Objective Standards - Is beauty absolute or subjective?

Filed in Music Philosophy on September 24, 2009



You are likely to run across music experts who are going to tell you that good music is beautiful and beauty is objective. 

As I said early in this series, I am comfortable buying into the argument that there are objective standards of quality in music.  But the objective beauty theory is different.  I am not buying that one.  Not at all.

Any matchmaker will tell you that it is a good thing that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  My wife is beautiful to me and I'm sure practically everyone she meets.  But in other cultures or time periods, perhaps not so much.  She is petite, and in other strange times and places, petite was not considered beautiful.  Don't ask me to explain that one.

And of course, that is only one example.  A rocky canyon is beautiful to some and an eyesore to others.  A painting can be the same way.  For that matter, so can a clay pot.

This rather obvious observation does not apply to just beauty.  It is true of anything that is subjective.  For example,  I like Mexican food.  Others don't.  And with all due respect to my new Scottish friends, you can eat all of the haggis you want, but I will be most happy if I never eat it again.  (I actually don't know that you guys eat it either; you just make Yankees eat it so you can laugh at them).  I will however, be glad to eat your fish and chips very often.

Music experts that believe in objective beauty call those of us who believe otherwise musical relativists.  That is on a good day.  On a bad day, they call us Pelagians and unorthodox.

Now, I want to stop here and say something that is important.  The fact that I think that beauty is not objective does not mean that I think that all music is good, healthy, and appropriate for a church service. 

But it does mean that I do not have to accept that a certain piece of music is beautiful just because a musical expert tells me so.  It does mean that a African-American can legitimately like their native music more than they like Western classical music.  And it also means that just because I don't care for a particular style of music, that does not mean it is ugly.

Next time you run across the "beauty is objective" argument, ask for the specifics on what makes music beautiful.  You probably won't get an answer.  Probably the closest you will get to specifics will be references to the Common Practice Period (Western music development over the last few centuries).  I have never met a proponent of objective beauty who would choose the music of any other time period or culture as the standard of true beauty.

If they are right, it certainly makes you feel sorry for the people who lived before the Common Practice Period and the people who are not part of Western civilization.  Neither apparently had or will have the opportunity to experience truly beautiful music.

By the way, when you are told that the Common Practice Period is where we should look for beauty, ask which part.  That is because the perceptions of beauty changed even during that period.  As I have noted before, much of what we consider consonant and beautiful today would have been considered dissonant and ugly only a few hundred years ago.

As you can probably tell, I am a little more passionate on this particular topic than others and I know that many reading this will disagree with me.  In many cases, regardless of the disagreement, we probably draw musical lines in the similar places.  There is a reason for that which I will get to in the next post in this series.


Will you do me a personal favor?
If you use Facebook, please take a moment and comment on this post. I appreciate the feedback and doing this helps other people learn about my resources. Non-Facebook users can leave comments using the alternate form below.


Rich Toole
9/24/2009 10:39:56 PM

Two comments here Greg.

First, is it a problem to say that there are objective standards for quality but not beauty. Is that inconsistent? I think it may be.

Second, I would guess you value beauty. You talk about making music beautiful rather than technically impressive all the time. How do you know what beauty looks like?

---

Greg
9/24/2009 11:01:23 PM

Hi Rich, good points...

Look at it this way. Let's take practically any piece of art music. In many cases, it will be very intricate and well developed with lots of attention to detail. People that know music would recognize its quality. But those same people will disagree on its beauty. Objective standards for quality are not set in concrete but best practices have been developed over centuries of progress.

The same cannot be said for beauty. The idea of beauty has changed many times over the same period.

Yes, I believe in beauty and value it over technical aspects of music. But I do see beauty in a relative way. In other words, I try to play in ways that I consider beautiful but understanding that others might not agree.

---

Josh
9/25/2009 10:40:54 AM

Spot On!

---

Paul
9/25/2009 2:18:56 PM

I'm interested to hear how you escape the realm of subjectivity and objectively determine what is good, healthy and appropriate for a church service.

---

Greg
9/25/2009 2:43:59 PM

Paul, you don't escape subjectivity on these issues. Never. However, that does not keep you from making decisions on what music you think belongs in a church.

As I mentioned before, appropriateness and association are fine reasons to reject music in a church. These reasons also are usually subjective.

For sure, I support the right of church leaders to reject music in their church for subjective reasons. But I do think it is important to acknowledge that they are subjective. If we all admitted this, wouldn't the debate about music be a lot more civil?

---

Paul
9/25/2009 2:56:11 PM

Have you read the article on beauty by Michael Harding on the website you won't mention. If the reasons are merely subjective what gives church leaders the right to reject anything? I think the debates would be even more bitter.

---

Greg
9/25/2009 3:22:54 PM

I am missing something here Paul. You have the right to make subjective decisions all day. We all do about everything from clothes to food to what time to go to bed. A leader of the church has the right to decide what music he wants based on his opinions, subjective as they are.

If everyone admitted that musical choices were subjective, where would be the debate at all? A church could just do what they believed was right without feeling the need to condemn other churches that drew lines in other places.

