Beauty: in the "I" of the Beholder

I comment here on Nicholas Wolterstorff’s chapter, “Art and the Aesthetic: The Religious Dimension”. I agree with Wolterstorff that Clive Bell’s deconstruction (in his book on aesthetic theory, “Art”, 1914) of the aesthetic experience bears an unmistakeably resemblance to discourse on religious experiencing, where upon contemplating the form of an object of beauty one approaches “the most valuable think in the world”, “a gift beyond all price”, that which “might prove [to be] the world’s salvation”, lifting us “above the stream of life” to behold “the thing in itself…[or]…the ultimate reality”. Apparently this ultimate reality reveals itself to us (or at least those of us “sensitive” enough to detect it) via the forms of beauty, thereby becoming a “product of the spiritual life”. The ecstasy of art-beholder is thereby associable with the ecstatic of the mystic: each experiencing the same height through different vehicles. Furthermore, I personally agree with Bell’s association of religion and art. This pairing strike two chords in me, resonating with a) the use of yantras and b) Sigmund Freud’s sentiments in “Civilization and Its Discontents”.

Bell’s emphasis of the supremacy of form (over content) in object of beauty may be applied to the existence and usage of yantras. These sacred diagrams of ancient India can contain theological content (depicting gods, planets, etc.), but typically consist of nothing more than an intricate panoply of interlocking geometrical shapes. These diagrams are based on form, since they don’t depict anything particular. Although they are quite beautiful, they are not meant merely as artistic expressions of beauty. Rather, they are considered tools for spiritual experiencing and growth. To contemplate such anobject of beauty is believed to enhance one’s awareness of metaphysical states of reality. As such yantras appears to be in alignment with Bell’s sentiments hat objects of beauty a) derive their appeal due to formal qualities, and b) are conducive to apprehending spiritual realities states of consciousness.

I enjoy the ideas advanced by the ancient Greek thinkers. I am very interested in the Pythagorean-Platonic answer to Polonius question regarding the connection between the nature of beauty as intertwined with its potency to cause delight. I hope we tease this out in class. But for now, I wish to tie engage only in modern secular accounts of beauty. I personally disagree with Kant’s secular account of aesthetic delight (pleasure in beauty) ascribing beauty’s appeal to nothing more than the free play of the cognitive faculties. As Bell points out, such a model does not begin to address the “strange mysterious feeling of exaltation” experienced while engaged by fine works of art, music, poetry, dance, etc. Sigmund Freud, too, was a secularist extraordinaire. In his brilliant exposition “Civilization and Its Discontents” he reduces divinity to psychological projection – god, of course, represents our need for a father figure (I’m not sure what he would say about polytheists and monists). In his analysis of the tension between the needs of the individual and the demands of Civilization he sternly critiques religion’s ability to safeguard happiness and morality for humanity. He ultimately pits religion against science, arguing that it’s a ancient farce, born of sociological and psychological necessity, which, as scientifically-minded individuals, we out to intellectually outgrow. Freud is therefore firmly entrenched in the physical world and thus could not begin to appreciate the subtle eview of aesthetics advanced by Platonius, Bell, etc. What does he say about beauty?

Sigmund Freud is as opinionated as he is brilliant. He has many insights to share on the human experience – regarding emotion, mind, motivation, sensation, family, desire, etc – yet he, too, seems baffled by the origin and appreciation of beauty. He writes (in Civilization and Its Discontents) that


"the enjoyment of beauty has a peculiar, mildly intoxication quality of feeling. Beauty has no obvious use; nor is there any clear cultural necessity for it. Yet civilization could not do without it. The science of aesthetics investigates the conditions under which things are felt as beautiful, but it has been unable to give any explanation of the nature and origin of beauty, and, as usually happens, lack of success is concealed beneath a flood of resounding and empty words. Psychoanalysis, unfortunately, has scarcely anything to say about beauty either."


Ironically, I think Freud’s bewilderment on the subject is quite telling. He find no viable physical, psychological account for beauty simply because it is born and enjoyed in a realm beyond the rational intellect, and perhaps, as Bell would assert, mirrors a reality transcendent to the physical world. Metaphysical speculation aside, Freud does seem to assent to beauty’s power, i.e., it’s peculiar, intoxicating effect. He is unable to reduce it to a matter of utility, admitting that it has no obvious use. He further admits that there is a clear cultural need for it. I would expand this, given the global appeal of beauty, to say that there is s clear human need for beauty. Ironically, Freud’s inability to account for beauty on secular terms may serve to signify the transcendence inherent in beauty. He seems one step ahead of the thinkers who do purport to account for beauty on rational terms. Freud may dismiss religion, but in doing so, he can’t account for beauty, because, as Bell would argue, they are indeed both twin manifestations of the same impulse, and as such both “roads by which men escape from circumstance to ecstasy”.

Thanks for reading, and for all of the wonderful feedback and discussion this semester.

Regards,
Raj