# Roger Scruton on beauty and culture



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

I wonder how you would comment on the ideas worded in the following movie by Roger Scruton:

http://rclvideolibrary.com/2012/12/08/why-beauty-matters/









(Btw, it would be great if anybody helped me with identifying the tune starting at 50 minutes and 50 seconds)

The similar perspective can be found in his paper for the Aeon magazine and two books related to culture:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/roger-scruton-fake-culture/
http://books.google.pl/books?id=_6JPMUKxUWsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Culture-Roger-Scruton/dp/0826494447

All the best,

Daimonion


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

altough my taste is more modern than his, I agree on a lot of things with him.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I suppose I shouldn't be, I've been around awhile, but I find it disconcerting that anyone is so blissfully arrogant as to pontificate on Beauty And Culture.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Wow. Thank you for posting that link. This was something I would probably never have seen otherwise. In general, I agree with him. (My only quibble is the conflation of use/useful/utilitarian. Nothing so important, as he keeps emphasizing, could possibly be dismissed as not useful. It isn't absolutely necessary to survival, but the fact that it serves no purpose other than the purpose it does serve hardly seems to be a point at all.) Sadly, I think he is fighting a losing battle. Beauty requires skill, effort, and rarest of all inspiration. Ugly is so much easier, and we have grown fat and lazy as a society. We don't want to sit through a whole opera, especially if it interrupts the next episode of Survivor. Sentiment and shock are the easiest sensations to excite, but we have become so jaded that shock now seems to require the kind of torture porn of movies like Saw and Hostel. Can actual gladiatorial games be far behind?

I suspect he will generally be written off as an elitist snob. People will fail to understand his underlying points, and merely reject him for imposing his view on them. Ironically, it is those who do seek beauty who are constantly besieged and put upon by society at large. Beauty is being actively taken from us, and ugliness shoved in our faces all the time.


----------



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

It's nice to hear than at least some of you do share some of Scruton's points. By myself I would hesitate to say that I completely agree with him but I do share many of his tastes (and distates) and, most importantly, his deep belief that "culture counts" or, at least, that we should make it count (after all it does depends on us).

For people with a strong, even if somehow nostalgic, belief in the beauty, culture, and knowledge (in middle ages I would say in truth, goodness, and beauty;-)) I recommend the novel by Hermann Hesse titled "The Glass Bead Game" that depicts "Castalia" as an "secular order" of intellectuals who devote their lives to cultivate these values (the book is full of references to classical music).

All the best,

Daimonion

P.S. It is always better to fight a lost battle than to fight a pointless one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

Daimonion said:


> It's nice to hear than at least some of you do share some of Scruton's points.


Didn't work so well on the other site, eh?

You could try TC's "sister" site. There you'd get universal approval for Scruton. I mean, if you're into that kind of thing.

Scruton makes his points simply by privileging certain types of beauty, excluding everything else that is also beautiful but not acknowledged as such by Mr. Scruton.

I'd say that it is always worth fighting pseudo-thinkers like Scruton, no matter how tiresome it gets.


----------



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

You're right. It didn't go that well on the other site. And I won't try TC's sister site (whatever it is) for a simple reason that I am not an active member there. I had tried with Scruton on both sites for the simple reason that I wanted to find out if there are people who share some of his points and I had known that there are some differences between two foras in question.

Personally, I would say that Scruton, whatever his and/or your personal tastes and distastes are, points to a significant issue. Simply speaking, I do agree that our culture is loosing something important (a part of it is beauty) and that we are attacked by a lot of ugliness (I know that it is a very general tenet).

Concerning Scruton. His philosophy is not exactly my own cup of tea (Socrates and Aristotle or Murdoch, MacIntyre and Hesse are) but I would never say that he is a "pseudo-thinker". Even people such as Martha Nussbaum, who differ from him on the great majority of possible issues, treat him seriously enough to engage into discussion (cf. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/dec/18/sex-in-the-head/?pagination=false). Mind that the notion of a thinker does not entail that the person in question is always, or even mostly, right and that you have to agree with him/her. If it did, the majority of philosophers would be, by the very definition, "pseudo-thinkers".

