"Beautiful Ugliness" Excerpt by Notre Dame Press

M A R K W I L L I A M R O C H E

B E A U T I F U L U G L I N E S S C H R I S T I A N I T Y, M O D E R N I T Y, A N D

T H E

A R T S

University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023942032 ISBN: 978-0-268-20701-4 (Hardback) ISBN: 978-0-268-20703-8 (WebPDF) ISBN: 978-0-268-20700-7 (EPpub)

Abbreviations and Translations

xvii

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgments

xiii

Introduction

PA R T I . Conceptual Framework

24 25

ONE

Unveiling Ugliness

TWO

Aesthetic Categories

THREE

Intellectual Resources

61 88

PA R T I I . The History of Beautiful Ugliness

109 113

FOUR

Imperial Rome

FIVE

Late Medieval Christianity

SIX

131

The Theological Rationale for Christianity’s Immersion in Ugliness 162 Historical Interlude

191

201

SEVEN

Modernity

EIGHT

Modernity’s Ontological and Aesthetic Shift

236

PA R T I I I . Forms of Beautiful Ugliness

259 Styles of Beautiful Ugliness

263

NINE

Repugnant Beauty

265

TEN

Fractured Beauty

291

Aischric Beauty

306

ELEVEN

Structures of Beautiful Ugliness T W E LV E

Beauty Dwelling in Ugliness

THIRTEEN

Dialectical Beauty

360

FOURTEEN

Speculative Beauty

384

Conclusion Notes Index

Contents

411

429

Works Cited

viii

337

479

445

339

1. Otto Dix, The Match Seller, 1920

A T

2. Hans Holbein the Younger, The Ambassadors, 1533

3. Peter Paul Rubens, Head of the Medusa, 1618 4. Auguste Rodin, Despair, 1890

37 39

5. Edvard Munch, The Scream, 1893

6. Felix Gonzalez-Torres, “Untitled” (Portrait of Ross in L.A.), 1991

7. Domenico Ghirlandaio, An Old Man and His Grandson, ca. 1490 80 8. Max Beckmann, Descent from the Cross, 1917

9. Side view of the Crucifixus dolorosus, St. Maria im Kapitol, ca. 1304 136 10. Detail of the Crucifixus dolorosus, St. Maria im Kapitol, ca. 1304 137 11. Röttgen Pietà, ca. 1300–1325

138

12. Matthias Grünewald, The Crucifixion, Isenheim Altarpiece, ca. 1512–15 140 13. Detail of Matthias Grünewald, The Crucifixion, Isenheim Altarpiece, ca. 1512–15 142 14. Detail of Matthias Grünewald, The Crucifixion, Isenheim Altarpiece, ca. 1512–15 143 15. Jacob Matham, Avarice, ca. 1587

146

16. Giotto, Envy (Invidia), ca. 1306

150

17. Hieronymus Bosch, right panel of The Garden of Earthly Delights, 1490–1510 152 18. Anonymous master from Swabia or the Upper Rhine, The Dead Lovers, ca. 1470 155 19. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Triumph of Death, ca. 1562 20. Maxim Kantor, The Temptation of St. Anthony, 2015

156–57

159

21. Bosch or a follower of Bosch, Christ Carrying the Cross, 1500–1535 160 22. Michelangelo Caravaggio, Madonna of the Pilgrims, ca. 1603–6 172 23. Matthias Grünewald, The Resurrection of Christ, Isenheim Altarpiece, ca. 1512–16 181 24. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Christ Carrying the Cross, 1564

184–85

187

25. Maxim Kantor, Golgotha, 2015

26. Hans Holbein the Younger, The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb, 1520–22 188–89 208

27. Cindy Sherman, Untitled #175, 1987 28. Jenny Saville, Torso II, 2004–5

209

29. Frida Kahlo, The Broken Column, 1944

212

30. George Grosz, Shut Up and Soldier On, 1928

214

31. John Heartfield, As in the Middle Ages . . . So in the Third Reich, 1934 215 32. Francisco Goya, Still Life of Sheep’s Ribs and Head, 1810–12 33. Jeff Wall, The Flooded Grave, 1998–2000

220

34. Andres Serrano, Self Portrait Shit, 2007

233

35. Otto Dix, Skull, 1924

240

36. Jacques-Louis David, The Death of Marat, 1793

270

37. Francisco Goya, The Third of May, 1808, in Madrid, 1814 38. Hans Baldung Grien, Three Ages of Woman and Death, 1510 39. Charles Csuri, Gossip, 1990

283

40. Käthe Kollwitz, The Survivors, 1923 x

Illustrations

218

285

272 277

41. Frank Gehry, Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, 2010 298 42. Henri Laurens, Head of a Young Girl, 1920

300

43. Umberto Mastroianni, The Farewell, 1955

301

44. Max Beckmann, The Night, 1918–19

307

45. Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Winter, 1563

310

46. Giuseppe Arcimboldo, The Lawyer, 1566 47. Georges Rouault, Head of Christ, 1905

311

312 314

48. Paul Klee, Outbreak of Fear III (Angstausbruch III), 1939 49. Otto Dix, Wounded Man (Bapaume, Autumn, 1916), 1924 50. Otto Dix, Skat Players/Card Playing War Invalids, 1920

315

317

51. George Grosz, The Funeral (Dedicated to Oskar Panizza), 1917–18 318 52. Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937

320–21

53. Pablo Picasso, Weeping Woman, 1937

322

54. Patricia Piccinini, The Young Family, 2002

343

55. Ivan Albright, Into the World There Came a Soul Called Ida, 1929–30 356 56. Francisco Goya, Disasters of War, 1810–20 57. George Grosz, The Pillars of Society, 1926 58. Romuald Hazoumè, Liberté, 2009

