Thoughts Once Again About Beauty
One of the whole points of this strain of thought (and strain it is) is that we need a reasonable, logical, and consistent statement for those who tell us: (a) there is no objective beauty (John da Fiesole has already addressed this); (b) ALL judgments about beauty are necessarily cultural and subjective; (c) things that are patently ugly and (most likely immoral) are both beautiful and worthwhile. There are no arguments that do not have at their roots objective standards that can be used against the latter two. Now, it is possible that others will deny the specifics of the definitions, and thus "refute" out argument. But as the scriptures tell us we must stand ready to provide a reason for the hope that is within us. Part of this hope is made evident by beauty--if we cannot clear our minds sufficiently of the webs of modernism and postmodernism, we will miss this important consideration.
Additionally, we need to acknowledge the possibility that a thing may be beautiful and we do not see the beauty in it (Chinese Opera), but that an unbeautiful thing (elephant-dung smeared Madonnas) may indeed merely be ugly. Once again, objectivity and an objective standard is what is required. With an objective standard we can say, "That may be beautiful, but I do not care for it." Or, in a more important statement, "That is not beautiful and cannot be beautiful." The first statement allows us to acknowledge the preference of others. The second demands of us recognition of beauty and then serves as a guide as we create new works of art. We will have a certain standard to hold up against the modernist critics who will tell us that "Everything is Beautiful, in its own way."