I am most comfortable in places that have conservative music but also admit the subjectivity involved and avoid an attitude of condemnation toward the church across town that might be more progressive.

---

Paul
9/25/2009 5:42:59 PM

If you tell me, as someone under your leadership, that the music I like will not be used even though you have no objective reason for excluding it, I don't think I'm going to be too happy about it. In other words, it would seem to me that the logical response to the belief that there is no way to objectively judge between different types of music would be to include all types as much as possible. So yes, there would be no debate if everyone agreed that music decisions are subjective and nothing should therefore be excluded. Do you think that all musical expression is beautiful in God's estimation? If so, you should hold that as an objective truth. If not, you should try to develop an understanding of God's standards to the best of your ability. Since we are not infallible and are brothers in Christ, we should be humble and loving in our disagreements as difficult as that often is for us.

---

Greg
9/25/2009 8:28:30 PM

Paul, for a church to work, you have to deal with disagreements on subjective matters, understanding that there is no rule book that spells everything out. Submission and humility are necessary. Every church will have rules that are subjective that people will submit to even when they disagree.

You also have to learn to deal with the reality that we do not have objective standards for everything including music. We are not robots and I am positive that God appreciates more diversity in music that many of us believe.

It may not be comfortable for many to live that way, but you have no choice. You can turn over rocks looking for God's authoritative rulebook on music for the rest of your life, but you will never find it.

It does not exist.

---

Paul
9/26/2009 2:34:35 PM

I'm not too interested in rock and rollin' or rollin' over rocks, Greg. The thought that what you just said is just subjective and has no authority behind it does help me not become upset by it. Guess there's no more need to debate any of this with you. By your own criteria everything you are saying is just your unauthoritative opinion.

---

Jim Morrell
9/26/2009 10:00:36 PM

Paul, you are missing the point of what Greg is saying. Greg clearly believes that 1) music tastes are largely subjective and that is OK; not everything has to be objective, 2) there is no shame in admitting that one's tastes are subjective, 3) it is dishonest for one to claim that they know objective specifics about music when they are really relying on culture preferences, and 4) it is normal and feasible to have convictions or church standards based on subjective standards.

Surely, the fact that Greg admits that some of what he says is opinion is not a reason to discredit what he says. I read this blog because he clearly knows more about music than many music experts and presents a more balanced and truthful picture of music than they do. Conservatives need people like Greg who are not scared of truth rather than the old-school conservatives who hold to indefensible positions

I am a conservative, but I am not threatened as you seem to be by the fact that he points out problems in the conservative movement. As you know, he is a conservative too. His music is sold in my college bookstore which is as conservative a place as you will find.

I agree with what he is trying to say in many ways to you. You need to learn to get comfortable with the fact that there are decisions that do not have to be made based on objective truth. And you have to learn to get along with people and serve in churches and under leaders who will have differing standards that are subjective in nature.

---

Paul
9/27/2009 3:21:17 PM

Jim, I appreciate you trying to straighten me out. I disagree with you and Greg though. There is an objective truth about music - in particular as to how it relates to Christian worship. I don't claim to have it all figured out by any means. I do think that we as Christians are responsible to try and understand what pleases God by studying scripture and interacting with our world using our reasoning ability and Bible based presuppositions. Some of this dispute may be due to us talking past each other. I don't think this objective/subjective framework is all that helpful really. Our starting point for understanding life is the Bible. It explicitly and implicitly informs us how to evaluate all things. I think this includes music. Now, it is obvious that we Bible believers are not always going to agree. Not all of what the Bible teaches and its implications are equally clear nor are we all equal in our ability to understand it. We also are sinners and that hinders our ability to apply the Bible properly. I am really pretty comfortable with people coming to different conclusions about what the Bible teaches. I try to understand what they are saying - I just might learn something. It may be that the implication of God's revelation to us is that music is neutral. I'm not persuaded that is the case. I think music itself can have moral significance. It is very hard to define. It makes me think of the person who said that he wasn't sure how to define pornography, but he knew what it was when he saw it. I guess what I'm saying is this "music choices are subjective" approach doesn't work in my opinion for a Christian worldview. If your knowledge about music is subjective, then you really have nothing meaningful to say about it. One person likes chocolate, another vanilla. If however, you are saying that you believe it is true that music is neutral, then say so and give your reasons. And please, quit with the ad hominem arguments about conservatives. Saying they are proud, arrogant, dishonest, stupid, out of touch, etc. is not a proper way to discredit their beliefs. I apologize for this long comment. I promise it is my last on this site. Au Revoir.

---

Greg
9/27/2009 3:56:57 PM

Jim, FYI, I have no real problem with Paul. I do think we may be talking past each other. But I sense the biggest difference between us is how comfortable we are with the belief that music tastes and perceptions of beauty are at least somewhat subjective.

I think there is a real fear of the idea of music tastes being subjective because of what we see in postmodernism (where nothing is objective). This fear can lead to an overreaction to the point where beliefs are classified as objective that really aren't. As I said, I can understand why this happens. In fact, I am sure I am the same way in many areas.

