"Philosopher Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives.

In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert.

Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the centre of our civilisation."

An interesting documentary.
Scruton is one of those rare living philosophers who doesn't go for postmodernist thought. He is quite conservative. His arguments for the reintroduction of the standards of beauty set by Plato and Kant are excellent but, I think, is beyond us now. Art has been deomcratized. It has been taken out of the hands of artists and placed in the hands of anarchists. The main purpose for art now is to shock. This is why we have things today like Pisschrist and no David. This is what happens when you try and level society, genius is taken to be equal to philistinism. This is why I oppose equality; it tries and bring everyone down to the same level. No more genius, no more greatness, rather, the ordinary and grotesque take centre stage. There was a reason on why cultures were aristocratic for over 2 millenia; to hold up higher standards of judgment. Art being a classic example here.

The modern enemies of art are the same as the modern enemies of Western civilization: the socialists, anarchists, feminists, and any other anti-authoritarian movement.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:58am:


Yes fascists are the beautiful people and everybody else should go to the lime pits. In your dreams. 

Grey wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:


Or Scotland.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:


Urr what do you mean 'the other totalitarians'? Bolshie likes totalitarians as long as they're RW. Anarchists are anti-totalitarian.

Maybe my detractors would like to answer this: What is more beautiful and why, Pisschrist or David?

Grey wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:

The cosmos is curved... East meets west, north meets south

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:


For a start you haven't made the jump from commentator to subject, anywhere outside of your own ego. David is sublime, Michelangelo is perhaps the most accomplished producer of beautiful art ever. You're not going to get much argument on that score.

So is that it? Art died with Michelangelo? Of course not. Art is a viewpoint and there are as many views as people, rage, pity, feminism, masculinism, poverty, wealth etc have as much right to be represented in art as beauty. We like the art that resonates with us. I have a particular fondness for art that contains contrasts and multiple ideas. Art that is merely beautiful has no place in this age. It is unsophisticated, puerile, and yes, Michelangelo transcends that obstacle and is timeless. But comparing David with the art that resonates least with you and pompously declaring 'see'; that's idiotic.