Writer Théophile Gautier maintained there was no connection at all between art and morality, chipping away yet another of the traditional underlying values; Aestheticism though, on the whole, existed in an intentional intellectual vacuum. The defining characteristics of this movement represented less a consensus view on the subject than suggestions open to interpretation by the individual. The Esthetes were unapologetic in their view that art should be solely concerned with beauty and pleasure, not moral instruction or the practical concerns of society - Art was an end in and of itself.

Modernism, with its slightly more defined intellectual foundations, did not emerge without controversy of its own: The Romantics used beauty as a means to an end, the Esthetes viewed beauty as an end in itself and the Modernists, disillusioned perhaps, abandoned beauty entirely!

Compounding the criticisms we are well accustomed to hearing, this new movement presented itself, more often than not, in an ambiguous light. Sensationalism and shock value are its hallmark; labels such as Brutalism, Atonalism and the Theater of the Cruel, leant an air of negativity and cynicism to modernism, shaking more than just aesthetic sensibilities.

So what did happen to beauty in art?
With the abandonment of “Values” and “Meaning” only the most superficial vestiges of beauty then remained. Aestheticism and Modernism have also led to a purely relative interpretation of beauty by the individual.

There is certainly an argument to be made that an individual’s perception of an image or scenario, if in accordance with that persons belief system, does represent a subjective form of beauty – even if this perception represents complete discordance to others. A feeling of reassurance from the perception that one's particular world-view is reflected in, and thus affirmed by, the “real” world might very well have aesthetic value. This particularly subjective 'beauty' is arguably illusory in that its recognition as such depends largely of the current (and perhaps transient) state of awareness of the viewer. As Frederick turner writes in his preamble to James Cooper’s Knights of the Brush:

“this series of “disillusions” [the abandonment of the conventional values of Goodness, Beauty and Truth - among others] has the flavour of tough-mindedness, of facing up to reality, of unsentimental clarity and courageous innovation. The Avant-garde assumption is that these dismantlements are intellectually justified. But what if they are not? What if the modernists had simply got things wrong? What if they had discarded concepts of great value and made themselves often thoroughly miserable, for nothing? – for a disillusionment as sentimental as any illusion could be, with the additional handicap of being in error?”

A perceived truth then may still be beautiful, if only to the individual; but does this individual experience merit the general label of beauty?

The individual experience and interpretation of Art, though encouraged by the modernists on one hand, was a mixed blessing for those who promoted the newest forms of expressions; wishing, as they did, to maintain some form of “Cultural Authority”. (see the previous update for more on modernism). Consequently, when there does appear to be widespread agreement on a particular subject of beauty, it is often summarily dismissed as superficial or inconsequential - any commonly accepted example of beauty, as represented by a certain person or thing, is somehow diminished by that very fact. The belittlement of pop culture (as distinct to Pop Art, a Post-Modern genre) is generally expected from the cultural elites - sometimes deservedly so. (Continue Reading)