Regarding conservatism, I will repeat something I have said before. I am conservative, but conservatism is not my goal. Truth is. There is no doubt in my mind that some people are chasing conservatism at the expense of truth.

Paul, thanks for your contributions. My only concern about you is that you seem just a little too sensitive about this issue. I really don't know what to make of that, but I wonder why you cannot dialogue without getting so upset. And by the way, no one is being unfair to conservatives here. Your comment on ad hominem attacks is far off base.

---

Josh
9/29/2009 1:53:24 PM

Greg,

Are you saying that NO objective standards of music exist, and that the standard of the church is solely up to the church leadership?

---

Greg
9/29/2009 2:40:10 PM

This is a very complicated issue Josh. The easiest way to explain what I think is that there are objective standards for music but they are unrelated to personal taste or cultural preferences.

In heaven, there will be perfect music. That means that by definition, an objective standard exists. It is very hard for us to know what it is though I suppose we have a good start in figuring it out.

There are commonly accepted good practices in composing but even those are debated. People argue everything in music. Give me an expert with an objective standard and I can probably find an equally qualified expert who will dispute him/her.

But yes, there is an objective standard for quality, even though I do not know anyone who knows what it is.

But on the other hand, we have to accept that God created different cultures and people with different likes/dislikes. Some might consider Bach with its rational movement to be objectively superior while others might appreciate the emotional content of Chopin more. And someone else can like simple folk music better than both of them.

We all agree that none of these people would be wrong. Tastes (including perception of beauty) is subjective.

This differentiation between quality and taste is important.

Some would say that we need to change people's tastes to conform to objective quality. This is dangerous for several reasons.

As I said before, I believe that a church can and should judge music on association and appropriateness. However, good godly people disagree when you get to specifics in these two ares. Rather than calling one right and one wrong, I call the conflict the result of subjective tastes, assuming that both godly people are at least somewhat influenced by preferences.

---

Josh
9/29/2009 2:45:14 PM

Thanks for clearing that up. I think another difference should be made between music for entertainment and music for worship. There are musical styles that I enjoy, and would never introduce them in a church service. Similarly, volleyball, while it is a perfectly suitable form of entertainment, has no place in a worship service.

---

Greg
9/29/2009 4:58:09 PM

Josh, exactly. Dance music (romantic) might be fine at home with a wife but I have hard time finding it appropriate for church. There are numerous studies that show how music communicates. Music that communicates in ways that conflict with the message or the setting should be avoided. Of course, there will be honest disagreement in application, which is why I would consider the actual decisions on a particular song to be somewhat subjective. I am going to discuss this very soon in more detail.

---

Joseph
10/2/2009 3:37:30 PM

I just briefly looked at this discussion. If I may I'd like to give a "case in point." I grew up in the Midwest - Iowa to be exact - going to an Independent Baptist Church. I grew up singing songs strictly from the Sword of the Lord hymnal and from Majesty Music/Patch the Pirate. It wasn't until I went to college in Florida that I heard of "Southern Gospel" music. Also, since graduating from college I have had the opportunity to travel and visit literally hundreds of good churches around the country. I currently serve as the music pastor for an Independent Baptist Church in North Carolina. During my last trip back home to Iowas, in visiting the church I grew up in, the pastor, who I grew up with, commented about being uncomfortable with the music being produced from a particular fundamental Christian college. I, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem with their music. If I were to go back to Iowa and teach that church's choir some of the songs that my choir in NC sings, I would be "thrown out." It's not a matter of the music being wrong, it's a matter of taste & preference. Byron Foxx explains it this way...There is a lot of variety in what is acceptable, Christ-honoring Christian music. I don't want right a book so I'm going to stop here.

---

Charles
10/24/2009 10:06:11 PM

This is a very interesting discussion, but on such a big question, with great implications for our philosophy of ministry, don't we need to bring scripture to bear?

---

Randy
4/20/2011 11:51:21 AM

"Next time you run across the "beauty is objective" argument, ask for the specifics on what makes music beautiful. You probably won't get an answer."


With all due respect, this statement is flat out untrue. There ARE established standards of beauty to be found in literature going back to the writings of the ancient Greeks. Just because you discoved a few inarticulate people who cannot explain themselves very well doesn't mean that such literature doesn't exist. I don't think that it is inconsistent to say that beauty has both objective and subjective components. Just because one or two people (like yourself) happen to be a unique individual that happens to disagree with what the majority of us finds beautiful doesn't mean that objective standardas of beauty don't exist for the most of us. One or two exceptions do not disprove a general rule of thumb, now does it?

Case in point; this article talks about universal objective elements of physical beauty:


http://www.femininebeauty.info/ethnic-comparisons/beauty-elements

---

Leave a Comment
All comments are reviewed for offensive content or spam. Your email is required but never used.

Name:
Website:
Email:
	Please email me follow up comments to this post.
Comment:	Note that HTML is not allowed, but your name will be linked to your site.
Verify Code: