Over the past year and a half I have collected more than 200 quotations on the subjects of Art and Beauty, and virtually all of these ideas reflect one or the other of two basic views: the more objective, universal perspective of the Romantics, or the relativistic ideas of the Modernists which express a predominantly subjective point view. Below are two of the most salient of these ideas, singled out because they capture, in a most illuminating way, the essence of these two opposing world-views. Both authors are recognized as being Esthetes; living and working at opposite ends of the Aesthetic period though, their perspectives on the subject are quite different.

Beauty is truth; truth is beauty – Keats
It is interesting that a related quote has been posted on my site since I first started looking at the Hudson River school in Jan 2006: “The conception and reproduction of truth and beauty are the first object of a poet; so should it be with a painter.” This quotation by Thomas Cole caught my attention immediately and was one of the reasons I began this extended essay. The sentiment obviously spoke to my own particular views on beauty & art and represents the more objective philosophical camp in that beauty itself is the reflection of some a higher order. Whatever the source of beauty it reflects a reality independent of our thoughts or feelings – an absolute. Whether or not our individual quest for beauty provides any answers, it is prudent to move beyond the sensory perception alone and look for meaning in the experience. Art wasn’t meant to be easy or purely sensuous; that the mystery of beauty seems, at times, beyond our comprehension does not mean the journey should end at that point. The Romantics had their own particular interpretation: Beauty, in their eyes, was the manifestation of god’s work on earth; and thus, it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. Their work, as a result, had purpose; it was often utilitarian, didactic and, one might argue, overwhelming moralistic. A point examined in one of my earlier pieces: The moral landscape.

I will continue with this exploration however, along different path, and look at an alternate argument for an objective understanding of beauty. To that end, perhaps we can examine the shift in aesthetic values that took place in the decades following the Hudson River School, in the waning years of Romanticism. This next quotations seems a good place to start:

Art for Art’s sake – Victor Cousin
No exploration of beauty could be complete without a closer look at the Aesthetic movement. Though beauty isn’t mentions specifically in this quotation, it is the fundamental objective of Aestheticism. The central period of Aestheticism was 1868 to 1901; although, many of the movement’s key figures created works before and after these generally accepted dates. Aestheticism began, formally, with the work of Oxford don Walter Pater and the Decadent writers, and ended with the trial of Oscar Wilde.

To the Esthetes, the meaning of beauty was irrelevant. To embrace this ideal simply as an end itself was enough; it looked good, therefore, it was good! A divergence from – or abandonment of – the philosophical and moral ideals of the Victorian Era, Aestheticism was the precursor of Modernism. Emerging during the period of transition between these two very different schools of thought it shares characteristics of both and prepared the way for a later shift in the aesthetic paradigm. At the outset aestheticism appeared much the same as its predecessor; beneath the surface however, a great shift had been made. The “Deconstruction” of Romanticism’s ideological underpinnings meant that art was freed from its association with grand philosophical ideals and accompanying moral framework. Much of the art produced during this period was unquestionably of great merit; the way was now open though, to works of increasing introspection and egocentricity.

“Life”, claimed the Esthetes, “should copy Art”. It could be argued that beauty alone, being the manifestation something beyond comprehension and, evidently, something good, was sound enough a foundation on which to base ones life - even if this connection was not explained or intellectualized. As there was no longer a requirement for justification or meaning, beauty could be experienced and interpreted on the most basic level; further more, since beauty had been attributed with qualities almost sacred in nature, one might claim that a devotion to this ideal alone was, in itself, morally justifiable.

We are all subject in our lives to the influences of both intellect and emotion; thus, it seems ill advised to dwell in a world built entirely of sensory experience and sensuality. Without an attempt to understand the perception of beauty, particularly when embraced as a central tenant of life, the endeavour is likely to be one fraught with as much trouble as it is pleasure. Aestheticism has been described as a “Cult of Beauty” and, in this light, is not considered a fully-fledged art movement at all – which might explain why the subject is often skip over completely in retrospectives of art history.

It is ironic that beauty itself, the central “ideal” of Aestheticism, became the essential catalyst in bringing about it’s own destruction or, at the very least, trivialization. Sadly, the meaning of Aesthetics today seems relegated solely to the overwhelmingly trend driven concerns of fashion, interior design and physical beauty – no longer the field of intellectual and philosophical inquiry that it once was.