On Creating Meaningful Art

erful force in shaping the culture of humanity, as Scruton again rightly observes: “Beauty . . . is a real and universal value, one anchored in our rational nature, and the sense of beauty has an indispensable part to play in shaping the human world.”47

In a democratic society, aristocratic convictions are blasphemous to the demos because a democratic culture seeks the lowest common denominator and tears down anyone or anything that dares to raise its head above the status quo. But that is exactly the risk that must be taken to save art from the double ditches of profanation on one side and kitsch on the other. Two things are necessary and neither will be easy. Both will be like taking a fat person to the gym or a heathen to the church. Maybe a better analogy is that it will be like trying to send the philosopher back down into the cave.

In any case, the first thing that must be done is to recognize that there are experts in art, as there are in every field and industry, and it is possible to make progress in developing a higher standard of objective judgment. Seldom is there push back when an architect explains to the new contractor building a house why the foundations must be laid a certain way. Sometimes there is push back when an Olympic judge offers a less than desirable score, but not too often. Most frequently, it will be the umpire or referee who receives push back from coaches and fans at a sporting event. In each case, it is acknowledged there are gradations in the prerequisites, gradations in the expertise of the experts, gradations in the expertise of the non-ex- perts, and gradations in accuracy of the analysis and perspective of the experts and the non-experts. In the case of the architect, there is physics involved, and building codes—hopefully based on universal empirical truth related to physics. These analyses and criteria are less forgiving than the analyses and criteria for the Olympic judges, and these are still less forgiving than those of the non-Olympic sporting event. In other words, even though there are objective standards in each of these scenarios, there is room for error and disagreement among experts. Also, as one might imagine, there is more room for error and disagreement in the sporting event than there is in the construction project, because of the nature of the variables in each of those examples. It is unnecessary to belabor the point by working through each possible opportunity for error or disagreement, but what this means is there is a lot of room for disagreement and for mistakes to be made even when considering things by a standard of objectivity. While this is true, and universally acknowledged, it should not go unnoticed that it is also universally acknowledged that there are always experts in any respective field. These are not experts by accident; they are experts by means of demonstrable knowledge and personal experience in the given field. It is the task of the expert to exercise his or her knowledge and experience to make an objective analysis of the situation within a prerequisite set of rules and criteria. This is fundamental, and universally accepted. And it is just as true for art and beauty. The goal and purpose of an art expert is to critique the art’s approximation to the objective