Sanctifying Art. Deborah Sokolove

Music,” 283.

7. Ibid., 284.

8. Ibid., 295.

9. Ibid., 292.

10. McDannell, Material Christianity, 133.

11. Ibid., 52, illustration 33.

12. Ibid., 56, illustration 40.

13. Ibid., 17–66 passim.

14. Milspaw, “Protestant Home Shrines,” 119.

15. Siedell, God in the Gallery, 22.

16. Ibid., 24; emphasis original.

17. Ibid., 28.

18. Wolterstorff, Art in Action, 4.

19. Augustine, Confessions, book 10, chapter 33.

20. Bernard of Clairvaux, “Bernard of Clairvaux: Apology.”

21. Suger, “De Administratione,” 65–67.

22. Bernard of Clairvaux, “Bernard of Clairvaux: Apology.”

23. Barzun, Use and Abuse of Art, 26.

24. Ibid., 27.

25. Ibid.

26. Sullivan, Windows into the Soul, sec. 53.

27. Winton-Henry and Porter, “InterPlay.”

28. Lerner, The Street Where I Live, 89.

29. Barzun, Use and Abuse of Art, 87–88.

30. Ibid., 88.

31. Witvliet, “Series Preface,” viii.

32. Brown, Good Taste, Bad Taste, 8.

      3 / Visions of Beauty

      Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all

       Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

      —John Keats33

      Aesthetics is for the artist what ornithology is for the birds.

      —attributed to Barnett Newman34

      Beauty and truth have been linked throughout the history of Western thought, never more succinctly than in the famous couplet from John Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” But while Pontius Pilate is cited in Scripture as having asked “What is truth?” there is more agreement, both historically and today, about the difference between truth and falsehood than there is about the definition of beauty. Aesthetic theories beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing through much of the twentieth century almost invariably linked beauty and art. Christian theologians describe God as the supreme locus of beauty, from whom all other definitions or examples derive their authority and meaning.

      As the arts have become increasingly visible in the church in recent years, there has been an increased interest in discussions of both beauty and art. Justifications for using art in worship as well as other areas of church life are often couched in the language of beauty. However, once such lofty aspirations are brought down to questions of specific artworks, disagreements over matters of taste and quality begin to appear. As in the secular world, what one person sees as the epitome of beauty, another sees as sentimental, outrageous, or hopelessly misguided. Arguments rage over whether this or that artwork is objectively beautiful, or if beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder.

      Sometimes, the concept of beauty is enlisted to encompass artworks that repulse either through their subject matter, the handling of materials, or some other factor, and yet are recognized as genuine contributions to human understanding. In such cases, the very definition of beauty is stretched so far beyond its useful limits that it would be better to use some other measures by which to define quality in the arts. In this chapter, we will look at some of the ways that both beauty and art have been seen by philosophers, theologians, and ordinary Christians; suggest a way to talk about quality in art without resorting to notions of beauty; and consider a new way of talking about beauty that steers a careful path between the dangerous rocks of universalizing absolutes and the chaotic whirlpool of unrestrained relativism.

      Defining Beauty

      The earliest known definition of artistic beauty is the Canon, or Rule, of Polykleitos, known today only through the report of other ancient writers. This Rule does not concern beauty in a general sense, or even in art broadly defined, but rather specifically addresses beauty as perceived in the proportions of the human figure in sculpture. The second-century-BCE physician, Galen, reports that, according to Polykleitos, beauty in this area was not found in strict symmetry, but rather in the correct, proportional relationships among the various parts of the body.35 Other ancient writers expanded on this definition, including not only symmetry and proportion, but various combinations of balance, harmony, unity, radiance, and similar qualities.

      Today, when people try to define beauty, they often refer to these ideas, along with words like elegance, refinement, or clarity. Beauty is often described as that which gives a deep pleasure or satisfaction, or has a certain rightness, or perfection. For many, beauty is profoundly spiritual, linked to experiences of transcendence or the divine. In classical philosophy, beauty was one of the three transcendental virtues, equal in importance to truth and goodness. In theology, these three find their ultimate source, measure, and value in God.

      Aesthetics, Art Theory, and History

      Dictionaries typically define the word aesthetics with respect to the nature or appreciation of beauty. A look at the Greek root will reveal a meaning that is less about beauty than about sensory awareness or sensation. The opposite of aesthetic, after all, is anesthetic: something that puts the senses to sleep. Nevertheless, when philosophers and theologians consider aesthetics, they are almost always talking about beauty.

      Alexander Gottleib Baumgarten (1714–1762) is often credited with coining the term in 1735, as the name of a field of study within the more general discipline of philosophy. However, for centuries before that,