Aesthetic relativism, as a concept, did not simply emerge out of nowhere in our lifetime. Its roots can be traced back to the existentialist and structuralist movements of the 20th century, which not only questioned the objective nature of beauty, but rejected it alongside truth and morality, as well. These movements paved the way for …
A few days ago, while scrolling through Facebook, I encountered a curious piece of news in the art section from Kosovo. An artist, whose name I shall not mention, was smashing eggs onto the screen of an old, upside-down television. Initially, I assumed it might be a satirical take on the summer heatwave, but I was gravely mistaken. Various local critics and art enthusiasts were fervently extolling the profound message embedded in this “artistic performance.”
This instantly brought to mind two things: a tasteless – crude “poem” that caused an uproar among many local readers and an article by a critic who, if I remember correctly, defended the poem by asserting that “art is not immoral because morality is nonexistent,” as morality “is simply a norm that evolves, with its purpose being emancipation”.
At first sight, one could argue that such a viewpoint might not appear that problematic nor harmful since it’s just individual taste in literature. After all, we shall let people enjoy even tasteless [pseudo]art as long as it doesn’t occupy the place of real art. But that’s not the case since the aforementioned point of view is actually rooted in a dangerous ideology with totalitarian tendencies: the postmodern understanding of art and not only, which marks the beginning of the problem.
Aesthetic relativism, as a concept, did not simply emerge out of nowhere in our lifetime. Its roots can be traced back to the existentialist and structuralist movements of the 20th century, which not only questioned the objective nature of beauty, but rejected it alongside truth and morality, as well. These movements paved the way for postmodernism, which took these ideas further, challenging the very foundations of Western civilization.
Therefore, if we accept the postmodern premise that morality is non-existent and merely a construct for the sake of emancipation, then it logically follows that without morality, there can be no emancipation. Moreover, without morality, there are no norms, no truth, no art, and certainly no beauty.
Immanuel Kant, one of the iconic philosophers of the modern era, wrote that “Beauty is the form of purposiveness in an object, insofar as it is perceived in the object without the representation of a purpose.” (Kant, 1987) Thus, from Kant’s perspective, which upholds the Western tradition of aesthetics, we can assert that the primary essence of art is beauty—an idea that resonates with the views of another distinguished contemporary philosopher of aesthetics and leading critic of modern art, Sir Roger Scruton. This notion particularly calls to mind his celebrated book Beauty: A Very Short Introduction, in which he wrote: “Beauty is an ultimate value—something that we pursue for its own sake, and for the pursuit of which no further reason need be given. Beauty should, therefore, be compared to truth and goodness, one member of a trio of ultimate values which justify our rational inclinations.”
Both of these views stand in stark contrast to the postmodern idea that views the essence of art as primarily subjective—a tool for ideology, a means of subversive propaganda which nowadays is often followed by the catchphrase “Art is not about aesthetics,” “art is meant to disturb,” “art is meant to shock!” This perspective, which Scruton aptly termed “the cult of ugliness,” is not only fundamentally at odds with the traditional understanding of art but life itself. (Scruton, 2009)
The absurdity of postmodernism’s core philosophy lies in its grand narrative of denying grand narratives: it claims that the only truth is that there is no truth. It’s no surprise that this perspective naturally gravitates toward irrational sentimentalism. This contemporary yet trending ideology suggests that art and morality are merely matters of fashion, fleeting trends with no real substance, rendered almost meaningless by their lack of grounding in truth. Such a view is deeply nihilistic, confused, and, most importantly, dangerously false. Contrary to popular belief, art is not merely a harmless matter of personal aesthetic preference; it is, in fact, a profound philosophical approach to life itself. While often dismissed as “old-fashioned” or “right-wing,” this ancient truth is recognized even by prominent Marxist thinkers, such as the French philosopher Alain Badiou, who goes so far as to suggest that “art is the purest manifestation of the idea, incarnating itself in the realm of the sensible”. In this context, Scruton’s words demand our attention. He warned that beauty is vanishing from our world because it is being dismissed as trivial. This, he argued, is a grave matter, for the disappearance of beauty from our culture signifies a rejection of the sacred in our life, a denial of the transcendental, and, ultimately, the loss of meaning in our world.
To the contemporary individual, particularly the contemporary artist, Scruton’s observation may seem harsh, disdainful, pompous, and elitist, but it requires little effort to substantiate. One need only examine postmodern views on art or observe so-called “conceptual art masterpieces” such as Marcel Duchamp’s “Urinal” or the bizarre performances of Marina Abramović, who aims to crush taboos. Thus, one must take their message seriously, as T. S. Eliot would say, “The greatest proof of a man’s religion is the sanctity of his art” (Eliot, 2022). Therefore, Scruton is right in asserting that art is profoundly religious, even if it might not seem so; it would be fair to consider postmodern art as a kind of sect devoted to disorder, with profanity as its rite and, above all, ugliness as its main sacrament.
This is why G. K. Chesterton used to say art, like morality, has its defined boundaries. There can be art that reflects immoral motives or the opposite, but it is erroneous to claim that morality does not exist. Alternatively, there can simply be art and kitsch—the latter of which Scruton referred to as “fake art, expressing fake emotions, whose purpose is to deceive the consumer into thinking he feels something deep and serious.” (Scruton, 2016)
Such tendencies, which are far from new, have nearly transformed the so-called contemporary art into a meaningless veneration of ugliness, where mediocrity reigns supreme due to aesthetic relativism and the rejection of distinctions between beauty and ugliness, meaning and madness. Consequently, everything is declared art! But if everything is art, does it not follow that nothing is art?
Common sense struggles to equate classical or Renaissance paintings with “conceptual works” that often resemble the scribbles of a three-year-old. Yet relativism, like the other totalitarian ideologies, disregards reason and common sense. Dare to criticize it, and you’ll be branded with all sorts of labels, including “fascist”, “ignorant” or, a bit more charitably, “You don’t understand art!”
The truth, however, is that in postmodern art and philosophy, everything is relativized and equalized. Beauty, truth, and morality become matters of taste, while ugliness and kitsch become fashionable. Therefore, it is no surprise that this approach finds so many adherents nowadays, for it appeals to those who lack genuine talent. Nonetheless, I’m convinced that the days of this ideology are numbered because beauty is an intrinsic value that cannot be destroyed, for it lies in the depths of human hearts.
Bibliography:
—Eliot, T. S. (2022). Thoughts after Lambeth. Wildside Press LLC. (Original work published 1932)
— Kant, I. (1987). Critique of judgment (W. S. Pluhar, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1790)
— Scruton, R. (2009). Beauty: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
— Scruton, R. (2016). Confessions of a heretic: Revised edition. Notting Hill Editions.
Join the Club
Like this story? You’ll love our monthly newsletter.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.