Not A Blog™

The following is part of an ongoing debate between myself and Paul regarding the nature of beauty in art. Previous entries include:
Round 1: Paul | Ted
Round 2: Paul | Ted
Round 3: Paul

Over the course of this debate, I have challenged Paul to do but one thing. Indeed, the rest of the debate relies on it, and so it makes sense that this thing should be the first thing accomplished. Furthermore, without this thing, Paul has yet to actually support his case with solid reasoning.

Two weeks ago I put forth this challenge:

Please explain what the universally accepted standards of beauty are.

Paul has not yet done this.

His first attempt involved the derision of people who fall outside his definition of normal, which he intended to mean “functions well”. In his post two weeks ago, he made the claim that those who do not produce babies do not function well. In his post last week, he updated this to say that insane people, and those who cut themselves do not function well. Insomuch that when one’s mental state prevents them from living without supervision, disorders exist. But the question remains: why does this preclude them from creating something beautiful? It does not. It may make it difficult for them to create something you think is beautiful, but who are we that we may declare their work invalid in any rubric, simply because they are not “normal”?

This is known as the ad hominem fallacy.

In his last post, Paul lists some things we find beautiful: what will do us good. He also defines what we find ugly: things that do us harm.

Counterexamples to this line of reasoning are so forthcoming that it’s difficult to take seriously. Potatoes do us good, but are not beautiful. Poison dart frogs are deadly and beautiful. Indeed, the “deadly beauty” concept is so prevalent it’s a cliche. Stars neither do us good nor harm, yet they are beautiful.

Paul even recognizes this with a volcano—but before it can derail his conclusion, he quickly dismisses by saying, “One, we probably do not find it beautiful, per se, but perhaps ‘powerful’ and ‘awe inspiring’.”

Later, in response to my question as to why he should be concerned with other peoples’ standards of beauty, he writes:

Because people with inferior conceptions of what is beautiful try to tell us that the 5,000 years of artists believing in something outside themselves that compels them to make art is resulting from a false philosophy (though that philosophy produced the greatest works of art this world has ever seen) and we need to accept that Fountain and 4′33″ are just as good because human thought has really advanced in the last 30 years.

According to Paul, those in the art intelligencia have inferior conceptions of beauty because they promote things which are inferior in beauty. Ignore the circular reasoning. Also ignore the fact that the statement “5,000 years of artists believing in something outsides themselves” is the fallacy argument from tradition. Maybe it has produced the greatest works mankind has ever seen. Maybe it hasn’t. But a word of warning: do not disagree on this point as that would be further evidence you have an inferior conception of beauty.

Paul also tells us that we do not find volcanoes beautiful. But wait—what if you do find volcanoes beautiful? (Disregarding that they’re not art.) According to Paul, because volcanoes are dangerous, thinking they’re pretty makes your conception of beauty inferior. Even worse—what if you’re gay? That also makes your conception of beauty inferior. Heaven forbid you’re a gay man who thinks volcanoes are beautiful; you might as well just leave.

Well, according to Paul. After all, he also wrote, “I have no problem with certain people finding my art crappy, if they’re poor artists,” as well as, “[a good artist’s] work will…aid in restoring the artist’s place in reaching out to fellow artists.” In other words: art is for artists, and if you suck as an artist (or you’re depressed, or gay, or find volcanoes beautiful), then you have an inferior conception of beauty.

The only conclusion we can reach from all of Paul’s arguments taken in aggregate is the following: if you disagree with Paul’s conception of beauty, yours is inferior.

Paul has been unable to define what beauty means to anyone but himself. He has not set forth any objective standards that universally apply. Any standards he has put forward apply as long as you agree with him that they apply. If you disagree, they appear nonsensical, insulting, or both. But by disagreeing, you also reveal your inferior conceptions of beauty, and so any disagreement you may have is invalid as an argument against his objective standard.

Since I disagree with Paul, my standards must be inferior. Because they’re inferior, they must be invalid as a refutation against the objectivity of beauty. Ergo, beauty must be objective after all.

How about that.

-Ted