First
off: the most well-known comment made by St. Thomas on beauty is his
description of it as “that which when seen pleases.” This is a standard
understanding of beauty, I think. Beauty is quite universally understood to be
that quality which, when perceived, gives pleasure. Many people conclude, from
this understanding, that beauty must therefore be a purely subjective thing,
since an object might please different people to varying degrees. But I propose
that St. Thomas’ understanding of beauty is not in fact compatible with the
view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I think it entails just the
opposite, namely that beauty is an objective thing. Here’s why:
When
St. Thomas says that beauty is that which pleases when seen, he means something
quite specific by “seen.” This is an intellectual vision, a kind of knowledge.
In fact, St. Thomas quite explicitly associates beauty with knowledge. For St.
Thomas, beauty is kind of a half-way point between goodness and truth, for it
adds a cognitive element to goodness, and a pleasurable element to truth.
Furthermore, he likens beauty to the formal
cause, which specifically has to do with the objective nature of a thing.
As such, when we have knowledge of
something, we are taking a hold of the nature
of that thing, forming an abstract concept of it in our mind. In other
words, when we know, we grasp the form or
formal cause of the thing. Since
beauty is likened to a formal cause, it is an object of knowledge. As such, it inherently pertains to the nature of a thing.
It is objective.
How
then do we explain the variation that occurs between the different perceptions
that individuals have of beauty? Here I will admit that there is, perhaps, a
subjective element to beauty. For while beauty, that quality which gives
pleasure when seen, may be an objective quality inherent in things, nonetheless
it is also true that the subjective ability to perceive that beauty necessarily
varies from person to person. But not only this, it must also be true that the
ability to take pleasure in seeing – which pleasure is essential to the
aesthetic experience – varies from person to person. And not only is this
variation in degree, but also in kind: it is not only a question of who
perceives or delights in beauty better than another person, but a question of
which elements of an object strike each person as being beautiful. For beauty
is not a simple thing, but manifests itself in innumerable ways, all of which
are likely impossible for a single person to perceive. Thus it happens that one
person will tend to be able to see certain aspects of an object’s beauty, while
another person will be able to see other aspects.
That
having been said, it is impossible to deny that there are degrees of beauty, and thus that some things simply are more beautiful than others. Again, this is not
always immediately perceptible to the beholder; oftentimes it must be examined
and demonstrated by a process of reasoning. This can be done in regards to the
arts of painting, sculpture, music, etc., as well as in the realm of nature
itself. St. Thomas, in addition to his statements about the knowledge and
perception of beauty, lists three objective conditions for the beautiful,
in which he says that beauty consists. These conditions are integrity, proportion, and clarity. These three conditions can
serve well as guiding principles in the demonstration of an object’s beauty, or
lack thereof. But as always, we should first understand what is meant by these
conditions…
The
first condition of the beautiful, namely integrity, signifies a kind of perfection and wholeness. This is brought about by a thing’s being in proper
conformity with its nature, or its form. Generally speaking, this means it must
lack none of the parts which belong to it by its nature, nor possess something
which is repugnant to its nature. It must attain the fullness of its proper existence,
as determined by its form. This is perfection or integrity, a completeness of
the whole.
The
second condition of beauty is proportion or harmony. This has several important
implications. First, it means that the various parts of the whole must be harmonious
among themselves, that in their diversity there must be an overall unity. In
general, there must not be any discord or anarchy existing in a thing, for this
indicates a lack of harmony and proportion. St. Thomas says that the senses
delight in proportion. This can be said to be true not only of the senses of
the body, but also of the whole cognitive faculty of man.
The
third condition of the beautiful is clarity. This is perhaps the most important
of the three, and it can been defined as the splendor of the form. It is a kind of
radiance and brightness, a special intelligibility, that brings out in an
extraordinary way the nature of the thing. Clarity presupposes integrity, in
that both have to do with the form or
nature of the object. Clarity brings out the form, makes it more manifest, in a
way that heightens its perfection and makes it radiant to the perception.
Clarity thus seals the cap, as it were, on the making of the beautiful, and it
gives the final push towards the aesthetic delight that results from the
perception of beauty.
These
three conditions – which I have only very briefly explained here – can serve as
general principles by which to analyze any given object and its beauty. These
principles can serve as a basis in the analysis of beauty in the arts as well
as in natural objects.
So that's the basics of Thomistic aesthetics, as I have studied it. I'll likely be writing about it more in later posts.
So that's the basics of Thomistic aesthetics, as I have studied it. I'll likely be writing about it more in later posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment