The speaker for the night was a renowned architect and most of the attendees were younger than me, young professionals, and college students -- perhaps a good cross section of the youth within the upper class of Lima’s Catholic society. The night went along swimmingly, until the speaker’s slideshow arrived at the twentieth century and showed, being forced to later explain, the art of Picasso’s post Blue-era known as “Cubism”. I could see the puzzled look in the eyes of these young men at that moment. During the question-and-answer period a young attendee, perhaps the bolder of them, questioned Picasso’s Cubist work being placed alongside the works of the classics. The speaker’s response was avant-garde: he had to persuade the audience that, since many art critics found beauty in cubism, the rest of us needed to respect their opinion and perhaps update our appreciations. Since I was just a guest, I chose not to engage the star speaker in a debate. I eased my conscience by thinking that I just did not like cubism along with what is known as modern art in general, and that my disdain was more a gut reaction than intellectual, for I did not have a well-thought-out response on this issue. Lest this were to repeat itself, it would profit us to explore this subject in a little more depth and explain what I failed to do that night in Peru.
Plato argued that ultimate reality, or the "Forms," were eternal, unchanging, and perfect, and that they included the Form of the Good, which is the ultimate source of all goodness, truth, and beauty. Aristotle also recognized the importance of these transcendent qualities and included them in his concept of the divine.
Let me start by saying that what is about to follow may disturb some. I am thinking of those Catholics who have become malleable to the fads of our age, triggered by the so-called “woke” culture, who may have become, unsuspectingly, aiders and abettors of Modernists and secular humanists, preferring to go along to get along. Having said that, I want to emphasize that I have not the slightest intention or desire to offend anyone but perhaps shed some light on some areas of thought that have succumbed to the Dictatorship of Relativism, as Cardinal Ratzinger put it in his April 2005 Mass Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice (“for the election of the Roman Pontiff”) before becoming Pope Benedict XVI. In fairness, we need to speak of true art and more precisely of beauty in order to understand its opposite.
To reach our destination we will start with the clear creation perspective offered by Thomas Aquinas, look back to the Greeks and Saint Augustine, return to Saint Thomas Aquinas and his definition of beauty, and then wrap it up with Augustine again. This whirlwind tour will allow us to better answer that young Peruvian’s question.
First, Aquinas believed that God created the world and established a natural order that reflects his will and purpose. He said: “…Furthermore, the whole man is on account of an extrinsic end, that end being the fruition of God. So, therefore, in the parts of the universe also every creature exists for its own proper act and perfection, and the less noble for the nobler, as those creatures that are less noble than man exist for the sake of man, whilst each and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe. Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God. Reasonable creatures, however, have in some special and higher manner God as their end, since they can attain to Him by their own operations, by knowing and loving Him.” (Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 65, article 2 in his “I answer that”). The universe in fact, including the natural laws that govern it, is a reflection of God's will and purpose.
Augustine would declare, “For in that Trinity is the supreme source of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. " There you have it, God as ultimate goodness, truth, and beauty.
The ancient Greeks had this sense and established lines of thought we still follow to this day. They saw beauty as one of the attributes of God, the other two being goodness and truth. Plato argued that ultimate reality, or the "Forms," were eternal, unchanging, and perfect, and that they included the Form of the Good, which is the ultimate source of all goodness, truth, and beauty. Aristotle also recognized the importance of these transcendent qualities and included them in his concept of the divine. Aristotle saw the good as the ultimate goal of human action, something that all things aim for. The highest good was pursued for its own sake, and that it involved the active exercise of the soul's faculties in accordance with excellence or virtue. Regarding truth, Aristotle saw it as something that could be discovered through reasoning and demonstration. He argued that knowledge was based on starting-points or principles that were known to be true. He also saw the beautiful as something that was experienced through sensory perception, particularly through the sense of sight. He believed that beauty depended on symmetry and proportion, as well as on size and other aesthetic qualities.
