Beauty exists as an experience in its own right, to be enjoyed for its own sake, and in no way inferior to other values. Let’s therefore celebrate it, extol it, and accord it its due dignity.

Those who hold classical philosophical views—such as we imaginative conservatives—consider it an indisputable proposition that beauty is the goal of art. Yet this principle is not universally held. Some critics and commentators dispute what exactly is the role of beauty in art, and there has even been talk of a “cult of the ugly.” To us the idea that art is not about beauty might seem ludicrous, but the question should be taken seriously. Here are some questions raised by a sincere, unnamed critic who believes that beauty is not all there is to art:

“An appeal to one’s sense of aesthetics is all fine and good, but can’t music—or any fine art—educate? Can’t it induce compassion? Can’t it entertain us, not only through the heart but through the head as well? And if it does all these things and more, why assume that it does so best through beauty? Is Picasso’s Guernica traditionally beautiful? Few would say so, but is its value thereby diminished? There’s more to the artistic experience than being made to feel good—than receiving a spiritual backrub, if I may.

There is a whole load of issues that one could unpack here. I would first of all posit that beauty is indeed the ultimate goal of art, but that beauty is more than many people think it is. Beauty in general is poorly understood in its full depth. Aesthetics for many seems to equate to cosmetics—a prettiness, a superficial allurement or enchantment. The real substance of art, what art is really about, is presumably underneath. To read some writers’ statements about beauty, one has to wonder whether they even have any notion of beauty in the high spiritual and philosophic sense in which classical thinkers mean it. They seem to associate it with a comfortable and complacent pleasure, something that makes us “feel good.” These comments reveal, I believe, a complete misunderstanding of what beauty is.

The problem is that many people’s notion of beauty is simply too narrow. Beauty is not charm or allurement or eroticism or a backrub or a bubble bath or frosting on a cake. It is something broader and deeper. There are of course a hundred and one ways one could go about defining something so mysterious and elusive as beauty. I will make an attempt here. Beauty is a signal and symbol of the encompassing order in the universe and nature and the essential goodness, the essentially pleasing character, of reality. This is what we might call transcendent beauty as opposed to surface beauty (which may of course be a small-scale reflection of transcendent beauty). Beauty thus has to do with the truth of things and as such it is essential to human life and flourishing—not a mere adornment, but essential to our inner life. The philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand says in his magisterial Aesthetics that “beauty is a primordial phenomenon of the utmost importance and one of the greatest sources of profound joy.” He stresses that beauty is an objective phenomenon, not merely a subjective feeling—not merely “in the eye of the beholder.” It is an objective value just as ethical or moral values are.

It’s too often implied that beauty is the antithesis of the intellectual, that it is merely sensual—one recalls in this connection the popular antithesis of brains versus beauty. I would insist on the contrary that beauty comes to us with particular content and meaning. It is not a generic mush, but something with determinate qualities which one can name and discuss and engage with on the level of intellect.

Also implied in the above critic’s comments is the view that beauty is a means or medium by which art communicates to us rather than its final goal. Thus, if I am looking at a painting, I might be able to pick apart its various elements and say, “this is beauty, that is the intellectual element, that is moral didacticism,” etc. I think this, too, reflects misunderstanding. To my way of thinking beauty is rather like a canopy that covers the whole artistic experience, not merely one element among others in a particular artwork. It is an atmosphere that pervades the whole of an object or artwork.

“The Crucifixion” by Matthias Grünewald

Regarding a work such as the Picasso Guernica, here is what I would say: No, it is not conventionally beautiful in the sense of pretty; it is highly expressive, and the ordering of the work might reflect beauty in a higher spiritual sense. In a similar way that a great tragedy can express feelings of anguish and pain, but we would not on that account say that it is not beautiful. I don’t doubt that someone might sincerely say that Picasso’s Guernica, or Grunewald’s Crucifixion, is beautiful. Here of course we touch on the distinction between beauty and expression in art. Art does contain expressive content, but it is important to acknowledge that the expression is contained within an artistic form, and the form is what conveys beauty; this is what separates artistic expression from other forms of expression.

There are some artistic commentators who, while not going so far as to enshrine ugliness, nevertheless take a view that relativizes beauty. You will not get them to admit that the goal of art is beauty, plain and simple. Instead, they will say that the goal is “the artistic experience,” or “communication,” or “education,” or “an emotional journey,” or the like. This is all well and good; surely art is an experience, and it does communicate and take us on a journey. Yet such a conception does not answer the question what is being communicated or experienced. And it ignores the question of what is the distinctive nature of a work of art that separates it from, say, a lecture or a sermon, the essential purpose of which is didactic and not immediately connected with pleasure, delight, or enjoyment.

In thinking about beauty, we should insist that it is inseparable from a philosophical and theological conception of the world. It is connected with our perception of nature and of the order inherent in it; it is our response to the world around us and an imitation (mimesis) of the same.

I have on previous occasions expressed my view that the concept of beauty applies in the primary sense to nature and secondarily to art. I believe, in fact, that there is a basic aesthetic background or atmosphere to life as we all live it. To conclude, let me dwell a bit on beauty as a basic ground or atmosphere of life. One way this is manifested is in our experience of nature. As we pass through the year, we are aware of the changes of nature related to the seasons and the various sensations attendant upon this; we experience holidays and holydays as the signal events of a season that gather up and express its atmosphere and symbology. From day to day, we experience through our senses various phases of beauty in nature, in humanity, and yes, in the architecture and art that surround us. Never would we dream of saying that all this was mere window dressing, mere icing on the cake, or subordinate to something else. Rather, we feel that such beauty exists as an experience in its own right, to be enjoyed for its own sake, and in no way inferior to other values. Let’s therefore celebrate it, extol it, and accord it its due dignity.

This essay was first published here in August 2022.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now. 

The featured image is “Mariana in the South” (1897) by John William Waterhouse, and is in the public domain; “The Crucifixion” (1512) by Matthias Grünewald, is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.