373

59. A. Paul Weber, The Rumor, 1943

374

363 364

60. Jacopo Robusti Tintoretto, The Adoration of the Shepherds, 1578–81 400 61. Diego Velázquez, The Surrender of Breda, 1634–35 62. Styles of Beautiful Ugliness

402

414

63. Structures of Beautiful Ugliness

414

64. Francis Bacon, Self-Portrait, 1969

417

65. Barbara Roche, Just Warped, 2018

419

Illustrations

INTRODUCTION

Ugliness is a signature element of modern art. Ugly works attract those of us who are fascinated by what lies beyond traditional beauty. Yet viewers may also be repelled. Otto Dix, who experienced the trauma of World War I, not only portrayed ugliness, but he also thematized our intuitive resistance to ugliness. Dix’s Match Seller (1920), an oil and collage on canvas, depicts an invalid from whom others scurry away (illustration 1). The veteran is without limbs. His lack of legs (and the dog’s short legs) are contrasted with the seemingly overly long legs of the well-dressed pedestrians who flee by him. The flight from ugliness reveals an unwillingness to confront reality. Dix’s etching on the same topic, also from 1920, is even more dramatic in conveying our fear and flight. We glance past what is ugly and repellent unless we are forced to look. With its hard edges, the painting seems almost to shout at us. The veteran is blind now, but he has seen the horror of war and the plight of poverty. The dog, with its prominent eyes, urinates on the veteran’s leg stump, underscoring his place in the hierarchy and his mistreatment as an object. Obscured above his head is the image of a cross, which stresses his victimhood and the lack of Christian values around him. Indeed, we see three crosses askew: the prominent one above the match seller’s head, the pattern on the sidewalk, and the partial, but incomplete crosses in the street. Although the painting draws on the imagery of the cross, linking the suffering 1

I L L U S T R AT I O N 1

veteran with the crucified Christ, the veteran is even worse off than Christ: without limbs he could not even be nailed to the cross. Although the ugly and the beautiful may appear to be opposites, many beautiful artworks are in some sense also ugly. They may have repugnant content, as with Gottfried Benn’s poems about corpses. Distorted forms may predominate, as with British painter Francis Bacon’s torturous self-portraits. Dissonance may be unresolved, as with Polish composer Krzysztof Penderecki’s musical lament for the victims of Hiroshima. Yet such works are beautiful. I use the term “beautiful ugliness” for works that satisfy two conditions. First, they involve either ugliness in the object depicted, such as physical, emotional, intellectual, or moral ugliness, or ugliness in the work’s properties, such as distorted forms, unintegrated parts, or unresolved dissonance. Second, the works are aesthetically excellent and therefore beautiful. 2

Beautiful Ugliness

In the aesthetic realm, the word “beauty” is ambiguous. On the one hand, “beauty” designates positive aesthetic value; “beautiful” is what is “aesthetically excellent” (Bosanquet, Three Lectures 85). On the other hand, “beauty” is a particular kind of positive aesthetic value, one that is associated with what is pleasing or harmonic and that can be contrasted, for example, with the sublime. A pleasurable meadow landscape is beautiful, whereas a mountain landscape that evokes awe is sublime. Similarly, we can contrast the beautiful in its more specific meaning with the ugly. A photograph of a junkyard might be ugly and not at all pleasing, but it may have positive aesthetic value: the photograph may be beautiful in the sense of aesthetically excellent. Nelson Goodman notes: “If the beautiful excludes the ugly, beauty is no measure of aesthetic merit” (255). If we retain—with Goodman and others—the overarching association of beauty with aesthetic merit, then ugly works may be beautiful not in the specific sense of pleasing or harmonic but in the overarching sense of aesthetically excellent. Although ugliness often has negative aesthetic value, it can have positive aesthetic value. In such cases we can speak of beautiful ugliness. Let’s briefly consider two more examples. In the Renaissance, the discovery of perspective enhanced beauty. Artists could now portray reality, including beautiful objects, more accurately. But once perspective is known, it can also be distorted. Formal experimentation and distortion become a catalyst for ugliness. Consider the distorted skull in The Ambassadors (1533), an oil on panel by the great portrait painter Hans Holbein the Younger (illustration 2). When we view this masterful painting straight on, we see at the bottom an odd distorted smear, an oblong shape that is formally ugly, but if we look at the work from an oblique angle, to the right of the canvas and close to the plane of the work, an exquisite rendition of a skull reveals itself. Holbein uses anamorphosis, a term coined in the Baroque to designate distortion of perspective (Mersch 29). Presumably one reason for Holbein’s use of anamorphosis is the desire to display his mastery of technique, to play with it for purposes of trickery; yet another is to underscore the extent to which death can surprise us and is often otherwise veiled. Holbein suggests that we do not face or see our mortality, but, consumed with the vanity of life, we twist its meaning, as with the image of the skull. Death is both present and hidden for the two figures, who appear to be confident and very much of this world, with fine garments and a wealth of treasured objects. Jean de Dinteville, the figure Introduction

I L L U S T R AT I O N 2

Hans Holbein the Younger, The Ambassadors, 1533, Oil on panel, National Gallery, London/Bridgeman Images.

on the left, who commissioned the painting, is flamboyantly clothed in fur, velvet, and satin. The top shelf contains objects devoted to astronomy and the heavens, such as a celestial globe and a sundial; on the bottom shelf, we see more earthly objects, for example, a terrestrial globe and a lute. The figure on the left holds a dagger; the elbow of the figure on the right, a bishop, rests on a book. The active and contemplative life are here contrasted, but they along with the cultured study of the heavens and the earth are all placed in opposition to the distorted skull. The skull is not visible as a skull when the observer views the figures and objects in the painting head on, but the skull becomes clear when the figures and other objects recede from 4

