What an insanely beautiful model. It makes me happy to think that humans find the time to do things that have no value beyond their beauty and the pleasure they give to people who work on them.
Prof. Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives.
In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert.
Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the center of our civilization.
Scruton seems primarily preoccupied with dour gatekeeping over what should be considered beautiful or what should be aspired to, as though beauty were some objectively measurable quantity, and anything he deems "ugly" was deliberately crafted to annoy him.
No! He is defending the impetus of artists to use beauty as a motivator for their works. He is not diminishing the subjective variations in different cultural beauties, or claiming only one kind of beauty exists. The problem is that modern Western art no longer considers beauty itself a motivator. And that’s a problem because beautific recognition is a deeply human need.
That's also a bad point, there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. But many other artists have different motivations. If Scruton is saying that only beautiful art should be produced than "dour gatekeeping" seems appropriate.
Yes, I’m regards to what gets produced there’s an awful lot of beautiful art these days.
There is also a line of criticism that the institutions of fine art (education, galleries, museums, grants, etc) have, in the last few decades, distorted their previous value system of beauty (complex as it is) to focus on more conceptual and academic issues. If you’re interested in hearing this analysis in detail, check out The Invisible Dragon by Rich Hickey.
> there's more beautiful art being created today than ever.
Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake?
Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.
Usually people who say things like this have made zero effort to discover contemporary art that they like. You list examples of old European art that can be found in a 7th grade textbook.
Contemporary art is very hard to discover because society had so little time to filter and decide what it liked. That's why old art seems so much better-categorized in hindisght.
I agree. Just like other old things that are still around, old art seems good due to survivorship bias. There has been lots of terrible art made in all media since the beginning of civilization.
What about film making, TV, photography or even computer games? They sometimes have scale and majesty. Just with a different funding model than a few rich benefactors.
For music I'd argue that the present mode of the classical tradition lies mostly in film and video scores. Your Mozart is quite possibly, and in all seriousnous, likely John Williams. Many of the notable classical composers of the first 2/3 or so of the 20th century did work in film.
You mention Mozart but neglect J.S. Bach, who was all but forgotten before being later revived; much of his catalog was lost. Michelangelo produced validating propaganda for the upstart and brutal Medici family. Much classical art (painting, sculpture, music) was similarly created for religious or state sponsors.
Ballet and opera were the most complex performative works of their time. You'd probably want to look to musicals for modern equivalents, combining drama, music, singing, and dance.
Signature buildings are harder to name, but then, they also often take centuries to earn their reputations, and are often dismissed or unappreciated for long periods. The Notre Dame cathedral only started becoming a classic in the 19th century, nearly 800 years after it was begun.
In most cases, it's familiarity and time which cement reputations and acceptence. There's a timelessness IMO in stone, brick, and wood which concrete, steel, and glass match with difficulty, making other possible contenders -- most skyscrapers, bridges, and dams, say, less qualified, despite numerous contenders (e.g., Brooklyn & Golden Gate bridges, Hoover Dam, Burj Khalifa, Guggenheim Museum).
Ultimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy.
While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
I don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound.
Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
The burj khalifa is vastly more impressive than the notre dame from an architectural perspective.
Any of the top 100 movies on imdb can stand its own as far as capturing the imagination and delivering enjoyment as any of the great symphonies of old.
Modern art is different, but it is not inferior. I would argue today’s art vastly exceeds any period in history in scale and imagination. And beauty, well, that’s a personal matter.
Would you argue traditional japanese sword forging produced superior weapons to today’s because nobody makes swords that way anymore?
Reading between the lines, I think what he was arguing for was a distinction between art for the sake of beauty and art for other purposes. Lumping them all together under the same definition is problematic
