, but even superficial beauty can be an instance of elevating the mind to something higher. And the tie-in to art is great, because it reminds me that even though some instances of art can be very overly Victorian and sentimental, it's still better than a void - a lack of an image that points to something greater.
You will find, Dr. Poterack, that as a blogger you will occasionally receive a comment that will frustrate your blog's system of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, a non-Hegelian sort of comment perhaps. It will have nothing to do with your original post, and you may find this vaguely aggravating; you will probably be tempted to ignore it. This is that comment.
My question is, what are your thoughts on the music of Von Herzogenburg? In particular, have you ever heard Die Geburt Christi?
Ok, I can't just leave it at that...the original post is just too interesting and tempting. I think the problem is that you are equivocating on "good"--at least, you must be if you talk about good as a transcendental and then good as moral goodness in a person (i.e. Miss Hilton). Truly, if you are making beauty a transcendental in the first place (which Dr. Marshner wouldn't like, but who cares, he isn't here), that means that wherever it is to be found, goodness and truth are also to be found; transcendentals are always inseparable. What that means is that what you find beautiful must be good (i.e. desirable) in some respect and true in some respect--at the very least, to the extent that something exists at ALL it is good, true, beautiful, etc. right off the bat!
So art, yeah...a piece of art is always beautiful? Maybe it is. But then what does beauty mean anyway? (That's why Dr. Marshner doesn't like this notion of beauty, but he can give his argument better than I can.) Techne, the making, the art: you're giving this another standard besides just the existence standard. Some art is "better" than other art. Some art has more good in it, added to just its bare existence, than other art. How that value is added is the big question mark. I wholeheartedly agree that it doesn't add or subtract a jot to the "art in existence" that the maker of the art was a holy man or a huge sinner--the MORAL goodness of the maker is separate from the goodness/beauty of the made work-of-art.
I think the big thing that's lacking in your analysis of art is the notion of an end, or final cause. This end does not necessarily mean "what the artist had in mind when they made it" but to analyze a piece of art without asking its purpose is leaving a bit behind. So yes, this painting is beautiful because it exists, it's beautiful because the technical skill in this regard is excellent, but it's lacking what it portrays: it doesn't lead someone to the good. Because, in the end, the purpose of art is to form the souls of people. It doesn't stand on its own, but its ultimate goodness and hence beauty is found in relation to how well it achieves its end. Perhaps you can talk about degrees of beauty, and there's a way in which even pornography can be thought beautiful, but isn't that totally separating it from the end for which it was intended? (Isn't it interesting that we generally refuse to call pornography art--and that nowadays pornography is legitimized by calling it art when it's really not.) I would rather see a more poorly executed work of art that leads to the truth than an incredibly "beautiful" work of art that leads my soul to decay. This doesn't mean that I'm only going to look at Fra Angelico paintings or something, but it does mean that I have to judge art by a fuller standard than just its technical achievement.
Dear Sylvia,
Thank you for your extensive commentary. I am not trained as a philosopher, so I may use terms more loosely than I should. I was vaguely aware of the rejection by some of "beauty" as a transcendental, but decided not to argue for it, just assume it.
I do agree with your point about art having a final end which has to be attended to, but-as important as that is-I think that sometimes this gets over simplified and reduced to an either-or. (i.e. Fra Angelica or pornography) It will either save my soul or destroy it - and if I get the impression it isn't fully committed to the former, it must be committed to the latter.
I am not accusing you of this, but I sometimes get the impression that that is the way art is treated in some of the circles I travel in.
[I am puzzled by your accusation of Hegelianism and will have to ponder that one.]
Sometimes the end of a work of art may be - in a beautiful, skillful way - to elucidate man's situation, how he interacts with his environment and fellow man in a way that will be true and, at least hint at the good. But it may not propose an answer. Preferably it won't propose an answer because that might reduce it as art and turn it into didacticism or even agit-prop.
I think good art tends to be observational rather than partisan.
"La Dolce Vita" elucidates 20th century man's situation very well without proposing a solution. "8 1/2" hints at a vague solution, which I disagree with, but the rest of it is quite good. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" even more so hints at an answer which I strongly disagree with but, as a well-formed Catholic adult, I can enjoy the good parts while watching it every once and awhile. It won't harm me.
Full-bore pornography has as its sole purpose the leading of people into a particular sin. By its own admission, its final end is to fan the flames of concupisence, so there is no point in watching it no matter how well it is made.
I am not familiar with the music of Von Herzogenburg.
Dear Dr. Poterack,
Thank you for tolerating my excessively philosophical and random comments! :-) (I didn't mean to accuse you of being Hegelian, BTW, that was just a weird turn of phrase on my part.) I heard that Von Herzogenberg oratorio on a recent plane trip, and I didn't know if you might know anything more about it; I thought it sounded cool.
I see your point about the over-simplification of the end of art. This is probably especially done by those who (like me) don't actually know all that much about art or art forms to begin with. It can turn into that sort of criticism which Alaina touches upon, in which one makes the better the enemy of the good. Besides, it's pretty conceited to tear down someone else's art when you have none of your own to put in its place. I can also see how you may have been reacting to this tendency in some (Catholic) circles, which would also put forward the "didactic art" notion as a model. I will have to ponder the observational vs. partisan idea of art--I like your way of stating it, but at the same time does not observation always have a starting point/perspective?
In any case, I think the reason I reacted as vehemently as I did to your post was because I was thinking more of people I've met on the other side, who completely ignore the moral/teleological side of things and just promote art for art's sake. I suppose the best way is to find the golden mean between the two extremes! Nevertheless, it's one of my pet peeves that people close to me use arguments like, "Oh, the acting is excellent and the cinematography is beautiful too" to defend a film that I couldn't in conscience watch. Pornography is the most extreme example, but I guess there are other ways in which our concupiscence is all too easily touched.
Pax,
Sylvia
PS Happy Feast of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady!
Well, because of a lot of other things going on this week, I didn't get to read this post until just now. As a philosopher, my heart skipped several beats when the assertion that the transcendentals were separable was made - so I came in here to discuss possible equivocations.
Luckily for everyone else's sake, Sylvia beat me to it, thus sparing everyone a terrible boring and verbose explanation of why the transcendentals are, by definition, not separable in the way in which philosophers would speak of them.
That being said, I see your point and it is granted regarding certain types of beauty and certain types of good not always being coextensive. There. I said it. "Coextensive." In a blog post comment. :-P
Post a Comment