Beautiful Ugliness

our view, and we look at the work from high on the right side or low on the left side. Penderecki’s Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960), to take an example from music, is not simply dissonant, but eerie, discordant, disabling. Its mood evokes both solemnity and disaster and is in this way fitting as a composition of mourning. Penderecki, who had experienced the Nazi occupation of Poland firsthand, scored Threnody (threnody = “a song of lamentation”) for fifty-two strings: twenty-four violins, ten violas, ten cellos, and eight double-basses. The work expresses mourning along with rage and does so with unconventional sounds. By using a finger or the frog of the bow to tap on the instrument’s wooden frame, the string players produce percussive effects. For such sounds Penderecki had to invent new notation symbols. The work opens with a cluster chord of all the instruments playing in their uppermost register. Intermittently the chord returns, including at the end. We hear glissandi, continuous slides upward or downward between two notes; meanderings across registers; dissonant microtonality; and abrasive sounds triggered by extreme bowing techniques. The cacophony between the various groups of strings seems to evoke many human voices wailing. As such cases reveal, the beautiful has the capacity to integrate within itself and transform ugliness. John Dewey articulates this principle well: “Something which was ugly under other conditions, the usual ones, is extracted from the conditions in which it was repulsive and is transfigured in quality as it becomes a part of an expressive whole. In its new setting, the very contrast with a former ugliness adds piquancy, animation, and, in serious matters, increases depth of meaning in an almost incredible way” (100). Much of beauty is dialectical— a sterile opposition of the beautiful and the ugly fails to capture the energy and complexity of art, the intersection of ugliness and beauty. The parts of an artwork often gain in individuality when they are ugly (212), and the quality of a work depends on both parts and whole. In describing Christian art, John Cook comments: “There are visual works of art that are beautiful that nevertheless include the ugly, and without that ugly factor the artwork would not be complete, and therefore not be beautiful” (126). The idea that the beautiful and the ugly are not to be understood simply as opposites transcends the West. The Japanese concept of wabi-sabi draws on Buddhist ideas of impermanence, incompleteness, and imperfection. It elevates artworks with Introduction

elegant imperfections and asymmetries: “Wabi-sabi is ambivalent about separating beauty from non-beauty or ugliness” (Koren 51). Indeed, wabi-sabi suggests not only that beauty is coaxed out of ugliness, but that any dualism of the two is untenable (Juniper 110). Despite the deep interwovenness of beauty and ugliness, ugliness has received only modest attention in the Anglo-American world. In 1977, American literary scholar and theologian John Timmerman observed: “Almost neglected in aesthetic theory has been a concern for what constitutes ugliness” (138). In 1994, Israeli philosopher Ruth Lorand lamented that what stands as the opposite of beauty, its negation, “has hardly ever been discussed in the literature” (Lorand 399). At the turn of the century, British philosopher Frank Sibley, underscoring that ugliness is “of considerable fascination and complexity,” noted that it is “seldom discussed” (190). In 2018, Katy Kelleher observed in The Paris Review: “Ugliness has never been the subject of much scrutiny.” But anyone who has surveyed the German aesthetic tradition of the past two centuries would not find the topic unaddressed, neglected, or seldom discussed. Several studies on ugliness have begun to appear in English.1 Interest has likewise increased in neighboring fields, such as horror studies and disability studies. The time is ripe for a more comprehensive assessment that takes into account valuable insights in other languages and recent contributions in English. The ugly represents promising terrain: it engages elements from which we might otherwise be tempted to avert our gaze, helps us understand the world as it is, and expands art’s critical potential. It opens up avenues of artistic creativity, challenging artists to find ways to blend the ugly and the beautiful. And it expands our receptivity to new and innovative forms.

Overview

Beautiful Ugliness offers readers a conceptual framework for understanding ugliness. Although art can make understandable and available what might be incomprehensible and inaccessible in the form of reasoning, art is also often complex, recalcitrant, and in need of interpretation. This complexity follows from its indirection. In great art, meaning is not self-evident, but must be ascertained through interpretation; this endeavor is often difficult. The interpreter’s task is to be 6

Beautiful Ugliness

schooled in the categories of interpretation, the history of art, including its diverse forms, and the specific diachronic and synchronic dimensions affecting the work under analysis, all of which are prerequisites for a meaningful interpretation. With regard to ugly works, the stakes are raised, for to date we have no vocabulary for the diverse ways in which ugliness is interwoven into beautiful artworks. This book offers readers that vocabulary. Herein I analyze the eras when works of beautiful ugliness were especially prominent. Christianity and modernity play central roles, even if not the only roles, in this narrative. I also consider the ways in which ugliness expresses itself in distinctive forms, including the ways in which the forms emerge over time and across the full range of arts, from architecture to film. Many artworks are beautiful portrayals of ugly subjects, a combination of beautiful form and ugly content that already Aristotle considered legitimate and that we recognize, for example, in Jacques-Louis David’s Death of Marat (1793). We also see the reverse: innocuous content that is presented in a deformed and fractured way, as with Picasso’s odd and distorted renderings of human subjects. Fascinating are cases where ugly content is reinforced by formal distortion. In Robert Wiene’s early Weimar film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), the distorted sets mirror the chaos of the narrative—and the era. Beyond the diverse relations of form and content, we also see a range of ways in which part and whole relate to one another, from works in which ugliness envelops the whole to works that include prominent moments of ugliness, which are nonetheless subordinate within the whole. Part I, “Conceptual Framework,” integrates insights from analytic philosophy, such as the distinction between the object depicted and the properties of the work, but draws primarily on categories from Christianity and from German idealism, which have animated much of my earlier work in aesthetics. Dialectical structures, with their attentiveness to paradox, effectively illuminate beautiful ugliness, including the creative ways in which the organic unity of form and content, part and whole, can be achieved. In chapter 1, “Unveiling Ugliness,” I weigh three definitions: the ugly as what is opposite the beautiful, the ugly as what we find repellent, and the ugly as an appearance that contradicts what belongs to the normative concept of an object. Defining ugliness as the deviation from a valid norm leads to an elaboration of the spheres in which we Introduction

