STRANGE as it may seem, beauty still needs to be defended. In the history of the West, beauty has played the role of Cinderella to her sisters, goodness and truth. I don’t mean to say that beauty in art or nature hasn’t been appreciated throughout history—though there have been times when beauty has been the subject of frontal assaults—but simply that when we start getting official, when we get theological or philosophical, beauty becomes a hot potato.
The ambivalence about beauty at the heart of western culture begins at the beginning. In Jerusalem, proscriptions against idols and graven images coexist with paeans to the craftsmanship of God and Bezalel, the artificer (described in Exodus) of the desert tabernacle. In Athens, Plato celebrates the divine madness that the poet experiences when the muse descends, but he also kicks the poets out of his ideal republic as unreliable, disruptive sorts.
In theory, goodness, truth, and beauty—traditionally known as the “transcendentals,” because they are the three qualities that God has in infinite abundance—are equal in dignity and worth. Indeed, in Christian thought there has always been a sense that the transcendentals exist in something of a trinitarian relationship to one another. But in practice it rarely seems to work out that way.
The funny thing is that secular and religious attacks on beauty are nearly identical. Beauty is seen as an anesthetizing force that distracts us from the moral imperatives of justice and the quest for truth. There isn’t much difference between a stern proponent of Iconoclasm in the eighth century and a modern Marxist attacking beauty as nothing but an opiate to lull us into acquiescence to the powers that be. Both critics abhor what Wendy Steiner has called “the scandal of pleasure.”
The time has come to bring beauty back, to give it the glass slipper and invite it to the prom.
The thinker who has helped me most along these lines is the twentieth-century theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. His argument—and it is a rather unsettling one—is that of the three transcendentals, beauty is the one that is least troubled by our fallen condition. In a world plagued by sin and error, he says, truth and goodness are always hotly contested. How do you live righteously? What is the truth? As we debate these matters, we have axes to grind.
But beauty, von Balthasar says, is disinterested. It has no agenda. Beauty can sail under the radar of our anxious contention over what is true and what is good, carrying along its beam a ray of the beatific vision. Beauty can pierce the heart, wounding us with the transcendent glory of God.
Von Balthasar’s magnum opus, The Glory of the Lord, is structured in three parts, corresponding to the three transcendentals. He stresses the importance of the order in which he discusses them:
Beauty is the word which shall be our first. Beauty is the last thing which the thinking intellect dares to approach since only it dances as an uncontained splendor around the double constellation of the true and the good and their inseparable relation to one another. Beauty is the disinterested one, without which the ancient world refused to understand itself, a word which both imperceptibly and unmistakably has bid farewell to our new world, a world of interests, leaving it to its own avarice and sadness. No longer loved or fostered by religion, beauty is lifted from its face as a mask, and its absence exposes features on that face which threaten to become incomprehensible to man. We no longer dare to believe in beauty, and we make of it a mere appearance in order the more easily to dispose of it. Our situation today shows that beauty demands for itself at least as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness, and she will not allow herself to be separated and banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance. We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name, as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past, whether he admits it or not, can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.
A quotation as dense with meaning as that is a hard act to follow. But one of the more intriguing suggestions made by von Balthasar concerns that “act of mysterious vengeance.” When you remove beauty from the human equation, it is going to come back in some other form, even as anti-beauty. A good deal of modern art can be understood in this light. In modernity, beauty has been seen as an appearance—ornamentation, sugar coating. Secularists and believers alike have either rejected beauty altogether or argued that beauty should make the pills of truth and goodness go down easier. Beauty must serve some other end; it is not an end in itself.
But the transcendentals were always understood as infinitely valuable, as ends in themselves. When it comes to beauty, however, we are afraid to assert that much. We feel the need to harness it, because beauty is unpredictable, wild.
Here’s how I have tried to comprehend these deep matters. If you think about these three transcendentals in relationship to our human capacities, what are the faculties that correspond to these three transcendentals? Goodness, I would say, has to do with faith, the desire for holiness. Truth is pursued by reason.
We are all familiar with that pairing: faith and reason. That’s standard-issue language in the western tradition. But what about the third element? What faculty does beauty correspond to? I would suggest that it is the imagination. The imagination is the faculty honed to apprehend beauty and unfold its meaning.
How often do we say the Judeo-Christian tradition is a tradition of faith, reason, and imagination? This is what I mean by saying that we treat beauty as the Cinderella. “Go make pretty pictures,” we say to beauty, “but don’t start acting like you are a pathway to knowing the universe.”
Yet this is precisely what the definition of a transcendental means. That’s easy to see when it comes to truth. But the same applies to goodness: when we act justly, we come to know more about reality. And so it is with beauty. Beauty allows us to penetrate reality through the imagination, through the capacity of the imagination to perceive the world intuitively.