All the best!


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Excellent points by Scruton. I believe that anyone who enjoys classical music will readily appreciate his arguments.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2013)

Ralfy said:


> I believe that anyone who enjoys classical music will readily appreciate his arguments.


Interesting belief. Any basis for it?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Daimonion said:


> http://rclvideolibrary.com/2012/12/08/why-beauty-matters/ "Philosopher Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives"


we eventually got to a point where beauty may be considered as 'provocative' eh!
it's time to start a revolt then.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Interesting belief. Any basis for it?


That 'anyone' is used in a way that has the same meaning as 'everyone'. Patently false, unless 'appreciate' indicates a level of acceptance much lower than 'agree with' would. It that the case?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

sharik said:


> we eventually got to a point where beauty may be considered as 'provocative' eh!
> it's time to start a revolt then.


?? Beauty is often 'provocative'.


----------



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

Yes. But is (should be) the idea that 'beauty matters' provocative as well?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Beauty is often 'provocative'


no, never, unless you are into some kind of perversion.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

sharik said:


> no, never, unless you are into some kind of perversion.


There are a lot of us perverts around you know.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

some guy said:


> Interesting belief. Any basis for it?


Check out the _Aeon Magazine_ article linked above.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ralfy said:


> Check out the _Aeon Magazine_ article linked above.


But sir; that's just more Scruton. One would expect him to agree with himself.


----------



## conclass (Jan 12, 2013)

i agree and let me quote dostoevsky: "beauty will save the world"


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> But sir; that's just more Scruton. One would expect him to agree with himself.


In which case he'll soon be a member here.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

conclass said:


> i agree and let me quote dostoevsky: "beauty will save the world"


Certainly doing a lousy job so far !


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> But sir; that's just more Scruton. One would expect him to agree with himself.


Read the article carefully and you will see what he argues is the basis of his beliefs. It's in the second section of the essay.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ralfy said:


> Read the article carefully and you will see what he argues is the basis of his beliefs. It's in the second section of the essay.


Read the article carefully... sir, I am _not_ a masochist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'd say that it is always worth fighting pseudo-thinkers like Scruton, no matter how tiresome it gets.

But its not at all possible that others may find your opinions on music as dated and tiresome as you find Scruton? Are all of those whose opinions differ from yours to be demoted to the realm of mere pseudo-thinkers?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'd say that it is always worth fighting pseudo-thinkers like Scruton, no matter how tiresome it gets.
> 
> But its not at all possible that others may find your opinions on music as dated and tiresome as you find Scruton? Are all of those whose opinions differ from yours to be demoted to the realm of mere pseudo-thinkers?


But Stluke, the topic is not whether or not it is possible for other people to find my opinions dated and tiresome. Of course it is possible that other people find my opinions dated and tiresome. But that's hardly relevant. I call ignoratio elenchi.

In addition, you have attributed to me things I never said. I never said that Scruton's opinions were dated. And while I did say that _fighting_ people like him is tiresome, that is a very different proposition from saying that his opinions are tiresome. I call straw man.

And finally, I called Scruton a pseudothinker not because his opinions differ from mine but because he does not really think about things (evidently), he simply spouts prejudices. As I claimed in the paragraph you did not supply, Scruton makes his points "simply by privileging certain types of beauty." A genuine thinker would do more than simply privilege, for one.

And finally, no, all of those whose opinions differ from mine are NOT to be demoted to the realm of mere pseudo-thinkers. That's absurd. I call red herring.

I must say, I would much rather talk about music than deal with argumentative strategies, though that might seem hard to believe, as I do seem to spend most of my time on internet threads battling fallacious arguments. Battling fallacious arguments is indeed tiresome! Of the making of them, however, there seems to be no end.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> As I claimed in the paragraph you did not supply, Scruton makes his points "simply by privileging certain types of beauty."


but that's not true, and Scruton is very far from a pseudo-thinker. He has his taste (as everybody else, was Robert Hughes a pseudo-thinker because he preferred something over something else?), but this is not the argument of the video.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Read the article carefully... sir, I am _not_ a masochist.