Augustine would declare, “For where I found Truth, there found I my God, the Truth itself" (The City of God, Book 11, Chapter 26). Elsewhere, “Angels therefore serve God freely, and this not to God's advantage but to theirs. God, after all, is in no need of anyone else's good, since it is from himself that he is. And what is begotten of him likewise is, because it is not made but begotten. Those things, however, that have been made stand in need of his good, that is, of the highest good, that is, of the highest being. " (True Religion: 28) and also “For in that Trinity is the supreme source of all things, and the most perfect beauty, and the most blessed delight. " (The Trinity, Book 6, Chapter 6). There you have it, once again, God as ultimate goodness, truth, and beauty.
Thomas Aquinas built on the shoulders of these giants and used the Latin term "pulchritudo" to describe beauty. He defined beauty as "id quod visum placet", which translates to "that which, when seen, pleases." This definition appears to emphasize the subjective nature of beauty, which results in pleasure or delight when something is perceived through the senses, whether it is visual, auditory, or otherwise. But Aquinas, as a good student of Aristotle, would also tell us that our senses are needed to arrive at the truth, something he considered an absolute. In fact, for Aquinas, beauty is not just a superficial quality of objects, but rather a reflection of deeper realities and a way to connect with the divine. For Aquinas, beauty is a reflection of the divine order and harmony that exists in the universe. He argued that beauty is a transcendent quality that leads us to contemplate the divine; through beauty we can come to know and appreciate the goodness and truth of God.
Aquinas explains that beauty has three key components, which are expressed in Latin as "integritas," "consonantia," and "claritas." "Integritas" refers to the wholeness or completeness of a thing, where it possesses all its necessary parts and is not lacking anything essential.
More precisely, Aquinas explains that beauty has three key components, which are expressed in Latin as "integritas," "consonantia," and "claritas." "Integritas" refers to the wholeness or completeness of a thing, where it possesses all its necessary parts and is not lacking anything essential. "Consonantia" refers to the harmony or proportion between the parts of a thing, where each part is arranged in a balanced and pleasing way. "Claritas" refers to the clarity or brightness of a thing, where it is visually distinct and easily recognizable; it refers to the object's ability to exude a sense of order and radiance. It is in the intersection of these components that we will find beauty. And the world marched along those lines for centuries.
Beauty takes your breath away and points you in the direction of the one who’s absolutely beautiful: God. Beauty is ecstatic and gives you a deep sense of awe. This is precisely what happened to Dante when he first met Beatrice -- the chance encounter being the source of two of his best works, La Vita Nuova and La Divina Commedia. In the former, one finds the beauty of prose and verse conspiring in courtly love, while in the latter Dante uses verses and true human love that takes the poet ultimately to heaven; for only love and beauty can truly do this. Closer to us, Shakespeare exemplifies beauty in many of his works, such as in Portia’s speech on mercy in The Merchant of Venice or the King’s speech on the feast of Crispian day to his troops in Henry V. Some pieces are more direct but nonetheless breathtakingly beautiful, as the Pieta of Michelangelo. The statue of David by Michelangelo at its colossal 18 feet still meets the objective beauty standards, despite its size, which in no way detracts from its beauty but only magnifies it because it has integrity (nothing is missing, you can even see the veins on the resting hand); it has all the proper proportions (consonantia), and in its serene whiteness it shines with clarity and light. We perceive this too in Mozart’s Requiem Mass, which, regardless of the sad occasion, touches the soul and again directs us to God. These are cases where "integritas" and "consonantia" play with each other so well that they deliver “claritas”. We can go on and on with examples, but I think the point has been made.
Just as an offense to any of the Persons in our Triune God, is an offense against all, so it is when dealing with truth, goodness, and beauty. It is impossible to offend the truth and expect that goodness and beauty will remain untouched and vice versa. The three elements of beauty established by Saint Thomas Aquinas behave in a similar way. As it has been already stated, beauty is at the intersection of all of them, meaning that all three must be present -- so much so, that if any of these three elements is missing, the rest are affected and beauty vanishes. In the best of possibilities, one may find the work perhaps interesting or ingenious, but not necessarily beautiful, and at worst, plainly and painfully ugly.
