The Murti of Beauty in the West

I found the information provided in the two readings from “the Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics” reader was very interesting, although they were at times rather difficult to fully grasp. The Guyer article was particularly dense and difficult to understand. Still many of the theorists which were mentioned had some fascinating ideas. Compared to Wolterstorff, Guyer really did not spend a lot of time explicitly discussing how religion and aesthetics really do tie together, yet he did make mentions of a few interesting theological theories.

The most interesting and relevant passage I felt is found on page 24. In this passage Guyer discusses Shaftsbury and his follower Hutcheson’s ideas of how art can be viewed as a means to God. Shaftesbusy argued that “our feeling of beauty is a direct perception of the overarching order of the universe established by its intelligent author.” Hutcheson - a more pious Christian than even Shaftsbury yet ultimately a secular and modern thinker– “argues that it is precisely the distinction between the sense of beauty on the one hand and cognition and volition on the other that grounds a proof of God’s benevolence...” (Guyer 24) It appears as those these thinkers found proof for a higher being – a creator and apparently a lover of things beautiful – in the existence of art and our ability to enjoy it as well as think about it. Although I do not find this to be proof of anything myself, I think it is a beautiful idea. The god they imagined must be good, intelligent, and loving, or else he would not have allowed such wondrous things to exist in his created world.

I am not sure exactly why but this really made me think of theories around the golden ratio - the magic, aesthetically pleasing number (phi - 1.6180339887) that can be found over and over again in nature. Most natural objects that have patterns follow the ratio (ex. sunflower seed formations) and the human body itself has its foundations in these proportions. During the Renaissance in particular, artists such as da Vinci utilized this number in their own creations. Many have questioned if this number is evidence for intelligent design or an in intelligent creator. (I am no expert in this and only have a brief passing interest –but I also wonder if people have used this theory to justify their belief that the creator made humans in their image...) I believe here is a body of Renaissance literature on the subject of the aesthetics of phi, I wonder if Shaftsbury had this in mind when he was talking of the overarching order of the universe as proof of an intelligent creator. Sound as though he did to me.

I was glad when reading the Wolterstorff article that similar topics such as finding the creator through art were emphasised. I actually quite enjoyed this reading (I also enjoyed the Weber article, but won’t talk about it here!). According to Bell, art is “kin” to religion, it is a “means to ecstasy” (Bell quoted on Woterstorff 327) I found it fascinating how the enjoyment of art was described in mystical terms. This follows so closely to a lot of the Indian writings we have spent so much time in class focusing on! Plotinus’ theories were very interesting. Things that have no perceptually different parts are some of the things that are inherently beautiful, in his opinion. This opposes the Pythagorean-Platonic belief that held that beautiful things were made up of parts – although Plotinus does work within this tradition. I think this goes back to the theory of phi which I talked about above; the parts follow a pattern and create a beautiful whole. Yet Plotinus is more advaita, the ultimate importance to him is unity. The soul, in unity with its “kindred reality, is delighted and thrilled and returns to itself and remembers itself and its own possessions” (I.6.2 quoted in Wolterstorff 329) According to Plotinus “beauty rests upon the material things when it has been brought into unity.” Furthermore, “the soul’s becoming something good and beautiful is its being made like to God, because from him [comes] beauty.” (I.6.6 quoted ibid.) All this sounds very mystical and similar to the Upanisadic and advaita “atman = Brahman”. I think I like Plotinus. According to Wolterstorff (ph 330) Plotinus was working with the Platonic idea in which things are beautiful because of their resemblance to and participation in the ultimate form of Beauty – the divine One, God. Although Bell’s ideas are based on a similar tradition to these, for him, God – the ultimate reality – is pantheistically manifested in form. So, from what I can gleam, for the former beautiful objects only resemble God (Wolterstorff himself holds similar beliefs), yet for the latter beautiful objects have God within them. Bell’s idea is highly reminiscent of Hindu ideas of murti for me!