encounter ugliness. I differentiate types of ugliness—physical, emotional, intellectual, and moral—and discuss their combinations. In each case we see an appearance that veers from what should be. For example, ignorance combined with arrogance and a lack of curiosity betrays the human capacity for reason. The ways in which types of ugliness overlap or oppose one another is fascinating. Thersites, for example, “the ugliest man” in Homer, is also intellectually inferior and “without decency” (Iliad 2.214–16), whereas Socrates represents a mixed type, the physically ugly person who has extraordinary intellectual and moral capacities. The relation of physical and moral realms can be especially intriguing, as when a physically beautiful person, such as Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray, is morally ugly. Above all, it is important to recognize the range of spheres beyond the physical in which ugliness can be encountered. I also examine various motivations for including ugliness in art, ranging from empathy and moral outrage to formal innovation and playfulness. Ugliness should not be reduced, as it often is, to physical ugliness, and ugliness can elevate artworks, making them richer and more complex. Chapter 2, “Aesthetic Categories,” addresses the concepts that can help us make sense of ugliness. For example, an artwork about an ugly topic can be beautifully executed. In my account of categories, as in my earlier definitions of ugliness, I emphasize not the production or reception context, as important as these are, but, as Hegel does, the work itself: its content, its form, the relation between the two, and the relation of part and whole. Artwork aesthetics is the driving force in my forays into the aesthetics of ugliness. I distinguish between ugliness and seeming ugliness. In the concept of the seemingly ugly, we recognize philosophical connections to the neighboring field of disability studies and historical connections to what the Nazis called “degenerate art.” Seeming ugliness involves beauty that is difficult to discern and that recipients might be inclined to criticize. However, a seemingly disordered structure may have a hidden logic that requires greater discernment. A revised Hegelian aesthetics is already present in chapter 2. In chapter 3, “Intellectual Resources,” I explore medieval and early modern Christian thinkers, Hegel, and the Hegelians insofar as their work touches on ugliness. The aesthetic contributions of medieval Christians have not been integrated into recent studies, but they offer an enduring, counterintuitive insight. Hegel receives close analysis, for his dialectical approach provides us with rich categories for examin8

Beautiful Ugliness

ing the complex relation of the beautiful and the ugly, even if his own comments on ugliness are not as extensive as those of his followers, the early Hegelians, who vigorously engage ugliness. These thinkers offer intriguing and understudied insights: they analyze the ugly in relation to the sublime and the comic, recognize ugliness as a valuable moment within art, and emphasize the diverse ways in which ugliness is both integrated and negated. These insights, known only to specialists in the history of ideas, can be developed to shed new light also on modern examples of ugliness. Part II, “The History of Beautiful Ugliness,” analyzes the historical, intellectual, and aesthetic factors that led to the prominence of ugliness in diverse eras and offers close readings of selected works. Although one can recognize ugliness along a spectrum, such that it is almost always present to some degree, in a few eras ugliness breaks new ground or is especially prominent. My analyses focus on imperial Rome, late medieval Christianity, and modernity. After recognizing moments of ugliness in ancient Greek literature and in Hellenistic sculpture, I turn in chapter 4, “Imperial Rome,” to the first period of radical and sustained immersion in ugliness, imperial Roman literature, from the death of Augustus in AD 14 until about 200. Here we find an array of factors leading to a deep immersion in ugliness, culminating in the moral revolt of Lucan and the emergence of an entirely new genre, satire, which has, especially in Juvenal, a pervasive interest in decadence and depravity coupled with its bitter indictment. My account of imperial Roman literature culminates in a close analysis of Juvenal’s ninth satire. Chapter 5, “Late Medieval Christianity,” analyzes how deeply interwoven medieval Christian art is with ugliness: Christ’s horrendously brutal crucifixion and the ugliness manifest in human sinfulness. In late medieval Christianity we see Gothic images of Christ tormented on the cross, culminating in the early sixteenth-century Crucifixion by Matthias Grünewald. Moreover, Christianity portrays moral turpitude and the torments of hell, for example, in Dante’s Inferno and Bosch’s paintings. As with imperial Rome, the categories become paradigmatic and enduring: empathy with the suffering individual and portrayals of willful evil persist into modernity, offering two distinct paths to the portrayal of ugliness. Chapter 6, “The Theological Rationale for Christianity’s Immersion in Ugliness,” explores the factors that drive Christianity’s immersion in Introduction