Good to see that you now realize it's not "just more Scruton."


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2013)

norman, 

That different people have different tastes is certainly true, but not to the point. What is very much to the point is whether privileging one's tastes and then supplying only those arguments that justify the privileging is a legitimate activity. I say "no." (Or, perhaps more to the point, excluding certain things simply by privileging others, without actually making an argument, one way or the other, about those certain things.)

What Robert Hughes may or may not have done (and I certainly do not respect him, either) is neither a defense nor an attack of Roger Scruton either one.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> norman,
> 
> That different people have different tastes is certainly true, but not to the point. What is very much to the point is whether privileging one's tastes and then supplying only those arguments that justify the privileging is a legitimate activity. I say "no." (Or, perhaps more to the point, excluding certain things simply by privileging others, without actually making an argument, one way or the other, about those certain things.)


but what Scruton says is that a lot of modern art (and architecture too) is not on a different kind of beauty, but is not concerned with beauty at all but with "concepts" and "ideas". And that's absolutely true. It's not about his tastes (I like a lot of stuff that I'm sure Scruton would find simply horrible).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

norman bates said:


> but what Scruton says is that a lot of modern art (and architecture too) is not on a different kind of beauty, but is not concerned with beauty at all but with "concepts" and "ideas". And that's absolutely true. It's not about his tastes (I like a lot of stuff that I'm sure Scruton would find simply horrible).


That is a small part of "what Scruton says". Even that is problematic; intent is not a legitimate factor in 'determining' beauty.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That is a small part of "what Scruton says". Even that is problematic; intent is not a legitimate factor in 'determining' beauty.


and where in the video he determines it? I've seen it some time ago, but i don't remember anything like that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2013)

norman bates said:


> but what Scruton says is that a lot of modern art (and architecture too) is not on a different kind of beauty, but is not concerned with beauty at all but with "concepts" and "ideas". And that's absolutely true. It's not about his tastes (I like a lot of stuff that I'm sure Scruton would find simply horrible).


A)"Is not concerned with beauty at all" is exactly the kind of thing I object to.

B)"Beauty" is itself a concept, an idea.

C)I think you'll find that very little is "absolutely true." Would you care to defend the assertion that a lot of modern art (and architecture too) is not concerned with beauty at all? Be fair, asserting's all well and good, but it's not by any means an argument.

(A good place to start would be with replacing the words "a lot of" with some particular pieces of modern art or architecture. The next step, of course, would be to establish that those particular pieces are typical or even generally illustrative.)

((Actually, a good place to start would be with jettisoning everything that Scruton or Hughes has said and getting out there and looking at some art and architecture and listening to some music.))


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> A)"Is not concerned with beauty at all" is exactly the kind of thing I object to.


really? Do you know that there's something known as conceptual art?












some guy said:


> B)"Beauty" is itself a concept, an idea.


yes, but in a very different way.



some guy said:


> (A good place to start would be with replacing the words "a lot of" with some particular pieces of modern art or architecture. The next step, of course, would be to establish that those particular pieces are typical or even generally illustrative.)


sure, a lot of brutalism is a perfect example. And a lot of the work of Le corbusier and his imitators. A lot of the modern archistars with their 3d programs.



some guy said:


> ((Actually, a good place to start would be with jettisoning everything that Scruton or Hughes has said and getting out there and looking at some art and architecture and listening to some music.))


i had made it before reading both (by the way, i consider by far Robert Hughes the best art critic i've read)


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2013)

Now there's comedy for ya! Replace the words "a lot of" with...

...wait for it!

...the words "a lot of"!!

Gotta love it!!:lol:



norman bates said:


> a lot of brutalism is a perfect example. And a lot of the work of Le corbusier and his imitators. A lot of the modern archistars with their 3d programs.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2013)

But seriously, folks.