Seeing the Form—that is the title of the first volume of von Balthasar’s trilogy. Aesthetics comes from the Greek word for perception, aisthesis. Saint Thomas Aquinas defined beauty as “id quod visum placet”—that which being seen, pleases. A work of art has a flash of radiance about it that we find pleasurable, but the pleasure comes from our recognition of meaning, a pattern within our normally chaotic experience.
The intuitive perception of meaning that art provides helps us to see that imagination is akin to reason: both seek truth through the apprehension of order and pattern. Art employs beautiful forms to generate objects that penetrate reality.
Beauty tends to elicit in us a type of shock. We draw a breath in. Why? If beauty tells us about the eternal verities, whence the surprise? Ezra Pound once said that the artist’s task is to “make it new.” The “it” is the truth of the world. A work of art doesn’t invent truth, but it does make it accessible to us in ways that are not normally available because words and images have been tarnished by overuse or neglect. Art fails when it merely tells us what we already know in the ways that we already know it.
That is why art is so deeply related to the prophetic dimension and the place where it connects to truth. That prophetic shock, that challenge to complacency, that revelatory reconfiguration of the way things are, gives us a truer picture of the way that the world is.
Truth without beauty is fleshless abstraction, a set of propositions. Only beauty can incarnate truth in concrete, believable, human flesh.
Beauty also has the capacity to help us to value the good, especially the goodness of the most ordinary things. The greatest epics, the most terrible tragedies, all have one goal: to bring us back to the ordinary and help us to love and to cherish it. Odysseus encounters Circe, Cyclops, the sirens, Scylla and Charybdis, but his real destination is home and the marital bed that makes it his place in the world.
That is the magic of art. It may spread a huge canvas, it may be bold and baroque, but its essence is to remind us of the everyday and to transmute it into a sacrament.
Beauty tutors our compassion, making us more prone to love and to see the attraction of goodness. Art takes us out of our self-referentiality and invites us to see through the eyes of the other, whether that other is the artist herself or a character in a story. Because beauty endows goodness with mercy, it enables us to see how difficult it is to achieve goodness, how often one good exists in tension with another. Our pursuit of the good is inherently dramatic, and drama is based on conflict.
Thus goodness without beauty is moralism, holier than thou.
At the same time, it is only fair to say that beauty without truth is a lie. Beauty without truth becomes the mask that von Balthasar speaks of, a mask that has no relationship to the face behind it.
Beauty without goodness is frigid and lifeless. It can be pure virtuosity—form without meaning—but then it fails to touch the heart. We admire the acrobatics but fail to see the point.
Perhaps it goes without saying, but any serious discussion of beauty needs to treat it as something more than prettiness. The Greeks, as I have suggested, were deeply divided about beauty. They loved harmony, proportion, symmetry, the ideal form. But they also knew darkness, as their tragedies attest.
To my mind, a deeper understanding of beauty came into being with Christianity. The cross, the instrument of torture and shame, was taken up into a higher vision of beauty. Brokenness and woundedness—the shattering of the ideal—can become the means whereby beauty is revealed. Here is a beauty that is anything but sentimental. It is akin to what Yeats meant by his phrase “a terrible beauty.” Lest we forget, the glorified body of the risen Christ still bears the marks of his wounds.
Beauty itself wounds us, pierces our hearts, opens us up. Let us, then, free it to dance in “uncontained splendor around the double constellation of the true and the good.”









Comments
You can email "The Wound of Beauty" by Copying and pasting this link into an email or instant message
or, clicking this link to email the link using your computer's email program.
These icons link to social networks where users can share and discover new webpages.
But there is something about beauty that must frustrate even the most callous cynic; beauty gives seemingly without reason and without boundary. A photograph taken of an industrial wasteland at sunset may look beautiful though we know full well that such a landscape is a blight on our beautiful earth. It is exasperating how, even in the ugliest of situations, beauty gives without any thought as to how it might be received – as if nothing is beyond the reach of glory.