ugliness. First, the gruesomeness of Christ’s crucifixion gives us ample images of ugliness and upends one hierarchy after another, rendering the highest being one with the lowliest of the low. Second, Christianity introduces a new anthropology, with deep recognition of human sinfulness. Christian depictions of moral evil far exceed what we see in classical Greece. Finally, the ugly and repugnant are recognized as transitory and part of a larger tale of promise. To descend into the depths of negativity and ugliness is more palatable if you have the expectation of redemption. Christianity sees suffering as part of a divine plan and so takes us beyond the dying God. In “Historical Interlude,” I briefly survey the mixed reception of ugliness from the end of the Middle Ages to the advent of modernity. In some periods, such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, we encounter little engagement with ugliness, but we see far more interest in other eras, including the Baroque and the early modern. Modernity represents the third dominant age of ugliness and is the focus of chapter 7, “Modernity.” No early twentieth-century writer better illustrates the integration of ugliness into high art than Gottfried Benn, who published beautiful poems about cancerous bodies and corpses. Many contemporaries found these poems abhorrent. Today we see therein a signature element of modernity. Beyond illustrating the prominence of ugliness in modernity, I explore two consistent threads. First, I analyze reversals of idealized female beauty, which effectively mock instrumentalization, reductionism, and dehumanization. Second, I assess the extent to which, even as modernity turns away from Christianity, traces of Christianity continue to surface in works of beautiful ugliness. I also analyze what I call the “paradoxical greatness and crisis of modern art.” To some extent this greatness arises from innovative forms of beauty that integrate ugliness. The crisis appears in the overabundance of two forms of deficient art, both of which have connections to ugliness: kitsch, which assiduously avoids the ugly and to which less educated recipients are drawn partly because of their unease with challenging artworks that integrate ugliness; and quatsch, a term I introduce, as a counterpart to kitsch, to refer to art that prominently integrates ugliness but which lacks aesthetic merit. Chapter 8, “Modernity’s Ontological and Aesthetic Shift,” explores two broad reasons for modernity’s fascination with ugliness. First, modernity rejects the idea that there is an ideal world we seek to understand and imitate in moral activity and in art—and we are left 10

Beautiful Ugliness

with a concept of reality as simply what is. Moreover, the view emerges, and becomes dominant, that our existing world is repugnant, fragmentary, and without overarching meaning. “Ugliness was the one reality,” suggests Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray (3:325). Also contributing to this shift are skepticism concerning religious answers to the problem of evil and a greater eye for ugliness in the world, not least of all industrialization and its effects. Second, transformations in aesthetic values contribute to increasing ugliness. In an aesthetic interpretation of ugly reality, asymmetries and perversions of what is traditionally called “beautiful” may be appropriate. Further, the severing of the link between the aesthetic and the ethical leads to works that celebrate moral ugliness. An analysis of Wilde’s novel, focusing on its seeming ugliness, its submerged religious motifs, and its ambiguities, adds a hermeneutic dimension to my account of modern ugliness. Part III, “Forms of Beautiful Ugliness,” analyzes diverse types of beautiful ugliness. The extensive and diverse relations between the beautiful and the ugly call out for a taxonomy of its types as a basis for critical analysis. The taxonomy works out its distinctions in Hegelian dialectic: horrendous content and ugly form can be interwoven with one another to constitute a higher organic unity, and moments of ugliness can find their truth in a larger arc that both lingers in ugliness and moves beyond it. In part III, I lay out and analyze the different modes in which ugliness can become beautiful. I stress, first, the relation of form and content and, second, the interconnection of part and whole. These two lenses (form and content, on the one hand, and part and whole, on the other) lead in turn to three distinct styles of beautiful ugliness and three diverse structures. In chapters 9 and 10, I analyze two styles that mirror one another, repugnant beauty and fractured beauty. Chapter 9, “Repugnant Beauty,” analyzes the first style: the interweaving of ugly content with beautiful form, as in Thomas Eakins’s The Gross Clinic (1875), a masterful depiction of a surgeon at work, with blood prominent on the canvas. We see in repugnant beauty the skillful representation of an unappealing subject. Repugnant beauty is the most widespread form of beautiful ugliness and can be found in almost every age and culture. In terms of subject matter, such works cover a full range, from physical ugliness to emotional, intellectual, and moral ugliness, in each case portraying what differs from the ideal. The focus on ugly subject matter is often an end in itself, but not always: Käthe Kollwitz’s portrayals of hunger Introduction

and misery, of the poor and disenfranchised have a certain beauty that is designed to widen our sense of empathy, drawing attention to the abject circumstances of our fellow human beings. Such art can be understood as a kind of subversive beauty, for it challenges our everyday sensibilities. In chapter 10, “Fractured Beauty,” we see the reverse: innocuous content that is conveyed via disjointed or fragmented forms, as in Picasso’s various renditions of Head of a Woman. The occurrence of this playful form in premodern periods is uncommon, but in modernity fractured beauty becomes widespread. Such works underscore the partial and fragmented sense of the world that defines modern consciousness. Moreover, as modern art moves toward a kind of antirealism and a focus on form as form, fractured beauty gains ascendancy. Further, fractured beauty contributes to innovation, a category that, along with fragmentation, is very much embraced in modernity. Works that are not only ugly in subject matter but also fractured in form is the subject of chapter 11, “Aischric Beauty.” The third style combines the ugly content we see in repugnant beauty with fractured beauty’s formal ugliness. Drawing on the Greek aischros, a word that encompasses both the aesthetic ugliness of form (deformis in Latin) and the moral ugliness of content (turpis in Latin), I introduce the neologism aischric beauty to capture this third style of ugliness, which encompasses works that are both repugnant in content and dissonant in form. Some works exhibit, paradoxically, a higher unity of form and content. The episodic structure of Arthur Schnitzler’s comedy Anatol (1893) formally reinforces the protagonist’s lack of progress and is in this way paradoxically organic, an example of aischric beauty. In a fractured style, Picasso’s Guernica (1937) depicts the effects of bombing on soldiers, civilians, and animals; the formal distortion effectively matches the horrendous subject matter. In presenting what is ugly, works often integrate dissonant forms, which then serve the work’s meaning and are thus, at a higher level, not dissonant but organic, that is, form and content ultimately cohere. The hidden organic element, turned upside down, offers a new lens to approach difficult works, and it challenges prevailing models of avant-garde art as necessarily nonorganic. Whereas my initial approach to modes of ugliness draws on content, form, and their interrelation, a second and complementary lens asks, To what extent does the work identify with, or distance itself from, ugliness? This question, which focuses on the interaction of 12

