December 11, 2014

The Unexpected Nature of Beauty

A topic that came up during my presentation at the Worship Conference this summer was the nature of beauty. Is it objective, or subjective? Is it in the eye of the beholder? How do you define it?

A great deal has been written on the subject of beauty, by numerous authors of different theological stripes. And it's one of my long-term goals to read more on the subject in order to gain more insight. But there are things a Christian can infer from scripture with relative certainty, and depending on your upbringing, they may surprise you.

1. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

With so many differing opinions as to what is beautiful, how can I say this with any certainty? The answer is that there is a theological certainty that underlies it: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth... And God saw that it was good" (Gen 1:1,10b). The first reason we know that beauty is not a subjective experience is that God created the universe. He did not create a cloud of unorganized matter that would later produce something that we now refer to as the universe. Rather, it was a creative work that was good from the very beginning.

How can a universe made of inanimate matter be either good or bad? The goodness of the universe in the first week of creation refers to its being in order—every molecule was in its place, fulfilling the purpose for which the Creator had called it into being, with no deviation. Every particle of light, every atom, was subject to natural laws that held it in place. And more than being good and orderly, everything was beautiful. That is to say, order and aesthetic beauty are intimately connected.

When a person says, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," he means that beauty isn't a quality of the object—it is a pleasant reaction of an individual (the subject) to the object. And if this is true, beauty isn't even a real thing, only an abstracted way of saying "I like that." The past century has taught us exactly how useless this subjective notion of beauty has become. There is no so structure so tasteless, no poem so mawkish, no song so insipid, or no painting so offensive that someone won't consider it beautiful. Christians must wholeheartedly reject this abuse of language and distortion of reality. Because there is a Creator, and because he "saw that it was good," we can be sure that there is absolutely such a thing as beauty, and it isn't a figment of our imagination.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? We know from experience that it does, but it's impossible to prove empirically. Would creation be beautiful if no one was here to observe it? Undeniably. And although Christians can say this as a matter of fact, it doesn't hurt our position in the least to admit that a component of beauty could certainly be our ability to recognize and appreciate it. We know that God is a jealous God (Is. 42:8), and at least part of his purpose in creating a universe of beauty and order must be that we 1) recognize it, and 2) give glory to him who made it. Reflecting on the beauty of the human body, King David said, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps 139:14). But my favorite example is arguably the first reaction to beauty in the Bible:
Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 
“This is now bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
      for she was taken out of man.” (Gen. 2:22-23)
Our former pastor paraphrased Adam's spontaneous poem to his wife as, "Now that's what I'm talking about!" God built into the first man the ability to immediately recognize that his wife was beautiful. Not beautiful in the same sense that the other creatures of creation were beautiful—she was his perfect help-meet, hand-crafted by God to be his compliment in every way. (We might say that Adam's reaction was part emotional-intuitive, and part intellectual.) In any event, Eve was objectively beautiful; Adam possessed the ability to recognize and fully appreciate her beauty, and glorified God as a result.

2. Beauty is corrupted.

The fact that God created the universe, and that it was created good, are widely denied, even by many Christians. Because if those statements are true, can we explain our present state where no two people can agree on what is beautiful? To be sure, if Genesis 2 was the end of the story, I think the disagreement over beauty would indeed be strong evidence that the Christian view of beauty is wrong. But of course, Genesis 1-2 it isn't the whole story.

Every truly Christian view of history must take into account that God created everything in perfection, but that creation is fallen from its perfect state. The Fall into sin and the subsequent Curse (Genesis 3) are responsible for a dual corruption of beauty. The beauty of creation is physically marred by thorns, disease, death, decay. But also corrupted is our ability to perfectly and immediately recognize the traces of beauty that remain. We can no longer agree on whether beauty exists objectively at all, let alone whether this or that thing is beautiful, and neither do we inherently recognize beauty as being a result of God's hand in creation. We have instead found inventive ways to explain how nature might have created itself.

As a result, post-Christian Westerners have nothing to rely on but the chemical reactions and electrical impulses that occur in their brain matter. If my chemical reaction differs from yours, who is to say that yours is right and mine is wrong? And this kind of subjective thought is the crux of Postmodernism: there is no real beauty; there is no real truth; what's true for you is not true for me. Without a knowledge of the Creator, any pursuit of beauty eventually descends into hedonism—sensual self-indulgence.

