The Quest for Aesthetic Perfection

The following is an excerpt (first draft) of an article I am writing. The article’s title is “Better than New: Reflections on Wabi Sabi as a Metaphor for Christian Perfection.”

The Greek ideal of beauty is tied to Platonic philosophy. With this, the goal is to conform an object to an ideal form. A carpenter making a beautiful, “perfect,” chair is then attempting to reproduce the idealized form of a chair. His skill as a craftsman is understood in terms of how closely he is able to conform his creation to that ideal chair. Since the ideal forms cannot be perceived, the standard for perfection is unavailable for judgment, and the imperfection of a creation becomes, in essence, an act of faith. In the eighteenth century, this understanding began to be challenged with J. G. Sulzer and Immanuel Kant, who taught that beauty did not necessarily imply perfection. However, even with Kant, there is still a serious attempt to see beauty as an objective quality, not simply subjective, so a form of idealism persisted.7 The Greek ideal for beauty/perfection could be thought of as otherworldly and superficial. It is otherworldly since the standard is something that does not exist in the world we live in. It is superficial, because beauty is limited primarily to perception – something that is quite literally skin deep. Such a metaphor of ideal forms could be said to be seen used for the animal sacrifice among the Israelites, and the Bride of Christ as described in Ephesians 5. However, I Samuel 16:7 reminds as to the limitations of lessons one can draw from this metaphor since God values more what people are unable to see, and that appearance (beauty) can misinform as to character.

In time, the quest for a flawless perfection became questioned further in the West. As John Ruskin noted in the 19th century.

…imperfection is in some sort essential to all that we

john_ruskin_1863
John Ruskin, Art Critic (1819-1900)

know of life. It is the sign of life in a mortal body, that is to say, of a state of progress and change. Nothing that lives is, or can be, rigidly perfect; part of it is decaying, part nascent. The foxglove blossom,—a third part bud, a third part past, a third part in full bloom,—is a type of the life of this world. And in all things that live there are certain, irregularities and deficiencies which are not only signs of life, but sources of beauty. No human face is exactly the same in its lines on each side, no leaf perfect in its lobes, no branch in its symmetry. All admit irregularity as they imply change; and to banish imperfection is to destroy expression, to check exertion, to paralyse vitality. All things are literally better, lovelier, and more beloved for the imperfections which have been divinely appointed, that the law of human life may be Effort, and the law of human judgment, Mercy.

Accept this then for a universal law, that neither architecture nor any other noble work of man can be good unless it be imperfect…” 8

Returning to the Bible, flawlessness is not the only aesthetic view. Another is commonly seen in the Old Testament. It has been described in different ways. One way could be an “aesthetic of natural abundance.” This term follows the logic of Gerald Downing who recognizes that natural abundance is not merely a utilitarian appreciation, but also an aesthetic evaluation.9 The Israelite nation was primarily an agrarian society, and so were tied to the land economically. But there is more than this. This writer was raised in an agricultural community and can attest that members of that community can see a large sow with a dozen piglets, or an apple tree straining under the weight of its fruit as objects of beauty. As Yeshua Ben Sirach stated, “The eye likes to look on grace and beauty, but better still on the green shoots in a cornfield.”10 The Hebrew Bible has much appreciation of natural abundance. Psalm 65 would be good example.

Much like the aesthetics of idealized forms, the aesthetics of natural abundance is used at times to point towards ethical holiness and a form of perfection. An example of this is Psalm 1 where a righteous, godly person is compared to a well-watered tree whose leaves never wither, and produces abundant fruit. Isaiah 58:11 speaks of the righteous as being as a well-watered garden. The aesthetics informs the character of the righteous. Berleant and Carlson note that this sort of “environmental aesthetics,” as they describe it, has a quality to it quite unlike an aesthetics based on static ‘flawless’ perfection. Beauty seen in the form of living abundance has an “engaging, inclusive, dynamic character.”11

7Alexander Rueger, “Beautiful Surfaces: Kant on Free and Adherent Beauty in Nature and Art” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16(3) 2008: 535-557, 535-536.
8 John Ruskin, “The Stones of Venice, Volume II” Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30755/30755-h/30755-h.htm, p. 171-172.
9 F. Gerald Downing, “Environmental Beauty and Bible” Ecotheology 7.2 (2003), 185-201, 193-195.
10 Ecclesiasticus 40:22.
11 Quoted by Downing, p. 199.