Beautiful Ugliness

parts and whole, leads to what I call diverse structures of ugliness. In chapters 12 and 13, I analyze two modes that appear as opposites. Chapter 12, “Beauty Dwelling in Ugliness,” analyzes what I call beauty dwelling in ugliness, a lingering in ugliness without criticizing it in any way and without moving beyond it. Works are characterized by either an indifference to, or an embrace of, ugliness, even though the work itself may be beautiful, as in the early poetry of Benn. Even though beauty dwelling in ugliness increases in modernity, it does surface in earlier ages, including in the book of Psalms. In this chapter, we begin to recognize patterns of frequent overlap, for example, in Benn between repugnant beauty and beauty dwelling in ugliness. In chapter 13, “Dialectical Beauty,” I analyze the second structure. Although ugliness dominates such works, dialectical beauty points to the ugliness of the ugly and so offers an implicit critique. The concept of a negation of a negation as a way of integrating ugliness into art was prominent among the early Hegelians. The mode fits the satiric tradition and meshes nicely with all of what we see in imperial Rome. George Grosz, who presents the corruption of modern Germany in ugly ways, offers a modern example: his artistic portrayals are invariably designed to uncover the ugliness of the ugly. Francisco Goya and Otto Dix use similar strategies: their works negate negativity. Dialectical beauty is in principle possible in all arts, but it is rare in two art forms: architecture and instrumental music. Although dialectical beauty can be integrated with diverse styles, its most frequent partner is aischric beauty. In chapter 14, “Speculative Beauty,” I conclude the typology. Here the ugly, repulsive, or hateful is present, even prominent, but ultimately subordinate within a larger, more complex and organic unity. The term “speculative” derives from Hegel’s elevation of what transcends opposition and negativity, as central as both are within the unfolding of the dialectic. An example is Aeschylus’s Oresteia (458 BC), which moves beyond tragedy. Speculative beauty is most common in literature and other temporal arts, but we find rare, creative instances even in the static arts. In our age, speculative beauty is uncommon. The conclusion articulates the book’s implications and raises puzzles about the ways in which works transcend individual forms of beautiful ugliness. Dix’s postwar works and Francis Bacon’s portraits show how ambiguous works both embody and move beyond the earlier taxonomy. Introduction

Idealism, Aesthetics, Christianity

In my various work in aesthetics, I have tried to combine a more traditional idealist orientation with analyses of modernity. This has involved, for example, developing a new theory of tragedy and comedy by drawing on, but also revising, Hegel’s approach to these genres (Roche, Tragedy and Comedy). I have made the case that an idealist orientation can help us uncover the strengths and weaknesses of dominant paradigms of literary criticism and enable us to grasp the distinct relevance of literature in an age of ecological crisis (Roche, Why Literature Matters). More broadly, I have argued that idealism, specifically the objective idealism we associate with Hegel, can be a rich resource for a range of issues in modern aesthetics (Roche, “Idealistische Ästhetik” and Roche, “Being at Home”). Objective idealism consists of two interconnected ideas. First, objective theoretical knowledge is available to us through reason; not all knowledge comes from experience. Second, this knowledge has ontological valence: the laws of this knowledge are also the laws of reality; that is, the ideal structures we can identify via reason are manifest in the world. Hegel’s entire project was an attempt to ascertain the complex and interrelated set of categories that constitutes the ideal sphere and to analyze the various realms of reality—nature, history, politics, psychology, art, religion, and philosophy—by way of these categories. The logic and Realphilosophie, that is, the philosophy of these various realms of reality, seek to grasp the idea of the absolute and its unfolding presence in reality. Objective idealism has an analogue in the sacramental vision of Catholicism, the idea that the divine manifests itself in this world, that the transcendent reveals itself in finite reality. According to this sacramental vision, humans suffer and sin in their humanity, but they are nonetheless able to recognize God’s continuing presence. Hegel advances a philosophy that has loose similarities with this sacramental vision, just as he shares with Catholicism a dominant interest in the unity of truth. It is not by chance that in Thomas Mann’s novel The Magic Mountain (1924) Leo Naphta calls the Protestant Hegel “a ‘Catholic’ thinker” (Der Zauberberg 535). The two most prominent objective idealists in the history of philosophy are Plato, who attached the greatest importance to the ideas themselves, and Hegel, who, transformed by the revolution of Christi14

Beautiful Ugliness

anity, sought further to understand the presence of ideas in reality. One can be an objective idealist and not endorse the views of other objective idealists; for example, Plato’s disparagement of art as an imitation twice removed from reality or Hegel’s controversial thesis that the age of art is now past and has been replaced by philosophy. Today’s most prominent objective idealist is the German philosopher Vittorio Hösle, who recognizes an array of ways, both systematic and empirical, in which we can improve on Hegel (Hegels System). In his major work, Morals and Politics, Hösle seeks to combine aspects of Hegel’s political philosophy (and beyond that elements of ancient political philosophy, including its elevation of the intertwining nature of morals and politics) with advances in the social sciences and historical developments since the time of Hegel.2 I have tried to achieve analogous results in the realm of aesthetics. One can judge the merit of a contribution in aesthetics not only by its internal coherence and fit within a larger system but also by its heuristic value. My hope is that readers from a range of perspectives, including ones indifferent to, or even hostile to, objective idealism, will find appealing and unexpected insights in these pages. In fact, one of my main arguments is that precisely an idealist perspective opens up new categories with which we can analyze the distinguishing features of modern and contemporary art and literature. With the humanities and literary criticism in particular suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, we must be flexible in weighing viable paradigms, including alternatives to dominant models. Rarely in history has aesthetics been a dominant branch of philosophy, but German idealism was an exception. Schelling and Hegel developed systems of aesthetics, and their engagement with the philosophy of art followed Kant’s turn to aesthetics in his third critique. Hegel’s aesthetics addresses not only the systematic position of art and the relation of the arts to one another but also art’s historical development. Ernst Gombrich, one of the most eminent art historians of the twentieth century, called Hegel “the father of the history of art” (Tributes 51). Friedrich Schiller and Friedrich Hölderlin, who made enduring contributions not only to narrative, poetry, and drama but also to the philosophy of art, also belong to the idealist period. The fascination with aesthetics continued among the Hegelians. Never before or since the era of German idealism and its aftermath has the philosophical world been so deeply invested in the analysis of art. Introduction

