Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? A Dialogue on Objective Beauty

“Nothing sublimely artistic has ever arisen out of mere art, any more than anything essentially reasonable has ever arisen out of pure reason. There must be a rich moral soil for any great artistic growth.” – G.K. Chesterton

A dialogue on beauty... and why it cannot simply be in the “eye of the beholder.”

Key Ideas in Brief

• Defining the Standard: Exploring the philosophy of esthetics to determine if art is merely subjective expression or grounded in something higher.
• The Problem of Relativism: Challenging the popular notion that is beauty in the eye of the beholder by examining the moral implications of such a view.
• The Purpose of Creation: Understanding teleology and art, focusing on how "purpose" distinguishes meaningful creation from deviation.
• Ethics in Expression: Analyzing the debate of art vs pornography to see how objective standards protect human dignity.

Constantine: Tell me, what is really beautiful? Or, more generally, what is art?

Freud: This is the branch of philosophy known as the philosophy of esthetics. Now, can we not reduce art to just any human expression?

Lewis: Any? That is a broad statement! What about pornography or the obscene?

Constantine: And what is pornography really? Is it not just the intent to arouse sexual excitement — having little or no artistic merit — all for profit?

Freud: Some art is obscene and some pornography is artistic. There is a difference, but the line between the two is blurred by people’s tastes. Pornography is called art by some and art is sometimes called pornography by others. Pornography is sometimes done with creative artistic talent, and some “art” is done without even a shred of any artistic or moral merit. It’s all subjective. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Truly, it is — one man’s art is another man’s pornography. It is all based on desire, and desire is all personal and ambiguous by its very nature.

Lewis: We all have desires, and I am thoroughly convinced that these desires can be fulfilled either through a holy expression or a profane one. In regard to the comment that one man’s art is another man’s pornography, the ancient prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (5:20). I think you are deeply mistaken.

Constantine: Please explain why.

Lewis: There is a holy and a profane. It is rash to say both are equal. Please note, the opposite of the holy is not the secular, but the profane. Living in the world is a secular pursuit. But doing evil — that is the essence of what is profane.

Freud: That can only be the case if there is such a thing as what is “holy” or “profane.” That can only be true if there is a grand design or purpose to nature.

Lewis: True — which leads us to posit a supreme being. We have to argue, maybe next time, why there is such a thing as objective beauty and morals which are grounded in this very divine nature. Without these objective standards, there is no moral difference ultimately in the debate of art vs pornography. However, it would also follow that there is no ultimate moral difference between rape and love either. But we all know there is a difference — we know it intuitively. And yes, there is a difference between art and pornography.

Constantine: So then, is the difference something to do with our reactions to the images we see?

Freud: I don’t think so. One cannot control if one enjoys or is repelled by some picture or written work or dreams. Again, all of it is beyond our control and subjective. The artist exercises free will in the creation of his or her art, and the receiver of this creation has a choice (and sometimes there is no choice) on how they react to that art. It needs to be noted that you can “react” without choice. Like pulling your hand from a hot stove. Some of us may unwillingly be aroused or repulsed by certain “art.” One does not have control of this.

Lewis: But one does have control of what one does after the desires are aroused. Otherwise, we are no better than the beasts.

Constantine: True. Please go on.

Lewis: If a man lusts after a woman who has deliberately tried to be modest and cover almost her entire body, is she responsible for his lust? Is she responsible for his lust just because she looked unknowingly attractive (in the case of covered Muslim women or Christian nuns)? Or turn the question around: If a man lusts after a woman who has deliberately tried to expose and accentuate her body, is she responsible for his lust? In both cases, the answer is no.

Constantine: Although in the latter, she may have provoked it. We can apply this to artists and art. Take the ancient Greek statue of Aphrodite of Milos, also known as the Venus de Milo (c. 130–100 BC). Is it a pornographic image because it invokes certain lusts in some men? It would be unfair to judge the motives of an artist or his work by what his audience perceives, just as it would be unfair to judge a man immoral if he is merely perceived to be.

Freud: I grant that.

Lewis: But I think the answer lies in what we can know versus what we are unsure about. Just as our tongues can be used to edify someone, the same tongue can tear them down. Because man can produce Petra, the pyramids, and the atomic bomb — instruments of beauty or destruction — so can his art. We have the God-given choice to be either a Gabriel or a Lucifer. As Pascal said, “Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute” (Pensées 358). The same hand that holds a girl’s cheek can be the same hand that rapes her. Art is one way we express that potential. The answer to the difference between art vs pornography is rooted in morality. Many, sadly, have concluded that art has nothing to do with it or have embraced relativism. It is no wonder many have a hard time telling the difference.

Constantine: I think relativism is an empty, contradictory, and vacuous theory. So then, what is the difference between art and pornography?

Lewis: It has everything to do with purpose.

Freud: Purpose?

Lewis: Yes. Art is an expression of life’s many avenues in creative ways. Can you imagine life without art? The world is God’s artwork. It is an expression of His creativity. It is a model for our own creativity. This has to do with what Aristotle called teleology, or purpose. All things have a purpose. When we examine teleology and art, we see that all things are designed for an end. If human life and sexuality have no purpose, then anything goes, absolutely speaking, and the cutting of a watermelon is just as bad or good as the butchering of a baby — ultimately speaking. Sex in adultery or the wedding night is just an expression of a biological function on that view. Neither is ultimately good or evil if there is no ultimate purpose. But since sex does have a purpose, pornography is a deviation from that purpose. Thus, it is an abuse of it.

Constantine: So, art is an expression of human achievement or desires, while pornography is an exploitation of it.

Lewis: I could not have said it better.

Freud: Okay, Lewis, what is the “purpose” of life then?

Lewis: That is what we will talk about next!

Continue The Conversation

Wrestling with questions about God, faith, and meaning?

Join the newsletter for thoughtful reflections on belief, doubt, philosophy, and the search for truth, plus practical insights to live wisely, and believe courageously.