In Defense of Chasing Aesthetics
- Ethan A. Hayes
- 4 days ago
- 6 min read
The traditional art and liturgy of the Church is often criticized for chasing after mere aesthetics, that the essence of the faith is not to be found in aesthetics, pomp, and circumstance, but rather the still small voice of the Holy Spirit within the human heart. This is deceptive, and demonstrable to be actually against the Christian faith
Rather the symbology of the Church in aesthetics is the faith itself manifest in a necessary manner. Even materialists, of which almost all modern men are, including good Christians, consider symbols as helpful signs and moral lessons. This is true. However to the Christian, the symbol is the presence of the thing itself in the form of a sign, that is to say, a quasi-sacrament. All talk and lines of thinking where a sacrament is referred to as 'not just a mere symbol', betrays this nearly inescapable Modernistic way of thinking. Of course a sacrament is not a mere symbol, but not because a symbol can be a mere sign, but because symbols possess the essence of the thing really in the sacrament. The aesthetics of sacraments do not consist in the beauty of symbols, gestures, and fixtures, but rather that in the beauty of the sacrament, the thing itself is presented by these signs.
When aesthetics is criticized as an excessive science of mere beauty, the critic is speaking as a Modernist, that is to say, someone who doubts the reality of sacraments, and wishes Christians to have a poor, heady faith. Chasing after aesthetics is not a blind and infatuated chase after sentimental signs and fine harmonies, but rather an art chasing after the reality and presence of the thing itself. It is through the beauty of art and liturgy that the encounter with God is actualized. The material Modernist cannot conceive of a symbol, gesture, or another form that is not the mere carrier of information like a road sign at worst, or a mechanical vehicle of a spiritual reality at best. This material Rationalist has not encountered God in the symbol of the Sacrament.
Championing the aesthetics of Holy Mother Church is defensible as useful, real, and necessary in the following way:
They are helpful in salvation and indicative of God.
They are categorically real and wholistic on all levels of abstraction.
They are essential to form to the thing.
Let us look at a test case where all would agree.
In Baptism, water washes the Christian:
It sends the baptized into real abyss-like waters descending into the netherworld with Jesus for as it is written: "Know you not that we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?" (DRB Romans 6:3)
It really cleans the Christian physically, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally et cetera.
Just as water is necessary to wash the corporal body, spiritual water from the side of Christ is necessary to clean the person.
Many would dismiss these aesthetics as a bare bones necessity of the faith, but still condemn as extravagant much elaboration beyond the essential forms of the liturgy. This is contrary to the faith, as it artificially limits the wholeness and depth of the beauty of the Church and God. Although the form of the sacrament is essential, it is in fact a skeletal essence. No amount of man-made aesthetics can capture the whole beauty of God, nor even his Church, but to argue that any given degree of aesthetic care is inherently superfluous is incorrect. Rather a Christian people creates beauty in accordance to its means. A sacrament can be more or less beautiful without affecting its validity.
Now consider the case of a church that is rebuilt extensively with a large amount of decorative wood trim harmonious with the form and function of the building. Let us again apply the same qualifications upon the artistic work in such a church:
Is it helpful in salvation and indicative of God?
The woodwork allows signs and symbols to be extensively written into the functional structures of the building to clarify and promote the salvific work of the building. E.g. an eagle pressed under the weight of the Gospel showing the triumph and suppremacy of the law of Christ over the laws of the world.
Is it categorically real and wholistic on all levels of abstraction?
The wood trim works in a united way on all levels. The wood physically forms the building, just as it forms the people in knowledge of God, as it forms the real spirtual functions of the church, as well as it forms morally, psychologically, et cetera.
Is it essential to form to the thing?
The physical form of the church is indeed essential, lest there be no building at all, but an elaboration and promotion of this form is still the form and not an extraneous thing tacked onto the essence. To artificially tack aesthetics onto an essential structure is dogmatically bad aesthetics according the masters. For as Owen Jones' Proposition #5 from his Grammar of Ornament states:
"Construction should be decorated. Decoration should never be purposefully constructed. That which is beautiful is true; that which is true must be beautiful."
This defense has been necessary because curtailing aesthetics for reasons other than practicality immediately leads to various ugly errors that betray the anti-Christian spirit. These errors are not incidental, but are direct and material in such critiques. Although individuals making these critiques against aesthetics may not intend these errors, the errors are easily exposed by careful investigation.
Firstly, this critique against chasing aesthetics betrays a hatred for the poor. The life of the poor is ugly: unglamored by the world. The poor deserve a life of beauty, particularly in Christ, the source of all beauty. To deny the poor of beautiful public works is inherently to demonstrate that the poor ought not have such things. For reason of their poverty they might never have these things by any other means. This is a spirtual work of mercy.
Secondly, this shows a falsely unworthy poverty of self. This is to say that the personal self doesn't need beautiful things; one don't deserve nice things; one can go without in a simplicity of life. This false humility is a wound of unworthiness, unwilling to give the self the things it needs to live. And indeed the soul needs beauty to live. Without beauty, the soul can be lost to despair and a dry, glum acaedia.
Thirdly, this betrays a overintellectialized faith. The whole modern era unto the present day has been an age of Rationalism. As the world becomes technically educated, it would seem that the knowledge of God only need consist of academically theological education. This is a great Modernist error, as intellectual knowledge of the faith is not knowledge of God. For as it is said,
"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose." (Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, 1.3.98.)
An overly rationalized faith is a vain faith that has been taught about God, but does not know him. As beauty manfests God, curtailing aesthetics as non-essential is limiting the faith to increasingly be an exclusively intellectual affair.
Lastly, as a great evil, attacks against pursing elaborate aesthetics reeks of the arch-traitor Judas as it is written:
"Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein." (DRB John 12:4-6)
One might ask why great offerings of beauty to God are so opposed by some. With no other valid reason beside practicality, it seems that such opposition must often be dishonest.
There is an alternate theory for as why elaborate aesthetics are so often maligned which is much more reasonable and human. This simply is that in the imagination of many, elaborate aesthetics are really actually just bad aesthetics. Universally poor harmonies, degenerate styles, and confusing moral lessons quickly frighten many from all high level aesthetic pursuits. The only safe thing seems to be the old and infelicious 'noble simplity and quiet grandeur'.
It is obvious that this drive toward simply banal comtemporary styling is misguided. This is because the overused tagline of 'noble simplicity' was originally promoting Neoclassical art and architecture in opposition to the completely spoiled rotting flower of the Pre-Revolution French Rococo. Rococo is bad art. Compared to the near decor-less style of the present day, all Neoclassical art would be considered quite elaborate.
Chasing aesthetics is not the disease, rather the content of the aesthetics, Christ, is the cure. Like a sick man unable to stomach the food that will feed him, today people often cannot tolerate beautiful things. Thus, when people oppose the creation of beautiful things, they must be treated caringly and with great sensitivity. Further, the sick man does not know how to be healthy, but must be made healthy by a doctor. Thus, when people cannot judge good aesthetics, they must be educated in a most non-pedantic way as would Christ, the Divine Physician. For it is very likely that we cannot judge good aesthetics very well either. For as it is written:
"And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (DRB Matthew 7:3-5)