3. Beauty can be ugly.

There is another kind of beauty that I hesitate to bring up, because it further complicates the point I am trying to make. (But art and beauty are complicated topics, so maybe it's best not to oversimplify on this point.) People often talk about something being beautiful whose subject is undeniably tragic, painful, or grotesque. Two things could be at work here. The first is that for hedonists who are looking to be thrilled, any strong emotion will do, even if it isn't a pleasurable one. This would accurately describe horror film lovers and sadists. But the second thing that could be at work is a reaction to the truth of an image. Gibson's The Passion of the Christ did not create particularly pleasurable feelings in me. Watching Jesus be torn to shreds and then be slowly asphyxiated wasn't—visually speaking—beautiful. But many, including myself, found the film to be a beautiful representation of that event. I'm pretty certain I'm not a sadist, and I despise gore. I think the film is beautiful because I knew it to be true on a deep, metaphysical level. The greatest act of love in history was fulfilled in blood and sweat and gore on the cross. No one who witnessed it would ever have called it beautiful. But poets and hymn writers down through the ages have done exactly that—not out of romantic ignorance, but because they knew how true it was.

There are many truths in this world that can only horrify us, so a thing does not become beautiful just because it is true. But a particular truth—to be specific, the gospel—has the power to be beautiful and ugly at the same time. Simul iustus et peccator. Strength made perfect in weakness, immortal hidden in mortal, beauty masked in crudeness. It's how God works. Death is never beautiful. But then again, we can say with Job, "though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God" (Job 19:26).

So perhaps I have watered down the issue by speaking about beauty in a sense other than aesthetic. But on the occasion that someone confronts the ugliness of the Christian life, or of the cross, you can describe to him the invisible beauty seen by faith in the Son of God.

4. I still can't define it.

When I actually sat down to write about it, I found that I know quite a bit about beauty. But I am still no closer to answering the question that was directly asked of me this summer: "What is your definition of beauty?" I can tell you what beauty is not. I can tell you that beauty is something that does objectively exist. I think we can increase our awareness of beauty by studying the arts and sciences. But I can't come up with a bulleted list. The universe is populated by too many beautiful things of a completely different nature to make a list of qualifications very useful. Besides, we're still under the curse of sin, and my ability to see and appreciate all of that beauty is feeble indeed.

It's as difficult an endeavor as trying to define truth as a set of characteristics. What would be the point? The things that are true are not true because they share similar characteristics, but because they are... well, true. "Quid est veritas?" We can discover whether some things are true or not. But as far as defining the whole truth? Only God knows.

When the question was asked of me this July, I felt like my answer left the group hanging (and probably thinking that I was grasping at straws). When I said that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder—that it's an objective reality—that led some to conclude that there must be a set of finite qualifications. So when I was asked, I stumbled around for a while. I touched on the topics of goodness and order, but I eventually said, "You know it when you see it." Which in hindsight was the wrong answer. When asked about objective beauty, I gave them a subjective answer.

The right answer was probably the one that seems most like a cop-out. I should have said, "I can't do it," or "There is no practical definition of beauty that would satisfy a Christian worldview." Or if I wanted to be cheeky, I could have asked, "What's your definition of truth?" Or to grossly oversimplify, maybe I could have said that beauty is God's signature on his creation. Any of those would have been a better answer than the one I gave.

All of this just reinforces the fact that I need to study this in more depth. I'm curious to discover what other artists, theologians, and laymen have written about beauty. Maybe they've come closer to the mark than I have. To that end, I'd love input from my readers, too. Are these points accurate? Are there some I missed?


  1. I appreciate your handling of this topic. I appreciate that you are trying to get an understanding of such a central and slippery topic. Thanks for your efforts.

  2. C.S. Lewis covers some of this ground in The Abolition of Man and other works.

    1. I faintly recalled reading something by C.S. Lewis that touched on beauty, but I couldn't find the exact quote. I haven't read The Abolition of Man, so the one I'm thinking of was probably from The Weight of Glory... I'm just not sure where.

  3. I appreciate the discussion. Enjoyed your presentation at the Worship Conference.

  4. I grew up WELS, now LCMS. I am also a painter/artist, though not a professional. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy with a concentration in Aesthetics (philosophy of art). I'm very interested in where you will go with this, and I look forward to hearing more of your explorations.
    My one comment is to be careful about backing up your "opinions" with scripture. As Luther warns; be glad not to know what God has not revealed to us. There is a reason he hasn't shared everything with us. Taking some of what the bible says about Beauty and then making leaps beyond that- you have to be very careful you are not adding to scripture. The bible says God looked at the world and said it was "good" not beautiful. You basically just exchanged those two words. If the bible meant to say beautiful- it would have. (this is just one example).
    I look forward to hearing more.