This fascination with art is not unique to German idealism. Although Plato is normally chastised for his criticism of art, he is the greatest artist among all philosophers. Plotinus, the last great aesthetician of antiquity, was an objective idealist who saw beauty as a path to the divine. Plotinus suggests, in contrast to Plato, that the object of imitation is not our created world but the ideal itself. The Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, whose works seek to discover objective laws in the world, exhibits, especially in his New Science, a deeper interest in art than any great philosopher outside of the German idealists. He links art and history in ways that no other critic approaches before Hegel. Vico notes, for example, that historical processes of rationalization dilute the emotional richness and poetic mentality that great art presupposes. He also articulates the conditions necessary for the oral tradition of Homer, and in an age that felt repelled by the Middle Ages, he recognized the greatness of medieval literature, in particular Dante. Why would an objective idealist be interested in art? Basic to objective idealism is the idea that transcendental categories illuminate the world; such categories are deeply productive for interpreting artworks. Dialectical structures are relevant throughout aesthetics but perhaps nowhere more visibly than with works of beautiful ugliness. Moreover, art has a profound metaphysical dimension: in art, deeper meaning comes to consciousness via sensuous material. Further, art unveils problems and often anticipates, however unconsciously, however elliptically, answers to these problems: psychology was first introduced through literature, not philosophy, technology was first thematized in art and literature, not philosophy, and great artworks uncover puzzles that remain unsolved. In his poem “The Artists,” Schiller writes: “What here as beauty we’re perceiving, / Will one day as truth before us stand” (Werke, 1:209). Finally, as Schiller emphasized in his essays, art has a mediating and motivational dimension that most philosophy lacks.

eautiful Ugliness interweaves Christianity, Hegel, and modernity. Although much of today’s popular Christian art emphasizes joy and light, at times bordering on kitsch, the best Christian art is anchored in a more complex tradition. Hegel recognized in Christianity a revolution in aesthetics and saw therein a radical turn to negativity.

Beautiful Ugliness

Whether one reads Hegel, as I do, as a Christian philosopher who sought to interpret Christianity in the light of reason, or as the atheistic forerunner to the Left Hegelians Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, no one would contest that Hegel’s education in dialectic emerged not only from idealists such as Socrates, Plato, and Kant, but also from Christianity. Hegel’s dialectical readings of the two central ideas of Christianity, the Incarnation and the Trinity, give ample evidence of this connection. A truncated Christianity surfaces in the contemporary landscape of religious kitsch. Catholic theologian Richard Egenter criticized religious kitsch not simply for aesthetic reasons but also on moral and religious grounds: it desecrates and cheapens the Christian worldview, in which suffering and repentance are central. Simply compare Caravaggio’s Conversion of Saint Paul (1600–1601) or his Calling of Saint Matthew (1599–1600) with kitschy images of religious inspiration, as we see in prettified holy cards and artworks defined more by their positive religiosity than by their complexity, as with Warner Sallman’s religious paintings, for example, Head of Christ (1940), The Lord Is My Shepherd (1943), Christ at Heart’s Door (1942), or The Boy Christ (1944), all of which are significant more for their cultivation of visual piety than for their artistic merit.3 Roger Scruton justly disparaged “the kitschification of religion” (158), which we find not only in the visual arts, but also, for example, in sweet, insipid hymns. The divide between religious subjects and aesthetic judgment is evident in James Elkins’s extraordinary assertion that “there is almost no modern religious art in museums or in books of art history” (On the Strange ix). The claim is hyperbolic, but not without a moment of truth. Much of modern and contemporary art has rejected religion. Elkins, who teaches at one of the largest schools of art and design in the United States, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, observes that religion is rarely mentioned in art schools, except in the context of scandals, as when the Madonna is painted with elephant dung or a crucifix is submerged in urine (On the Strange 15). And much of contemporary religious art is, alas, without formal merit, even if notable exceptions exist. Instead, it tends toward kitsch—ugly and spurious because not appropriate, not true to the concept behind the object. I want to reclaim a concept of Christian art that integrates ugliness. In this book I return again and again to examples that are Christian or

