What Makes Art Beautiful?

In the second chapter of It Was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God, Chaplin offers an interesting discourse on beauty in art. He begins by commenting on how each individual experiences the world in their own unique way, and therefore, their interpretation of beauty will be exclusive. This is a strong argument not to be reasoned against. However, Chaplin goes on to say that what a person sees as beautiful, or not beautiful, is based on their past experiences and future expectations. Beauty becomes dependent on the context, there are no neutral perceptions. To quote Chaplin,

Michelangelo's Vitruvian Man is based on
proportion and measurement.

“Beauty, likewise, always appears in particular historical and social contexts. It is not the same for everyone at all times. It is always a complex set of factors and considerations which, when seen, evokes from us the exclamation: ‘How beautiful!’”

However, this belief implies that the beautiful is relative; existing or possessing a characteristic only in comparison to something else. It is not absolute. It is not beautiful on its own. 

Pythagoras and others discovered what they believed to be underlying principles which define what is beautiful. Pythagoras ascertained that beauty consists of proper measurement, proportion, and harmony. Both Plato and Augustine agreed and developed the ideal further, claiming that beauty and harmony are symbols of a universal order. To be without order or form is to lack beauty. These ideas are extremely similar to what we might consider the “elements and principles of design,” which consist of line, shape, texture, and repetition, among many others. These components have become common mechanisms today which we use to both create and critique art. 

Paul Cezanne. Portrait of Antony Valabregue.
1866-1870.

"When I judge art, I take my painting and I put it
next to a God made object like a tree or flower.
If it clashes, it is not art."
-Paul Cezanne

Chaplin dialogues about how art is beautiful because of its ability to articulate a “realm of pre-reflective experience which falls between the cracks of discursive language and abstract thought...this creates a world of imagined sensuous, embodied experience.” He goes on to quote Aquinas, who defines the beautiful as “that which pleases when seen.” So then, the beautiful is that which is technically correct, evokes a symbolic meaning, and is pleasing to the eye. However, Chaplin does not believe that beauty equates to truth. Aesthetics do not yield ethics.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree with Chaplin. Truth is not a moral code or a list of virtues; it is honesty and authenticity. In my opinion, a piece of truly beautiful art will be overflowing with the truth. In this, we must remember that the truth comes wrapped in many packages. Because a viewer does not “like” the work does not mean it is not beautiful or truthful. What makes art beautiful, what makes it truthful, is the passion of the artist behind it and their willingness to serve their art form. It is the readiness with which they strive for that authenticity. Applying a “canon of beauty” will lead the artist to aesthetic appeal, but to me this is not enough. While aesthetics are important, truth is more important, and we can recognize truth in art. It calls to us. It proclaims beauty.

To me, creating art has become a search for truth, and the truth is beautiful. 

“The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” 

-Michelangelo

Aaron Westerberg. Belena. 

Westerberg is a contemporary artist who combines
classical methods with modern subject matter.

Sources

It was Good: Making Art to the Glory of God by Bustard

Pythagoras and the Beauty in All Things by Critchley

Grace and Necessity by Rowan Williams