I do believe that norman and I may be engaging in that ever-popular game of disagreeing by means of using different definitions of key terms.

And the key-est term of all, possibly, is beauty.

What cued me into that this time was norman's mention of Le Corbusier, whose work I find to be beautiful.*

So perhaps I should, once again, cite Herr Mr. Rilke's Duino Elegy nr. 1, which expresses best what I think about beauty:

“For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
which we are barely able to endure, and it amazes us so,
because it serenely disdains to destroy us."

If we cannot agree about what beauty is, we can hardly have a conversation about whether some third person's opinions about beauty in twentieth century art are valid or not. All we'll be able to do is express our agreement or disagreement with this person's definition of beauty.

And if we cannot agree about what beauty is, then we cannot agree. End of discussion. On to something else.

*Which brings up the whole "where does beauty reside" thing, which we've also done to death here. Poor widdle horthie.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> But seriously, folks.
> 
> I do believe that norman and I may be engaging in that ever-popular game of disagreeing by means of using different definitions of key terms.
> 
> ...


well, le corbusier has done a lot of things. I like the chapelle ronchamp. But do you think that it's beautiful the unitè d'abitation? You'd really like to live there? 
Tell me: do you like a horrible building like the Torre Velasca?

And by the way, I have asked you if you know that a thing known as "conceptual art" exists.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

some guy said:


> So perhaps I should, once again, cite Herr Mr. Rilke's Duino Elegy nr. 1, which expresses best what I think about beauty:
> 
> "For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
> which we are barely able to endure, and it amazes us so,
> ...


I do agree with a lot of what you have to say about Scruton's opinions expressed in that video (he's quite the fuddy-duddy, although I get where he's coming from; he should've just said he resonates with the classical concept of beauty - harmony, proportion, ornamentation etc. and bemoan the fact that this isn't the prevailing trend anymore). However, whereas there can be beauty in "terror" (re: most romantic art would probably come under that type of beauty), I think you're being way too generous with that elegy when it comes to the god-awful so-called functionalist (but often inefficient and/or badly designed), architecture-by-numbers (mostly commissioned by budget-saving local councils around the world) that mid-20th century and beyond has gifted us with. That's, honestly, 3rd rate crap, epic failure on all levels, no matter what kind of beauty you've got in mind. What we're dealing with here isn't aesthetics so much as the attitude towards the public held by those in power (ie, it might be rubbish, but it's good enough for inner city people). This is where Scruton failed when he pointed his finger at architecture. Basically he confused matters.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

deggial said:


> I do agree with a lot of what you have to say about Scruton's opinions expressed in that video (he's quite the fuddy-duddy, although I get where he's coming from; he should've just said he resonates with the classical concept of beauty - harmony, proportion, ornamentation etc. and bemoan the fact that *this isn't the prevailing trend anymore*).


you know what? "Trend" is the key word. Too many people think that to think to consider beauty a matter of harmony, proportion etc is... "old".


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

One of the points I agree with Scruton is regarding the inability (not always) of modern art to "comfort" the observer when presenting grief or terror. It shocks, but the effect is short-lived since it seems that we already experience it in everyday life as it is, and the only thing that remains is an idea with a minimal touch by the artist. Modern art seems to be fast, and that somewhat repels me. I enjoy a work of art in which a lot of effort and time has been put in, since it can reflect the artist's long process of contemplation about that certain idea. Such work in itself might be not only more aesthetically refined, but also "conceptually".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I must say, I would much rather talk about music than deal with argumentative strategies, though that might seem hard to believe, as I do seem to spend most of my time on internet threads battling fallacious arguments.

Actually, I would have thought that you get off on dealing with argumentative strategies (it easier to call foul based on the rules of high school debate than to actually debate the issues) considering you seemingly scour every known classical music site for threads that is any way question some aspect of Modern or Contemporary music. It's hard to believe you actually have time to listen to all those new composers.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2013)

norman bates said:


> And by the way, I have asked you if you know that a thing known as "conceptual art" exists.


