TRUE BEAUTY
The analysis of the foible surrounding postmodernism’s subjective approach to truth’s reality take a decisively odd turn when observers approach the subject of art and later, the medium of television. Building a strong case for objectivity in comprehensive examinations of information, it is proper to assert a sturdy conviction that subjectivism is an inappropriate basis for the acquisition of knowledge. The ground that is defended concerning scientific assumptions, developed with the clear intent to fortify existent standards that are irreducibly concrete in form, is a much-needed place of consideration in the modern dialogue.
However, as with much that encompasses philosophical deliberation, fatal flaws can appear, when purpose is confused with absolutes. No school of thought appears to be without blotch. This assumption can be attributed to the varying influences of sin’s power, lack of information, personal bias as conscious or unconscious influencers, social pressures, among a wide assortment of complexities that can arise. Just as no man is an island unto himself, no idea or thoughtful projection exists independently, that is of human origin. Objective truth is a noble pursuit, one that the church should readily embrace, or more appropriately, one that the church should never relinquish.
The difficulty of assessing the beauty of a culture and its art as a focus is found in the subjective observational scope: the field of art is subjective. Regardless of how strong one may assert their bias is not a factor pertaining to an appreciation of artistic form, function or sound, subjectivity abounds in that which is perceived to possess beauty artistically. Even if the assumption is embraced that postmodern art forms are shapeless expressions that lack cohesive presence when held to the propositions of truth, the reality of art as an identifiable medium that contains the priorities of culture, both ambivalent and neutral, or forceful proposals of identity or suppression, convey the truth of postmodernism’s disjointed view of reality. Thus, art encapsulates that which it conveys conceptually. This can be seen in musical proclivities, architectural vagaries, linguistic expressions of poetry and prose, paintings, to name just a sampling of the multiple variations that art can take in its actual presentational form.
The personal inclination of the individual or group cannot be denied. Modern assessments and prejudicial comportment betrays this application of a subjective nature when it becomes our personal assertion that Wesleyan hymns hold higher value than Brenda Lefavre’s choruses. Styles, forms and function take on a distinctly individual focus. This has held true from Greek culture to modern times. It is decisively unfair to subjectively judge art apart from the primarily historical value of reflectional qualities. Art acts as an impersonal commentary that showcases cultural assumptions and values. Art identifies what is important to a people group and/or an epoch. As such, there is in art an innate possession of an unsettling exposural ability for artistic expressions that serve as a methodological cultural voyeuristic window into the central issues that surround human networks, regardless of how primitive or advanced the culture may be.
Artistic inclinations are true betrayers of the norms of culture. Non-standards expose the underlying values and assertions that create the corporate identity of the constituent people groups that have littered the annals of history. Thoughtful analysis allows the distant observer the luxury of reflective opportunities when evaluating the standards of cultures and their normative practices. Incan excesses in barbarity are contrasted with the placid undertakings of the Anabaptists and the Shakers non-conformity. The true underpinnings of value cannot escape the inquisitive eye of objective art appreciation.