There is something about a beauty that surprises us. It is characterized by wanton giveness. We don’t expect to find it in such a world. Even our own deeply held beliefs might tell us that beauty is decadent, meaningless and irrational, but the unsettling appeal of beauty undeniable.
anyway, i think that Beauty more accurately refers to "fittingness". dictionary online states that beauty is "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 (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest)".
its indo-european root deu--2 has the following nuances: "To do, perform, show favor, revere". the idea behind the word beauty is that something is effective in its communication or execution, or that the form actually amplifies/ expresses the content. it is fitting. if i look at that in its presented order (an action as arbitrary as declaring something aesthetically beautiful, really) it would seem to me that the process and action of presenting a message or idea to consider (i.e. the work's "work"). the viewer/ reader pays attention with their whole being (intellectually, emotionally, kinaesthetic/ phenomenologically) and then experiences something other or beyond the work.
that takes it beyond some personal aesthetic and emotional response. an emotional response may be part and parcel of the experience of viewing/ reading the work, but the mind and senses are also engaged to enrich and direct that response. or perhaps Beauty can be measured by how Truthful a work is (and yes, i do mean to capitalize Truth). i tend to identify Beauty by how well (or how richly) a work is able to convey its message. therefore, work by artists such as joel-peter witkin, christian boltanski, annette messager or anselm kiefer can be Beautiful - it's about the manner in which the content is presented, rather than the personally pleasing aesthetic.
i've always wondered at image's usage of the dostoyevsky's maxim that "Beauty will save the world". i've always felt it's a little more conceptual and theological in nature than personal aesthetic preference. perhaps you could respond and speak about that quote in the context of this exploration of the unerpinnings of Beauty.
We "rest" in looking at a beautiful object because our intellects are spared the usual work of figuring out what a thing is---this is a "sabbath" experience or anticipated eschatological experience, where we understand effortlessly and not through a glass darkly as we do on earth as fallen creatures. This rest pleases us because it lets us experience what we are meant to be--restored to our supernatural intellect, to a sabbath experience of joyful rest. Aquinas says beauty delights the *soul* and therefore we have an "emotional" or "spiritual" experience as well. But since beauty must be understood intellectually, it is an object of intellect, not primarily emotion. Discussions on beauty based in intellectual discourse are possible--those rooted in emotion prevent rational discourse.
Of course, perception of beauty still depends on the ability of the perceiver to perceive the beauty--even though the beauty is an attribute of being, it is "in" the object. So beauty is indeed objective, while always understood by a perceiver. So two people can perceive the same thing differently, even if is objectively beautiful. A Satanist and a Christian will look at the same cross differently...but it doesn't change the objective reality of the cross. One sees failure, the other triumph. Inability to perceive does not make the object less beautiful. It only means that the viewer lacks the necessary capacity to perceive--and again, this is found in the intellect, either of the mind or the "inner knowing" of the moral or aesthetic sense. Think of how the average Joe is instinctively attracted to beautiful things, but then has the "aha!" moment when something beautiful is explained to him--he appreciates its beauty even more.
I think beauty pierces us because it reminds us of what we are supposed to be, namely, beautiful ourselves. And this means being what God understands wants us to be--complete again with divine life, ordered to His plan, no longer subject to the effects of the Fall. So Beauty is indeed theological, it seems. It reaches to the inmost desires we have to be restored to right relationship with God and creation--yet the world is still fallen. And we are pierced and wounded by this disconnect of knowing that perfection exists without being able to taste it fully. (This explains, Pope John Paul II says, why artists are often full of pathos). As Augustine said, his soul could not rest until it rested in God--nothing else is as complete, ordered or clear. So nothing else is as beautiful--except of course, the Son, as perfect image of the Father.
In his essay "Naming and Being," novelist Walker Percy writes that names may either reveal or obscure. What happens conceptually when you see a bright flash and a movement of wings in a tree? What happens in the moment right before you think to yourself "Oh ... it's just a sparrow?" For a split second, you are seeing the world with fresh eyes. Then the word "sparrow" cloaks the experience with its deadening familiarity: "Just a sparrow". The name hides the beast. The symbol is obscured and we become alienated from our world.
A few years ago, I spent an hour at a friend's house using a macro lens to photograph insects crawling across a stained glass window. I loved watching the delicate six-legged bodies color-drenched in the filtered sunlight. A tiny magical world materialized in my viewfinder. The highlight occurred when a ladybug reared up on its two hind legs to begin its climb from the sill to the window frame. For just a split second, she became a ballet dancer on a stage, blue and red lights tracing the outline of her elegant form. I was in the presence of the unfamiliar and the achingly beautiful, not "just a ladybug". For a brief moment, I could see.
For Percy, recovery of the symbol may come through the process of ordeal. "If I am lying wounded or in exile or in prison and a sparrow builds his nest at my window, then I may see the sparrow." In a less extreme way, recovery may also come through the experience of engaging with art. In "The Creatures Among Us," I photographically re-imagine domesticated and other common creatures that have become invisible through proximity. I am interested in exploring how art might aid in the recovery of the obscured symbol and ultimately how art might participate in the reversal of alienation.
Continued (with images) at:
http://web.mac.com/steverinojohnson/thecreatures/statement.html
Add a Comment