Bit o’ History — Aestheticism

IMG_0693As I’ve mentioned before, the notion of the importance of Beauty is not new.  The Aestheticism movement of the late 1800s  in Europe and America caused quite a stir.  It posited that beauty was above concepts such as right and wrong.  Aestheticism adherents eventually evolved their own brand of elitist hierarchy, however.  I say “however” since a hierarchy to me implies a sense of righteousness, of superiority — an assumption of right-er vs. lesser, if you will.

Aestheticism was “art-centric.”  Based in the philosopher Emmanuel Kant, following the French “l’art pour l’art,” under the Aestheticism banner the concept of beauty became too synonymous with art.  True Beauty is not confined to or articulated by “art” alone.  Further, in Aestheticism there is an assumption that nature’s own beauty (think composition, colors, material combinations) itself is in need of improvement through man’s orchestration.  I find this arrogant at worst, and at its best simply a developmental phase in humankind.  Or so I might like to think.

One of Aestheticism’s better known spokesmen was Oscar Wilde.  Born in 1854, Wilde lectured often and

Oscar Wilde
Oscar Wilde

vociferously on the importance of art and beauty in people’s everyday lives.  He is quoted as saying “We spend our days looking for the secret of life.  Well, the secret of life is art.”  (Once again inferring that art and beauty are synonymous).  He also said “Even a color-sense is more important in the development of the individual than a sense of right and wrong.”  Hmmm.

This movement emerged in response, in part, to the ugly influences of utilitarianism and the then newly flourishing industrial revolution.  But I see such a prominent paradox.  While proclaiming that all should have beauty/art in their everyday lives, this crowd perceived themselves as superior to the group that would come to be classified as the “working class.”  An artist, a creator of beauty was considered superior.  Yet so many of those who had previously been the “crafters” or makers of furniture, paints, metal work, woodwork, fine art glass, etc. — many of them were now in the factories.  But , oh!, were no longer considered to have enough “taste” to appreciate “The Arts” as conceived by Aestheticism’s aesthetes.  While lauding art for art’s sake, Aestheticism’s adherents did not appear capable of recognizing the ubiquitous eternal nature of Beauty or the diversity of its makers and fans.

Hence, while eschewing the notions of right and wrong in favor of beauty and art on one hand, they were busily creating an elitist group and attitude that shut out entire populations based on their “everyday living” rather than on their sensibilities, talents, or (dare I say?) appreciation of art.

Aestheticism as a movement of the 19th century seems an good example of blinkered arrogance raising its nasty head in relation to the promulgation of the concept of beauty.  It started with a noble intent, yet refused the broader and spiritual component that could provide the far-reaching healing for humankind.  It had the idea correct — Beauty is transcendent — but the execution wrong.  It’s not just about “art,” and certainly not about the sculpting and supposed improvement of the wild.  It is not only about refuting the current cultural trends in morality.  It is not just “l’artiste” who can sense or create beauty.

The sheer universality of Beauty’s truth appears to have been missed by Wilde and his cohorts.  But they may have been on the right track.  Now we must make some corrections and move forward.

There is a principle in organizational development circles, “Just because an idea (or product, or process) didn’t work earlier, doesn’t mean it won’t work now.  Review and re-evaluate.”  Beauty and its transcendent nature is an idea whose time has always been, and now hopefully we are mature enough as beings, able enough and conscious enough to review, re-evaluate and go forward anew — recognizing the inherent importance of True Beauty for all: human, planet, universe.

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing    

There is a field    

I’ll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass  

The world is too full to talk about.        

~Rumi

photo by Lisa Z. Lindahl

 

Art & True Beauty

Beauty vs. “Art”:

Humility in the artist is his frank acceptance of all experiences, just as Love in the artist is simply that sense of Beauty that reveals to the world its body and its soul.       ~ Oscar Wilde

I have noticed that people often — and I think unconsciously — use the words “art” and “beauty” interchangeably.  As if one equates with the other.  When you think of it, that’s kind of odd, don’t you think?

Well, what is the relationship between “Art” and “Beauty?” Wonderfully, it is a couple of guys writing about Chaos Theory that put it best, I think. In their book “Seven Life Lessons of Chaos” John Briggs and David Peat state: “Nature makes its fractal forms out of matter and energy. The material of art includes human consciousness, as well.”

Art is our human recognition, interpretation and expression of Beauty; a manifestation of the need to replicate Beauty.

So I use the term “art” primarily to refer to the man-made kind, in order to stay out of the thorny peripheral issues concerned with “what constitutes art ” (which is another purview altogether, and someone else’s –many other elses, really– book(s)).  My working distinction here is between man-made art, vs. nature’s “creation.”  I use ‘creation’ to mean all that is (both seen and unseen by the human sensory system) arising from the organism we think of as the Universe –our Earth, Sun, the skies, neutrinos, space, bosons – Everything —  what I call “The Is-ness.”

photo by Lisa Z. Lindahl

Often the natural world, creation, is many people’s first and most direct experience of the Beautiful: a glimpse of the sky, trees, clouds, sunlight; the sound of birdsong, waves kissing the beach, rain on a window pane, or the smell of soil and small green growing things.  We shiver with elation at our encounter.

Yet we must also include that which may not come to us through our bodily senses, but perceived by the heart, or as Diarmuid O’Murchu phrases it: “only the heart can intuit the quantum.”  We resonate with certain external or internal  vibrations.  We “sense” what is beautiful for/to us in ways and on levels for which there may not yet be words to give it articulation.  Think of friendships that form almost instantly — we resonate, literally, with someone.

In response to our individual perception of True Beauty, we create.  We make or modify stuff.  We infuse our humanity and individuality into that which has resonated with us.  We make visual representations, symphonies, architecture, relationships, philosophy.  We create “Art” from a deep experience of True Beauty.  One might say True/Deep Beauty is the maker’s muse.  I believe the quest for True Beauty is also Creation’s muse.

Starry Night - painting by Vincent Van Gogh
Starry Night – painting by Vincent Van Gogh

“Art is not found only in the painter’s studio or in the halls of a museum, it also has its place in the store, the shop, the factory and the home….”   Thomas Moore

But I am not a rose-colored glasses kinda girl.  Trauma, and that with which we resonate negatively  can move us to create as well.  Seems to me that while Beauty may inspire us to replicate it, negativity needs to be regurgitated out of our being.  Regardless of the impulse, the process of making art can be healing.

Many things mankind creates are not Art.  And all Art is not Beauty-full.  Hence, my need to make a distinction between Art and True Beauty.