A Beauty Bias

Just as the study of ethics is about distinguishing between good and bad, and some theories of politics are similarly concerned with friends and enemies, see Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political, I believe art is about the distinction between beauty and ugliness.

There are numerous animating reasons behind a work of art, like social commentary, see George Orwell’s Animal Farm, or self-expression, see Anne Frank’s The Diary of A Young Girl, or even just to entertain and make money, see Marvel movies.

But polemics and essays can offer clearer, purer social commentary than art can. And in this world of podcasts and vlogs and TikToks, it's easier than ever to express oneself plainly, without artistic pretensions. And money? One is hard-pressed to think of a public offering less likely to make money than art.

I think the unique place art occupies, and thus the primary moral obligation artists inherit, is an orientation toward beauty. That useless, impractical, life-giving quality. Sublime. No other human venture can claim to aim toward beauty the way art does.

The way we ought to judge art and artists, then, is primarily how well they work towards this function. An artist is not immoral if she discusses controversial things or raises unsettling ideas. Nor is she immoral if she ignores important public conversation in favor of personal reflection. Nor is she immoral if she chases a wide audience and broad popularity. But if she subordinates beauty for any of those goals, she has sinned. That must be the watchword of the artist and the consumer alike.

Artists must have a beauty bias.