Introduction

that integrate and modify Christian moments. The final structure I explore, speculative beauty, brings together Christianity and Hegel, for it involves as its primary example the Christian narrative, which moves from the ugliness of the Crucifixion to the beauty of the Resurrection. Moreover, the structure embodies what Hegel elevates as the highest moment in the dialectic, the speculative. Works of speculative beauty both integrate and move beyond ugliness. A dialectical sequence is evident in the styles of beautiful ugliness, where aischric beauty, being ugly in both content and form, is the synthesis of repugnant beauty and fractured beauty, the former ugly solely in content, the latter ugly solely in form. The dialectical frame in the structures of beautiful ugliness is more complex. Among Theodor Adorno’s achievements in aesthetics is his recognition of ugliness and dissonance as the central categories of modern art, but one of his limits was his unwillingness to recognize as great any art that does not elevate ugliness or dissonance. A theory that excludes nonugly artworks lacks a nuanced sensibility for the variety of legitimate art. In response to Adorno, I would introduce the concept of “radiant beauty,” which I define as “beautiful art that does not include ugliness or in which the ugly plays a modest role.” Consider as examples Raphael’s harmonious and graceful Sistine Madonna (1512), Vermeer’s luminous and intimate Girl with a Pearl Earring (ca. 1665), or the beautiful creations from nature by German artist Wolfgang Laib or British artist Andy Goldsworthy. If we think of radiant beauty as involving the relative absence of ugliness, then we can recognize a tetradic structure from radiant to speculative beauty. Radiant beauty affirms beauty independently of ugliness. Beauty dwelling in ugliness and dialectical beauty involve deep immersion in ugliness and so could be viewed as two manifestations of an antithetical structure. Speculative beauty is an integrative form insofar as it portrays the negative or the ugly within the work but renders it a meaningful moment within a larger whole. That the antithesis would be split into two is not unusual from a Hegelian framework, given the way in which negativity tends to divide within itself. The dominant category of any antithetical structure is after all difference and multiplicity. It belongs, therefore, to the nature of the dialectic that the middle position itself be split into more than one. For this reason the early Hegel was drawn to tetradic, as opposed to simply tri-

Beautiful Ugliness

adic, structures.4 Whenever an antithesis is broken down into more than one position, whenever the antithesis has itself two or more moments, form mirrors content. What I am seeking in my account of forms of beautiful ugliness is not simply a classification, but a system, a set of relations between the forms. Peter Szondi, one of the best German interpreters of Hegel’s aesthetics, notes that what distinguishes the aesthetics of the German idealists from their predecessors is the search for systematic relations: “The speculative genre poetics of German idealism differs from the pragmatic-normative of the previous centuries not least in the fact that it does not isolate the individual genres and forms, but rather endeavors to determine their reciprocal relationship: only this speculative poetics establishes in the strict sense a system of poetic forms, while one should speak in the case of earlier theories of genre rather of classifications” (292). Alas, theories of genre and of form since Hegel have tended to fall back into mere classification. The attempt to differentiate forms of beautiful ugliness and understand them in relation to one another is the most unusual aspect of my book and borders on the iconoclastic. I am not aware of another author, other than the Hegelian Karl Rosenkranz, whose study was published more than 150 years ago, who seeks in any extensive way to define and analyze types of beautiful ugliness. Such neglect is partly understandable. Critics have moved away from artwork aesthetics and toward production and reception aesthetics, where form plays less of a role; the analysis and development of broad systematic structures has given way to historical analyses and micro-specialization; and work in related fields such as genre studies tends to be disparaged as moving beyond the purely descriptive realm. But if we value grasping not only what makes an artwork distinctive but also how it fits into a wider landscape of forms, if we think that taxonomies, like genre studies, can lead to new perspectives, categories, and interpretive questions, and if we recognize the value of artwork aesthetics, which privileges the relations of form and content and of part and whole, we will naturally wish to learn from such studies. We still turn to systematic thinkers, such as Hegel, to understand a complex genre such as tragedy. Elkins has called on his colleagues in art history to pay greater attention to “systematic concepts” (What Happened 59). A taxonomy has a certain value in and of itself:

Introduction

each style and structure I elaborate merits analysis on its own. Yet the forms also exhibit intriguing relations, and the categories generate questions that can help readers analyze artworks. The identification of new types and categories can be a gain for criticism. I seek not only to invent a taxonomy but to go beyond it by creating a summative understanding of beautiful ugliness. Hegel is a master at recognizing the complex ways in which categories relate to one another, being in some ways opposed to one another and in other ways connected. In that sense he overcomes the binary oppositions common to tradition, including medieval Christian aesthetics, yet he also moves beyond the mere dissolution of opposition, without any overarching unity, which has dominated poststructuralist thinking. Hegel’s categories are crucial in helping us grasp the dialectical relation of the beautiful and the ugly. In fact, of the six forms of beautiful ugliness I explore, two, dialectical beauty and speculative beauty, draw directly on Hegelian categories. In the final form of beautiful ugliness, speculative beauty, ugliness is prominent and pronounced but ultimately absorbed into a larger process in which it plays a part. This form covers much of great Christian art, and Hegel gives us the categorical apparatus to articulate its structure. The aesthetics I am defending, built on an idealist concept of the organic, is not only compatible with ugliness, but it may in fact offer the most creative and compelling way of understanding, evaluating, and appreciating ugliness.5 I seek to explore examples from throughout Western history, but I recognize modernity’s distinctive engagement with ugliness. This, too, is a complex phenomenon, for modernity emphasizes ugliness partly in tandem with a widespread turn away from God. One year after the end of World War I, Max Beckmann, whose works are full of visual ugliness, declared provocatively: “I am done with humility before God. My religion is hubris against God, defiance against God. Defiance, that he created us such that we cannot love one another. In my pictures I reproach God for all that he has done wrong” (Piper 331). Guenther Nenning has gone so far as to suggest that “the history of ugliness can be written as the history of atheism.” And yet many modern artists, including Beckmann, allude to Christianity and to the Christ figure in particular as they portray the victims of moral ugliness. Even as Beautiful Ugliness engages modernity, it draws on, and seeks to advance, an aesthetic tradition that is far from modernity’s 20

Beautiful Ugliness

reigning model. I challenge many common assumptions by arguing for the value of systematic and normative perspectives. I maintain both that rational categories exist for the analysis and evaluation of art and that ugliness can be an enriching dimension of great art. At the same time, I extend Christian and Hegelian thought so as to shed new light on modernity, including its immersion in beautiful ugliness. In order to guard against the potential error of treating only one form of artistic expression, which might present ugliness idiosyncratically, my book moves freely across artistic disciplines.

Introduction