Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. There are few more profoundly atheistic statements as this.
However, most people are practical atheists when it comes to aesthetics–they view it as just a matter of preference. This is why people get so upset, even viscerally so, when someone suggests that their sense of beauty is not as developed as it should be. Because beauty is merely a matter of choice, for someone to regard one choice as inferior to another choice the discussion disentigrates into a power struggle of who gets to set the rules on what is beautiful and what isn’t.
But, to deny objective characteristics of beauty is a rejection of a Christian worldview. If one is an atheist then of course there is no beauty and each person is free to define it as they wish. However, within a Christian framework God is the definition of beauty and the death and resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate expression of it. Want to define beauty? Look to God’s own creative expression in the universe, look to his character, look to the cross.
When we do this we find a great many criteria with which we can discern true beauty.  For example, in order for something to be beautiful it must be at the same time complex yet have an underlying simplicity or unity. We see this most clearly in the trinity–God is complex because he is three persons yet there is unity in one being. So, great art must be complex without being chaotic and it must be simple without being simplistic. This might sound easy, but it is far from it.
Another characteristic of beauty is timelessness. God is eternal, we will never become bored by contemplating his glory. In like manner, great art must cause deeper reflection and satisfaction through repeated or extended exposure. This is why pop music by its very design can never be great art. It is a product that is designed to gain instant appeal and gather a faddish following to be consumed and then discarded to make way for the next release. This is why fashion is fashion and not true art–the industry is designed to produce products that are consumed and discarded with every passing season. Now, this is not to say that every pop musician and every designer is not an artist; there are a few that do break the mold and courageously flourish in an industry structure that works against them.
Another characteristic of great art is that it incorporates joy, love, grace, and truth while at the same time also the suffering, messiness, destruction, and evil within the world. We see this most clearly in the cross. Art that only reflects one or another of these characteristics is not truly beautiful. This is not to say that an individual piece cannot focus upon one of these aspects–it surely can. However, if an artist’s entire repertoire only consists in a one-sided portrayal of reality then they do not have a sufficiently developed aesthetic.
These are only a few of the objective characteristics of beauty; there are many more. Other than a recognition that beauty is objective, another vitally important aspect of aesthetics is a realization that sensibilities and tastes must be cultivated and actively developed. We must train ourselves to appreciate and desire things that are truly of substance and beauty. Young children might desire Velveeta slices as opposed to well-aged Gorgonzola picante, but hopefully over time they will come to realize that Velveeta really isn’t cheese and they will fall in love with the smell and taste of the real thing. Make no mistake about it–this is not snobbery, it is renewing your mind. It is Romans 12:2 lived out in every facet of life including aesthetics. Â
There is much more that we could say about these things, but this is a blog and not a book. However, in the next post I hope to reflect on how scholars can incorporate a well-developed aesthetic sensibility into their writing. I am certainly a novice myself so I welcome suggestions.
Charles,
I’m more than a little baffled by this post. If all you are saying is that Christians must hold that there are “objective characteristics” of beauty then I guess I have no real problem. I think all reflecting humans should hold such an opinion. And as Christians are humans, I have no problem with the limited scope of your basic claim. But if you are implying something broader then I do have a problem. For aesthetic relativism is not an intrinsic characteristic of atheism.
While I don’t much like the word, there are those who would call me an atheist but I certainly believe that there is an objective basis for beauty. I am both an aesthetic and moral realist. In other words, I believe there is a fact of the matter with regard to statements in the form “X is beautiful” or “X is good.” The evolutionary and philosophical support for this opinion would require more space than is reasonable in a comment and likely more biological and philosophical skill than I possess. As you say, “This blog is not a book.” But, I would be very surprised if you and I disagreed in any significant way in a blind test where judgment of beauty was required.
Duane, I don’t doubt that we would have similar aesthetic judgments–I don’t think that one has to be a Christian to have a sense of beauty.
However, I am not sure how a non-theist could have philosophical warrant to move from a subjective view of beauty–this piece pleases my tastes–to an objective one–this is beautiful whether you recognize it or not. It seems to me that in order for beauty to be objective is must be based on something transcendent. Evolutionary biology just explains how what is came to be it doesn’t say what should be which is implied in objective beauty–you might not like this presently, but you should actively align your sensibilities to what is truly beautiful.
Perhaps I don’t understand facets of a non-theistic worldview that would adequately support objective beauty…
Charles,
I’m not sure I can fully defend my position. I certainly can’t to it in any comment of reasonable length. If I may use with your Velveeta/Gorgonzola example, children simply have an immature opinion on this matter. Their taste is not refined. Or as Bill Crosby famously said, “They are brain damaged.” Now consider a hunter-gatherer group. Some things are better to eat than others are. But learning this takes time and training. This training develops into a rudimentary aesthetic. It is the same when it comes to finding water and shelter. There is a fact of the matter about these things. At this level, making a mistake can kill you and those who are dependant on you. As the young hunter-gatherer matures, he or she learns patterns and textures that are life affirming. There is a fact of the matter when it comes to what patterns, textures, tastes, odors, etc are life affirming. Some of this gets written into our genes. The desires for sweet and fat are often cited as examples. But of course, our generically driven taste for these evolved in a time of relative scarcity so what was once life affirming is now, when taken to excess, no longer so. (Here I skip a number of important steps.)
So my first claim is that there is a meaningful generic, evolutionary, basis for our aesthetics. From this basis, we can extrapolate all the way to placing a higher objective value on Gorgonzola than on Velveeta. (Now I skip a lot more) I think it is exactly that life affirming standard, in our genes, that is also the logical and emotional objective standard by which we can judge whether or not something is beautiful, the more life affirming the more beautiful. Of course, the sad, the evil, and even the grotesque can, when properly presented, be life affirming. And we must learn what truly is life affirming and we can be wrong about it.
Hi Charles,
You say that aesthetics should be based on something transcendant in order to avoid being entirely relative. I’m in significant agreement with that, but… One problem with what you’ve offered is that it is based on only one formulation of the transcendant (i.e., the Christian). What made me think of this in particular is your suggestion that beauty should be complex, yet simple, a criterion rooted in the Trinity. Well, what about Jews and others who do not accept the doctrine of the trinity. Surely the juxtaposition of complexity and simplicity can also be rooted in other traditions of how to formulate the transcendant than Christianity for those who hold to other traditions.
Put differently, I suspect there are people who would share your assessment of what makes something “objectively beautiful” yet reject the particular theological construct on you base your assessment.
Not sure what to do with that, but in general what it suggests to me is this: It’s certainly meaningful for Christians to root their aesthetics in their theology, as I think it would be for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or whatever. But the presence of these criteria for beauty across the spectrum may suggest that aesthetics goes beyond (or perhaps deeper than…not sure which spatial metaphor is better) one particular tradition.