Roger Scruton’s Arguments About Beauty In his book, “Beauty”, Roger Scruton does not simply define what beauty is. Rather, he poses a couple of questions: Are there reasons that explain why a work of art is more preferred than another work? And if so, are there certain judgments to be made about works of arts in general? Ultimately in his book, Scruton makes the argument that aesthetic judgments can and should be made. In doing so, he suggests that universal standards of taste and beauty are valuable. Furthermore, Scruton provides evidence for the idea that since the early 20th century, there have been multiple challenges against these universal standards and that there has been a “flight from beauty” which can be seen in various works in the current Jeff Koons and Nam June Paik exhibitions.

Scruton presents the idea that the judgment of beauty entails describing the object presented for what it is. He states that in beauty, judgment focuses on the object judged, not the subject who judges. For example, when Scruton describes something as “beautiful”, he is describing it as opposed to his feelings toward that something and in doing so, he is making a claim others would agree with. This is unlike the judgment of things that are enjoyable: these types of judgments – things that are right to enjoy and things that are wrong to enjoy – are judgments that focus on the state of mind of the subject rather than the quality of the object itself.[1] Jeff Koons’ series, Gazing Ball, is an example that refutes Scruton’s point and claims that the judgment of art does in fact focus on the viewer’s state of mind – similar In this series, Koons places a gazing ball atop various plaster casts including classical sculptures Farnese Hercules and Belvedere Torso. He explains that the gazing ball’s abilities to reflect in three-hundred and sixty degrees and to allow people to see reflections of themselves creates an art that “takes place inside the viewer.” He makes the case that, like in the Gazing Ball series, art is about a person’s transcendence – not specifically about the object and its qualities. Koons opens up his work to interpretation that would not necessarily be unanimous amongst a group of viewers, as he believes that art is really in the eye of the beholder. It’s evident that Scruton and Koons are at contrasting ends of the spectrum here: Scruton believes that the judgment of beauty, regardless of context, focuses on how something presents itself and Koons contests that the way in which art is judged depends on the viewer’s state of mind – the person’s transcendence. In my opinion, Kant’s position on the judgment of beauty is the most agreeable. It states that aesthetic judgments are universal, but subjective – a combination of what Scruton and Koons both state. In this oxymoronic view, judgments of beauty are not limited by any strict set of standards and are subjective, but the claim that something is in fact beautiful is made with the belief that other people will also agree with this judgment – the universality aspect.

In the chapter “Artistic Beauty”, Scruton sheds light on why universal standards of taste and beauty are valuable by posing the question, “If anything can count as art, what is the point or the merit in achieving that label?”[2] He goes on to say that if anything truly is art than people would consider television soap operas to be held to the same standard as Shakespearean works and Radiohead’s music an equal to that of Brahms. Jeff Koons’ series The New: Vacuum Sculptures and Pre-New refutes Scruton’s idea that not everything can be considered as art. In fact, in both series, Koons simply took everyday objects such as vacuum cleaners and toasters, placed them in brightly lit surroundings, and called them “art”. He went as far as to say that the vacuum cleaners display themselves “in a very kind of classical tradition of art. I mean, you could think of Renaissance sculpture. These are eternal virgins that are being displayed.” This exemplifies Scruton’s exact issue: if these “virginal” vacuum cleaners were truly art than people could possibly hold them to the same standards as Renaissance paintings of the Virgin Mary – a total error in judgment. Koons’ stance that everything can be art – even simple vacuum cleaners – goes against Scruton’s beliefs as well as my own. I agree with Scruton that not everything can be counted as art and that there has to be some degree of artistic merit achieved. In regards to a universal standard of taste, Scruton uses two examples to back his stance that such a standard is valuable and that there is a distinction between good and bad taste as opposed to your taste and mine. If the entire world laughed at other people’s misfortunes, aside from the commonality of laughter, there would be nothing in common with the world of theatrical comedies such as “Tartuffe” and humorous novels such as “The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman.”[3] Rather, the world would be devoid of the human kindness that is found in humor because there would no distinction between good and bad taste – the apparent difference between Mao Ze Dong’s laughter at the fall of the tightrope walker and an audience’s laughter at a scene during “Tartuffe”. To go along the same lines, a world where people are solely interested in replica Brillo boxes, in signed urinals, or just objects that are randomly chosen to create “satirical and ‘look at me’” pieces would create a world in which “mounds of rubbish cover the sites of our ideals”. Scruton believes that without these universal standards, the worlds suffer, and thus, they are valuable.

Scruton points to the fact that since the early 20th century, there has been an apparent “flight from beauty.” He goes as far as to say that “more recent art cultivates a posture of transgression, matching the ugliness of the things it portrays with an ugliness of its own.”[4] Specifically what Scruton is referring to can be seen through the comparison of the original production of Mozart’s comic opera, “Die Entführung aus dem Serail” and its 2004 production. While Mozart’s original production successfully was able to portray love and compassion through the words, music, and production, the 2004 production was plagued by unnecessary murder and sex. The 2004 production, as Scruton would say, serves as a “desire to spoil beauty, in acts of aesthetic iconoclasm.”[5] A similar instance of this phenomenon known as the “flight from beauty” is evident in Jeff Koons’ Dog Pool Panty. In this work, there is a kiddie wading pool in the form of a dog topped with a lingerie photo. The innocence that may have been evoked at the first glance of the kiddie pool is immediately overwhelmed by the saturation of sex created by the lingerie photo attached to it. This sort of work supports Scruton’s argument that since the 1930s, beauty has been spoiled. Specifically, Dog Pool Panty serves as an example of the “art of descreation” that has been attacking standards of taste and beauty in

He observes that during the 20th century, beauty loses its importance to originality regardless of how it is achieved – as seen by Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”. Scruton’s concerns about how the challenges faced by the universal standards is best seen when he writes, “Beauty is vanishing from our world because we live as though it did no matter… The false art of our time, mired in kitsch and desecration, is one sign of this.”[6] It is clear that Scruton points to the inception of the “art of desecration” and “kitsh” – art without a message of its own that attack the universal standards of taste and beauty.

Initially, I was a strong proponent of the idea that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. I believed that people could take away what they wanted from works and find the beauty in their own way. However, taking in account Roger Scruton’s analysis of beauty – its judgment, the necessity of universal standards of taste and beauty, and the effect of not having these standards on our world, I agree with Scruton’s arguments. Without a universal standard of taste and beauty, people succumb to creating works that copy the message of other works or lack a message of its own. Furthermore, without such standards, anything really can be called art without being art. In short, there is a necessity to having standards and if not for anything else, Roger Scruton’s “Beauty” provides a thoughtful-analysis as to why such standards are valuable.

Works Cited
Scruton, Roger. Beauty. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2009. 8-194. Print.

-----------------------
[1] Roger Scruton, Beauty (New York: Oxford University Press Inc, 2009) 8.
[2] Ibid. 98.
[3] Ibid. 100.
[4] Ibid. 168.
[5] Ibid. 172.
[6] Ibid. 194