Armed with these concepts we must never allow the “experts” or purveyors of novelty (art critics from our past century) to bamboozle or bully us with the idea that beauty “is in the eye of the beholder” -- a saying that is consonant with the homosexual slogan of “don’t knock it till you try it”.
So having provided the proper historical, logical, and philosophical context, we can then analyze whether Cubism can arrogate to itself the title of beautiful. Cubism lacks integrity, proportion, and clarity. When you first look at a cubist painting, you actually need the title to aid you in trying to identify what you are seeing (something entirely unnecessary with a beautiful piece, which speaks directly to you, such that its title only adds to a complete understanding of what this beauty is in context). The fragmented and distorted forms of cubism are jarring and disorienting, making it impossible for any viewer to discern a sense of order or harmony. As stated, cubism prioritizes the subjective vision of the artist over any objective representation of reality. Cubism distracts and confuses the viewer, and arrests his ability to contemplate and reflect upon the world and its creator. Cubism fails the truth in distorting reality and in doing so destroys goodness and in its disorder fails consonance and contributes to the disorder introduced by original sin casting darkness instead of light. Since beauty is objective and can be discerned through reason, cubism's fragmentation and distortion make it impossible for viewers to discern any clear representation of reality, undermining its ability to be appreciated anywhere near as a beautiful thing. In conclusion, using Aquinas' concept of beauty, cubism’s lack of proportion, clarity, and objective representation of reality removes the possibility for viewers to perceive beauty and contemplate the order and harmony of the created world and its Creator.
So, when did things start to go awry? We can trace the circumstances clearly to the heresy of Protestantism, which in the sixteenth century elevated the subjectivism of Descartes to the higher level of individualism with their Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide precepts, making themselves the sole arbiters of faith, devoid of any outside authority or absolute concept. In doing so, Protestantism devolved immediately into relativism in its extreme form of individualism that has caused so many sects within Protestantism, each disputing being the true purveyors of God’s will and word, yet all agreeing that Catholicism was the “true” enemy. It is not surprising, then, that America, having Protestant roots, manifests individualism now in its most virulent form known as “Transsexualism”, the latest deranged way of thinking that due to the immediacy of the internet has transformed the world into a nuthouse, as each country adopts this degeneration of thought and adopts this American craze.
We will not allow them to relativize beauty. We simply do not need to waste our time tasting works that do not measure up to the objective standards established by Saint Thomas, and resolutely refuse to go along to get along. Instead, we should every time be like the child who informs all others that the emperor has no clothes.
Armed with these concepts we must never allow the “experts” or purveyors of novelty (art critics from our past century) to bamboozle or bully us with the idea that beauty “is in the eye of the beholder” -- a saying that is consonant with the homosexual slogan of “don’t knock it till you try it”. We will not allow them to relativize beauty. We simply do not need to waste our time tasting works that do not measure up to the objective standards established by Saint Thomas, and resolutely refuse to go along to get along. Instead, we should every time be like the child who informs all others that the emperor has no clothes.
Right after his ordination as a priest in Hippo, Saint Augustine wrote the book The Advantage of Believing, dedicated to a friend who had succumbed to the deceits of the Manicheans. In this book he wrote the following: “No one will question that everyone is either foolish or wise. By wise here I do not mean those who are wily and ingenious but those who have, as much as is possible for a human being, a strong perception and understanding both of human nature itself and of God and a way of life that conforms to this. All others, whatever their skills or lack of skills, and whatever their conquests in proving and disproving, I count among the foolish.” In other words, only those with “a strong perception and understanding both of human nature itself and of God” are capable of being wise and thus appreciate beauty. Having said so, I am persuaded that a more satisfying and conclusive answer to that young Peruvian’s question in that now distant night in Peru has been given. So, let us join Augustine in declaring that modern art, whether it be in the plastic arts, music, or poetry, which fails to measure up to Thomas Aquinas’ definition, no matter the artist’s skills and ingenuity, is nothing but foolishness parading itself as sophistication.
Latest from RTV — THE GREAT UPRISING: On Globalism’s Popes, Presidents, and Profiteers