I have forgotten more about conceptual art than you will ever know.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2013)

deggial said:


> ...the god-awful so-called functionalist (but often inefficient and/or badly designed), architecture-by-numbers (mostly commissioned by budget-saving local councils around the world) that mid-20th century and beyond has gifted us with.


This is why specifics make the conversation go so much better. If we talk about particular buildings, we will get our points across so much easier and with less kerfluffle.

This is a bad thing for those of us who prefer kerfluffle, of course, but whaddaya gonna do?


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> to actually debate the issues


Yes, this would be nice, even with you.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> considering you seemingly scour every known classical music site for threads that is any way question some aspect of Modern or Contemporary music.


Ad hominem.

Convenient for the person doing the fouling to have the "easier to call foul based on the rules of high school debate" defense handy. D'ya think anyone's taken in by that ploy, though?


----------



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

It is what my 8-years old daughter wrote in her private notes (I haven't discussed any art-related issues with her yet):

"Art is not about painting whatever you want? Quite the opposite! Whatever will happen to be treated as art (even garbage) can become a treasure. Mind that in such a case the definition of garbage will not apply to these things any more. One can say that our eye is our own critic (even though this critic does not wear a suit)"

I wonder what Mr Scruton would reply


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Ancient chamber pots are regularly displayed today in art museums. I suspect our ancestors would be slightly amused, or shocked. (My Great-grandmother would not even refer to a chamber pot by name. My grandmother often told an amusing story that in visting the house of my Great-great-grandmother, a chamber pot was accidentally broken. My Great-grandmother dutifully went into New York to buy a replacement, but when she approached the sales clerk, she could hardly have brought herself to ask for the thing by name. Instead, she asked for a left-handed looking glass, apparently a veiled reference in some common use because the sales clerk immediately obtained the chamber pot that was sought.) 

But there may be a justification in displaying such artifacts today because these once household objects with a utilitarian purpose were made in a way that elevated them above the mere function of holding deposits of human waste. They simultaneously serve as examples of historical purpose, craftsmanship, and of art.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

norman bates said:


> but what Scruton says is that a lot of modern art (and architecture too) is not on a different kind of beauty, but is not concerned with beauty at all but with "concepts" and "ideas". And that's absolutely true. It's not about his tastes (I like a lot of stuff that I'm sure Scruton would find simply horrible).


It does seem to me that certain music is only concerned with abiding to its own (complex) rules and ideas, so that only hardcore connoisseurs can appreciate it, after studying the background of the music and the composer. This music has as much right to exist as any other music, but on the long term, perhaps it would be good for the (classical) music world if there was more art music with a more or less universal appeal, music that can inspire the masses even, if not only to provide a "counterweight" to all the commercial, popular, superficial trash music of today.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

some guy said:


> But seriously, folks.
> 
> I do believe that norman and I may be engaging in that ever-popular game of disagreeing by means of using different definitions of key terms.
> 
> ...


Now, this will be interesting, because it looks like one of Scruton's main influences is Rilke. Some examples:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0367.htm

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_3_urbanities_sleeping_cities.html

http://www.rogerscruton.com/work-in-progress/19-books/84-how-to-change-the-world.html

http://www.rogerscruton.com/article...3-confessions-of-a-sceptical-francophile.html


----------



## Daimonion (Apr 22, 2012)

Roger Scruton on rock music:

"The music is assembled with a machine-like motion, with repetition as the principal device. Rhythm is generated by percussive sounds which often have little or no relation to anything else that is happening. The music itself may draw attention to this - opening with some mesmeric sound-effect or cheesy crooning, and then bringing in the drum-kit with a barrage of amplified noise, _as when a gang which has been waiting quietly on the staircase suddenly breaks down the door_" (Scruton, "Modern Culture", 2000, p. 106, emphasis added)


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Some interesting points about the Pet Shop Boys, Metallica, Oasis, the Verve, and others:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1058

Also,

http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9907/pop.html


----------