    1. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate another artist's voice in this.

      I probably overstated that "Christians can know [this] for sure," since it's only what I know (or think I know). So now that you point it out, I ought to soften the wording there. However, I think that we are perfectly able to make logical inferences from scripture. That's what doctrine is, after all. (Nowhere is the term "objective justification" found in the Bible, but it is clearly there in the abstract.) The difference is that Christians haven't often sought to plumb the depths of scripture to discover more about the arts. Naturally, the theology is more important, but I think there are still things that can be strongly inferred and believed about God's other gifts, and are therefore worth pursuing.

      Luther's instruction (which I would be happy to examine in context if you provide the reference) is likely concerning things that cannot be known (as opposed to things that can be known, but are not presently known). I suspect that Luther would not have said it to curb the study of the arts and sciences.

      I take your point about not adding to scripture very seriously, and don't mind at all that you pointed this out. However, I would like to clarify what I wrote. I didn't just switch the terms "good" and "beautiful." I inferred that when the universe was good, it was in order and that therefore it was also beautiful. But even if I hadn't made that connection, it seems to go without saying that "good" is a rhetorical understatement in Genesis 1. Surely "good" and "very good" must also mean perfect, holy, orderly, beautiful, etc.? At least I've never heard anyone argue otherwise.

    2. Luther's warning is well explained in Dr. Siegbert W. Becker's book "The Foolishness of God; The place of Reason in the Theology of Martin Luther" Pg. 15. Too lengthy to quote it here
      You need to explain your leap from order to beauty. Not every scholar in Aesthetics would agree you can make that leap from one to the other without explanation.
      I still think you need to define for your reader differences between Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. Otherwise we would use all those words interchangeably.

  5. One more point. I think before you go any further, you need to define the differences between goodness, truth, and beauty.
    My personal opinion is that beauty is both objective and subjective.

    1. I acknowledged that there is a subjective aspect to beauty, but I attributed that to the Fall into sin and our corrupted ability to recognize the reality (which, incidentally, is also corrupted). I suppose that in the new heavens and new earth, there will probably cease to be any debate about what is beautiful and what is not. 1 Cor. 13:12 comes to mind.

  6. I recently listened to a radio show (issues, etc) where a well regarded Theologian dived into his theory of the arts. I was deeply disappointed how such an intelligent well educated man could have such a limited view of the arts. His basic premise was that all art much be representational- only representation art is Godly- or Christian rather. He went on to say the Duchamp's 'Nude descending a Staircase" looked nothing like a human and could have been an elephant as far as he was concerned. He derived all his opinions from scripture.
    But I was absolutely horrified.

    1. I agree that we have to be careful in supporting our opinions with scripture; any false teaching can be supported by some isolated passage or other. This is why there are hermeneutic principles in place to prevent this, e.g. "scripture interprets scripture." The Bible doesn't support the opinion that all godly art must be representational, since this would rule out luxury arts, liturgical furnishings, and abstract patterning, all of which were included in the Tabernacle by God's design. So I think it's a matter of being thorough, which I hope to be able to do. I'll look for your help (and to others) to keep me accountable to the Word of God.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Interesting post. I recommend the documentary "Why Beauty Matters" by the philosopher Roger Scruton. It might influence your thinking on this topic.

    1. Thanks, David. (I love your work!) A fellow artist shared the documentary with me recently, so I'm happy to say that I've seen it, and I absolutely agreed with most of it. The only reservation I had was toward the end, when, after tying beauty to spiritual matters, I believe he said something to the effect that beauty is worth pursuing whether it's true or not. That gives me pause because it makes it suggests that art is therapeutic. It can be that, but isn't only that. It would also seem to taint religion by association. I'm with St. Paul insofar as if Christ has not been raised, our faith is futile. No amount of comfort is worthwhile if it is a false comfort. So I see the search for beauty and for truth as being aimed in the same direction.

  9. I think you might be interested in reading "The Wonderful in Luther's Poetry," by J. P. Koehler of Wauwatosa fame. You can find it in the third volume of The Wauwatosa Theology. He discusses the nature of art extensively and forcefully. I think you might find it interesting that someone from the WELS was so interested in the true nature of art and poetry.