Beauty by Roger Scruton

[djeter]

I’ve stitched together some reading selections from Roger Scruton’s wonderful little book, Beauty. By all means get it, it is a splendid read.

In these selections he covers a range of topics The Sacred, Profanation, Idolatry And Addiction. It will give you a number of things to meditate on. A teaser here:

"Because the democratic attitude is invariably in conflict with itself — it being impossible to live as though there are no aesthetic values, while living a real life among human beings — aesthetic judgment begins to be experienced as an affliction. It imposes an intolerable burden, something that we must live up to, a world of ideals and aspirations that is in sharp conflict with the tawdriness of our improvised lives. It is perched like an owl on our shoulders, while we try to hide our pet rodents in our clothes. The temptation is to turn on it and shoo it away.

The desire to desecrate is a desire to turn aesthetic judgment against itself, so that it no longer seems like a judgment of us. This you see all the time in children — the delight in disgusting noises, words, allusions, which helps them to distance themselves from the adult world that judges them, and whose authority they wish to deny. (Hence the appeal of Ronald Dahl)

That ordinary refuge of children from the burden of adult judgment is the refuge too of adults from the burden of their culture. By using culture as an instrument of desecration they neutralize its claims: it loses all authority, and becomes a fellow conspirator in the plot against value."

It’s all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/10/19/beauty-the-sacred-profanation-idolatry-and-addiction-%e2%80%93-roger-scruton/

dj

 

[Liinus]

Sounds pretty depressing to me.

 

[tonyrey]

Sounds pretty depressing to me.

The truth is not always pleasant. In a secular society desecration is to be expected…

 

[djeter]

Sounds pretty depressing to me.

On the contrary, “depressing” is walking around thinking the desecration of the sacred is meaningless, mindless or, to cite a few moderns, perhaps liberating. Here we confront the reasons why the beautiful or the sublime is on a collision course with some in our society. It explains why your faith is right.

dj

 

[Andrew_Lorimer]

Love is basic to the human (given that one understands in that mode).

Truth is refinable, and is refined through time.

Thus progress.

 

[reggieM]

By using culture as an instrument of desecration they neutralize its claims: it loses all authority, and becomes a fellow conspirator in the plot against value.

That’s very similar to the nature of sin itself. Sin seeks to destroy virtue in others in order to bring the world of goodness down to its own level.
Many use culture in the same way. The first result is the denial of the existence of beauty a all. Or the materialist reduction of everything to physics (and therefore science). This destroys beauty in order to protect atheism from the threat of higher values and meaning.

 

[hecd2]

I’ve stitched together some reading selections from Roger Scruton’s wonderful little book, Beauty. By all means get it, it is a splendid read.

On the contrary, I think it is an unjustifiably self-satisfied and pretentious little book. Scruton is deeply confused about many things, but fundamentally he presents a Daily Mail aesthetic disguised as a denunciation of modern culture. Strip away the dense rhetoric and all that’s left is the prejudice of 1950’s middle England. Scruton is at once populist in his absurd strictures against modern architecture and anti-populist in his ridiculous dismissal of popular music - at the same time a would-be elitist and a philistine. He confuses prettiness with beauty. He makes the mistake of equating his personal taste with absolute artistic and moral (!) value. He mistakenly represents the integrative cultural function of art as its sole rationale and denies its essentially subversive function. He mistakenly elevates the intellectual above the emotional foundation for the value of art, underestimating and devaluing the importance of the latter. He confuses the content and form of art with a blatantly moral message. He confuses the particular with the general, filling this book with the fallacy of composition. He is simply confused about the facts when it comes to judging whether beauty is routinely desecrated in modern society. He confuses the artistic and devotional motivations for painting or writing or singing or building. He misreads and misunderstands great swathes of two centuries of art, literature, theatre, cinema, music and architecture. He confuses the symbol with the referent by desiring art objects to be venerable. He confuses craft with art. He serves up obscurantism as profundity. He confuses one thing with another at almost every point that it is possible to do so. He rightly condemns the counterfeit, the ersatz, the pornographic and the sentimental, but he wrongly claims that these things are over-represented in modern art - his book is itself a good example of the counterfeit, his commonplace and reactionary views masquerading as philosophy and insight, polite taste finding fault with invention and insight.

No greater condemnation of Scruton’s anachronistic thesis can be found than strolling across the Millenium Bridge on a sunny autumn day, St Paul’s on the one hand and the converted Bankside Power Station and the recreated New Globe cheek by jowl on the other, looking across the City of London, new buildings and old buildings in harmony and tension. A 17th century Scruton would have had Wren rebuild the Gothic Cathedral. The same gorgeous aesthetic, of new and old juxtaposed is found in Vauxhall at St George’s Wharf and further east on the South Bank, at Canary Wharf, Limehouse and the Royal Docks. London was and *is *a delicious city. Has the man no eyes?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Earth has not any thing to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty…

 

[grannymh]

That’s very similar to the nature of sin itself. Sin seeks to destroy virtue in others in order to bring the world of goodness down to its own level.
Many use culture in the same way. The first result is the denial of the existence of beauty a all. Or the materialist reduction of everything to physics (and therefore science). This destroys beauty in order to protect atheism from the threat of higher values and meaning.

