This is an excellent review of Scuton's amazing book, On Beauty and the critique on modern trends in art, film, tv etc. :
"“Beauty is vanishing from our world because we live as though it did not matter.”
Beauty matters! That is the point to this wonderfully slim introduction to aesthetics, and on that point I stand in complete accordance with Scruton. Although, I didn’t agree with all that he said, and at times I thought his ideas needed a bit of clarification, I thought many of his main points hit home, and I appreciated the mass assortment of references on the subject. When addressing postmodernism’s desire to destroy the sacred so that art becomes less about aesthetics, but more about taking pleasure in the act of destruction it reminds me of Philip Rieff’s “third world culture”. The idea that there are three cultures, first, second, and third world. First and second worlds containing continuity in that they are both based on a sacred order and a higher authority. Third world being characterized by not only it’s divergence from the first two, but of it’s hatred of the sacred and of viewing itself as the higher authority. What Rieff calls an "anti-culture" because it effectively destroys culture through acts that he calls, “deathworks.” These are attempts to tear down the sacred order and wipe out it’s history. A cross pickled in urine for example or explicit pornography as art, etc. According to Scruton these works of art are not beautiful precisely because they lack the sacred and they defile art, in his opinion these are acts of the destruction of art, that give momentary pleasure to the viewer and artist solely in the shock that they produce.
A culture like this that looks to destroy it’s ties to the past and destroy any intrinsic meaning in what was previously viewed by the west as sacred and beautiful, cannot be sustained because it stands against itself. It looks to justify it’s actions based on itself alone, but it is actively cutting the roots that tie it to a culture. Thus it is an “anti-culture”. It is self destructive. I think Scruton is getting at a similar idea if not the exact idea. Our modern world looks at beauty through it’s utilitarian lenses of function and profit. They wish to objectify beauty. What is it’s function? Does it satisfy a desire? This causes consumerism in the modern world to masquerade as art.
“wanting it for its beauty is not wanting to inspect it: it is wanting to contemplate it—and that is something more than a search for information or an expression of appetite. Here is a want without a goal: a desire that cannot be fulfilled since there is nothing that would count as its fulfilment.”
Scruton believes that beauty is much deeper than that. That it does not have a function other than itself. That making it about desire and satiation is stripping it of what it actually is.
“Beauty is not the source of disinterested pleasure, but simply the object of a universal interest: the interest that we have in beauty, and in the pleasure that beauty brings.”
What shines forth to me in this book is Scruton’s understanding that beauty carries transcendence into the eternal. That beauty feeds man’s soul. That it takes us out of ourselves and our desires and has us reflect on something greater than ourselves.
“Nobody who is alert to beauty, therefore, is without the concept of redemption—of a final transcendence of mortal disorder into a ‘kingdom of ends’. In an age of declining faith art bears enduring witness to the spiritual hunger and immortal longings of our species. Hence aesthetic education matters more today than at any previous period in history.”
“Art moves us because it is beautiful, and it is beautiful in part because it means something. It can be meaningful without being beautiful; but to be beautiful it must be meaningful.”
Beauty: A Very Short Introduction by Roger Scruton | Goodreads