“Wabi-Sabi” Redemption

Some time back I had written on the metaphor of “Kintsukuroi” with regards to the Christian Faith… particularly our understanding of humanity (theological anthropology). I noted that in the Japanese pottery artform of “golden repair,” beauty is seen in the accentuation of the repairs rather than the hiding of repairs. The making of beauty out of destruction is a redemptive act, and demonstrates the true skills of a master craftsman.  If you want to see those posts, click below. Both are good, but the 2nd post contains my theological perspective of the metaphor. :

Kintsukuroi Faith: Beautifully Broken. Part 1wabi-sabi-pot3

Kintsukuroi Faith: Beautifully Broken. Part 2

But one could see the artform of kintsukuroi as being based on an aesthetic viewpoint known as “Wabi-sabi.” (Do not assume I am an “artsy” person. I am not. But I do love a good metaphor.) Pulling a little bit of Wikipedia:

Wabi-sabi represents Japanese aesthetics and a Japanese world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is “imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete”

For many of us, our aesthetic is guided, often unconsciously, by the Greek ideal. Beauty is seen in:

  • Symmetry and “flawlessness”
  • Conforming to some ideal (unnatural) form
  • Unchangingness

These ideals not only affect our aesthetics, they affect our theology as well. I have previously noted two “attributes” of God in Christian theology that seem to be based more on Platonic thought than on Biblical revelation. I believe this has led us to a very mistaken picture of God.

. These are the Immutability and Impassibility of God. (See post HERE)

3dd08c524a3615036ef880b51577025c

It seems as if God finds beauty outside of Platonic Ideals. Of course, in Greek thought, the natural world was bad or flawed, while the spiritual world is good. Although, the New Testament utilizes the metaphoric contrast of the carnal and the spirit, it is clear that Paul is not rejecting creation. God created a wild, diverse, amazing, ephemeral-transient world in Genesis 1 and described it as “Very Good.” God created man “in His own image.” People like to argue what that means. But what is inarguable, is that mankind has diversity of size, looks, hues, and gender. As a child, I remember having a Bible story book and in it, there was the story of Adam and Eve. In the book, the it said that God created Eve and Eve was the most beautiful woman in the world. I suppose in Genesis 1 that would have to be true. But in the book, they had a picture of Eve. She had the look of a 1950s ideal for beauty (a la Ava Gardner and Grace Kelly) including 1950s style make-up. My suspicion is that neither Adam nor Eve would be considered particularly appealing or photogenic today. Their “beauty” is found in their unique “imperfections” that God gifted them with. That should be comforting to us. Redemption would be bringing us in line with God’s ideal for us, not our own ideal.

While we promote certain looks as ideal or beautiful, God sent His son having nothing in His looks to draw special attention to Himself. Jesus suffered mutilation at the hands of the evil and ignorant, but when God raised Him up, He left Jesus with the scars of His ordeal. It seems as if the disciples were more convinced of the power of God demonstrated in these scars than they were by Jesus’ transfiguration.

“My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. 10That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. II Corinthians 12:9-10

You might argue that this passage does not relate to “wabi-sabi” and I suppose you are right. But it certainly does not line up with Greek ideals or Roman virtues either. It seems to me that we can draw a bit of “wabi-sabi” into our understanding of redemption. (Note: there are aspects of the philosophy of wabi-sabi that I am not promoting. I am simply noting that aspects of it may be valuable to consider in our faith.)

God created us as limited, diverse, transient, imperfect beings. Our redemption is not the negation of those things, but the fulfillment of our creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully made, and I believe heaven will be full of people who share one thing in common– an absolute failure to conform to our present ideas of perfection.

God’s work in perfecting us, is a redemptive act of making us what we were meant to be. But what we are meant to be is far different than what we think is perfect.

tumblr_mo4xkpga7n1su85gro1_500