May I respectfully point out that from my experiences in Alaska, theists and non-theists have the same awe, respect, and appreciation of the beauty of the mountains there. The beauty of five eagles circling in the blue sky above speaks to each of us regardless of our faith or non-faith. I have difficulty with such a broad statement regarding atheism. I may be wrong in my interpretation. Nonetheless, I have difficulty thinking that an atheist would want beauty in any form, art, music, poetry, architecture, nature and even in science, to be destroyed.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[djeter]

On the contrary, I think it is an unjustifiably self-satisfied and pretentious little book. Scruton is deeply confused about many things, but fundamentally he presents a Daily Mail aesthetic disguised as a denunciation of modern culture. Strip away the dense rhetoric and all that’s left is the prejudice of 1950’s middle England. Scruton is at once populist in his absurd strictures against modern architecture and anti-populist in his ridiculous dismissal of popular music - at the same time a would-be elitist and a philistine. He confuses prettiness with beauty. He makes the mistake of equating his personal taste with absolute artistic and moral (!) value. He mistakenly represents the integrative cultural function of art as its sole rationale and denies its essentially subversive function. He mistakenly elevates the intellectual above the emotional foundation for the value of art, underestimating and devaluing the importance of the latter. He confuses the content and form of art with a blatantly moral message. He confuses the particular with the general, filling this book with the fallacy of composition. He is simply confused about the facts when it comes to judging whether beauty is routinely desecrated in modern society. He confuses the artistic and devotional motivations for painting or writing or singing or building. He misreads and misunderstands great swathes of two centuries of art, literature, theatre, cinema, music and architecture. He confuses the symbol with the referent by desiring art objects to be venerable. He confuses craft with art. He serves up obscurantism as profundity. He confuses one thing with another at almost every point that it is possible to do so. He rightly condemns the counterfeit, the ersatz, the pornographic and the sentimental, but he wrongly claims that these things are over-represented in modern art - his book is itself a good example of the counterfeit, his commonplace and reactionary views masquerading as philosophy and insight, polite taste finding fault with invention and insight.

No greater condemnation of Scruton’s anachronistic thesis can be found than strolling across the Millenium Bridge on a sunny autumn day, St Paul’s on the one hand and the converted Bankside Power Station and the recreated New Globe cheek by jowl on the other, looking across the City of London, new buildings and old buildings in harmony and tension. A 17th century Scruton would have had Wren rebuild the Gothic Cathedral. The same gorgeous aesthetic, of new and old juxtaposed is found in Vauxhall at St George’s Wharf and further east on the South Bank, at Canary Wharf, Limehouse and the Royal Docks. London was and *is *a delicious city. Has the man no eyes?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Earth has not any thing to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty…

To each his own, Alec. Sorry you didn’t like the book.

For those who would like more reassurance, five more reviews at Amazon reflect the positive rather than the negative.

dj

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggie

*Many use culture in the same way. The first result is the denial of the existence of beauty a all. Or the materialist reduction of everything to physics (and therefore science). This destroys beauty in order to protect atheism from the threat of higher values and meaning. *

Well said. At the end of my atheist days I had turned to music for consolation. Upon first listening to Mozart’s “Ave verum Corpus,” it hit me like a flash of lightening that atheism could not begin to explain the profound effect of those strains on my sagging spirit. There is an order of truth that bypasses the intellect, speaks directly to the heart, and with such resounding voice that it cannot be denied except by the stubborn and heartless.

 

[grannymh]

reggie

*Many use culture in the same way. The first result is the denial of the existence of beauty a all. Or the materialist reduction of everything to physics (and therefore science). This destroys beauty in order to protect atheism from the threat of higher values and meaning. *

Well said. At the end of my atheist days I had turned to music for consolation. Upon first listening to Mozart’s “Ave verum Corpus,” it hit me like a flash of lightening that atheism could not begin to explain the profound effect of those strains on my sagging spirit. There is an order of truth that bypasses the intellect, speaks directly to the heart, and with such resounding voice that it cannot be denied except by the stubborn and heartless.

Apparently, your human nature kept alive the power of beautiful music. Apparently, denying God’s existence does not automatically destroy one’s sensitivity to beauty whether it arrives through one’s ears or eyes.

Granted that sin can close up a person as a bulwark against threats of higher values and meaning. But, I believe Charlemagne II statement: “There is an order of truth that bypasses the intellect, speaks directly to the heart, and with such resounding voice that it cannot be denied except by the stubborn and heartless.” Maybe, it is because of the attack mode of the aggressive non-theists who are extremely popular, that we tend to look at all non-theists as coming from the same mold.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

*Maybe, it is because of the attack mode of the aggressive non-theists who are extremely popular, that we tend to look at all non-theists as coming from the same mold. *

As Saint Augustine said of all who doubt:

“Our hearts cannot rest until they rest in Thee.”

Or words to that effect.

 

[reggieM]

Well said. At the end of my atheist days I had turned to music for consolation. Upon first listening to Mozart’s “Ave verum Corpus,” it hit me like a flash of lightening that atheism could not begin to explain the profound effect of those strains on my sagging spirit. There is an order of truth that bypasses the intellect, speaks directly to the heart, and with such resounding voice that it cannot be denied except by the stubborn and heartless.

Those words are a work of beauty in themselves.

Beauty directs us towards meaning and purpose – and to ultimate and eternal things.

God, by definition, is the fullness of beauty. The beauty that we perceive in this life is a faint and passing glimpse of Him.