(1/2021) "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," or so we are frequently told and pressured to believe. We are frequently encouraged to consume and approve of "beautiful" art that, if only a few decades ago, would have been considered hardly worthy to hang on a wall. More than that, we are forced to view repeated incursions of shock art, bland and exaggerated styles, and a general lack of order across almost all forms of art commonly presented. One need only view any modern design website to view firsthand how this phrase has affected visual arts such as architecture, painting, and even drawing.

Although there are many such modern attempts to portray ugliness as beauty, there are solid principles and qualities within art that make the presence of it objective rather than subjective. To truly be beautiful, something must reflect some degree of aesthetic substance that is found pleasing to the human eye. We see this naturally in many paintings, particularly of the older masters, which accomplish this through forms, color combinations, proportions, or similar tactics. In many romanticist and impressionist works, for instance The Angelus and The Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog, it is these aesthetic methods that convey the intended emotional effect to the viewer. The same object must also possess order in some degree, which can be expressed in various ways. Some artists of the past utilized clear central points to their designs, others naturally paired color schemes, others employed lifelike perspectives. Regardless, from Liberty Leading the People to The Starry Night, one can clearly see these elements of unity in paintings, and in architecture, examples such as the Neoclassical and Colonial styles relied on near perfect symmetry. Finally, visual art must display some aspect of the presented scene to the viewer, which can bring about a variety of feelings related to the theme. Even in paintings centered on morbid or uncomfortable subjects, this factor appears.

The final, and yet perhaps most significant of these *qualities, is uniqueness in some degree or other. Just as every being in creation is in some way or other unique and experiences a unique life suited for them, so also must a work, to truly be art, possess some uniqueness of form and presented message. Spanning the wide variety of visual art disciplines, within most individual schools and styles, individual works each have some sort of unique flair to them. Victorian homes differ in coloring and trim, for example, while even neoclassical paintings have differences in the structures of figures. These minute differences, spread within portions of the world of visual art, complete the necessary foundation for an object to be labeled as true art. It must possess, in the objective sense, an aesthetic display, order and form, unity, and individuality. With this defined clearly, artistic beauty cannot be "in the eye of the beholder," but rather determined by a firm set of characteristics to qualify.

In fact, a variety of displays in modern times have unfortunately been promoted as beautiful art, when they are nothing but the alternative, an "anti-beauty" so to speak. These pieces are not only devoid of the qualities that make something beautiful, but intentionally designed to reflect the opposite. Consider, for example, the origins of the visual art style known as "shock art." Though comprised of a variety of contemporary expressions, the style itself is engineered to sow discomfort, replace beauty with ugliness, and present an image of disorder, all hidden under the false guise of social commentary. In the case of Duchamp’s Fountain, quite literally a repositioned urinal with the name of the artist inscribed on an edge, this distinction is obvious. Though presented as art, and considered by some to be beautiful, purely out of the idea that beauty is subjective, it cannot be so. The repositioning of the object itself renders it absent of order or form, which combined with the lack of any aesthetic elements presented to the viewer and the absence of any theme or uniqueness beyond the mundane, the Fountain cannot be considered beautiful in any way. In fact, as with most other shock artistry, the logical interpretation of the piece is that of an anti-beauty, with a deliberate intent to present distaste and insignificance to viewers.

This "anti-beauty" has hardly remained contained to only pieces deliberately intended to offend the aesthetic senses of the average man. Especially in modern times, styles of art have been designed for this same purpose but masked and on a larger scale. The brutalist architecture often employed for government buildings, office buildings, and similar institutions, was designed to appear soulless and devoid of all artful quality. With minimalist construction, no decoration, odd proportions, and cold or dissimilar colors, nothing remains in the style to satisfy aesthetic needs, but rather offend them. The same is true for the avant-garde styles of the early twentieth century, such as the cubist or abstract schools, the core principles of the movements being to violate traditional notions of art and beauty, removing all elements of art and replacing them with intentional chaos and pointlessness. The nature of these works can be demonstrated through the fruits of them. While art, in the actual sense, produces satisfying feelings and encourages admiration, such works that can hardly be aesthetically deemed art cause confusion and aimlessness in thought. It is possible even to state that the unconscious mind can determine art, feeling at peace when viewing works that possess the proper qualities and feeling deep worldly anxiety when exposed to works that are meaningless. No matter how often ugliness is touted as beauty, the two can never be the same, and the matter is hardly subjective.

Perhaps therein lies the reason behind our modern ills. The human mind is undoubtedly susceptible to the influence of the aesthetics that surround it. True art can evoke positive feelings and dispositions in mankind, while imitations or outright opposites of true art can produce an equal opposite effect. When surrounded by beauty, we unavoidably feel the worldly peace of it. Is that not the reason why visitors are so attracted to classically designed cities from the old world or the new, where aesthetically artful designs were constructed through architecture and gardening? One need only look at the most revered cities and locales to explore the reality of this. Historic districts are often more attractive to the populace precisely because of their aesthetic organization, with unity of architectural styles, consistent colors, unique structure and design within those elements, and more than that, a thematic expression of the individuality of the local culture. Perhaps it is a return to such artful design that society desperately requires in this modern age. After all, should we not have an opportunity to live surrounded by manmade beauty that reflects the natural beauty present in creation?

Without a doubt, whether through the aesthetic principles behind a work or the effect related by them, the reality is that beauty is not "in the eye of the beholder," but rather entirely objective. It must possess unity, uniqueness, order, and a firm presentation of substance applicable to aesthetic realities, and if those are present, a positive effect will undoubtedly result. Such are the realities of artistry. As uncomfortable as it may be to consider that beauty is not necessarily within our personal choice, modern and past realities prove it as such, leaving little choice but to reasonably assume such a statement.