Version: 0.3 (work in progress)
Last Updated: 2024-12-13
I believe that the justification of art is the internal combustion it ignites in the hearts of men and not its shallow, externalized, public manifestations. The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but is, rather, the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity.... [W]e are rapidly and quite properly learning to appreciate the elements of aesthetic narcissism - and I use that word in its best sense - and are awakening to the challenge that each man contemplatively create his own divinity. —Glenn Gould
As the French scholar Pierre Hadot uncovered in a series of works published in the late 20th century, the ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία means the personal love and practice of wisdom. In the same spirit, I propose that we resurrect the word φιλοκαλία to identify the personal love and practice of beauty.
The true purpose of philosophia is not to change the world, nor to theorize abstractly about the world and human experience; instead it is, being drawn toward what is most wise, to change oneself for the better. Similarly, the purpose of philokalia is not to pass aesthetic judgment, nor to theorize abstractly about the nature of the arts and aesthetic experience; instead it is, being drawn toward what is most beautiful (kallistos), to craft the finest works of art one can.
Just as philosophia involves both excellences of character and excellences of mind, so philokalia involves excellences of craft. These are not hard-and-fast rules but high-level principles that artists can flexibly apply to their chosen art-forms and genres. Here we might take a cue from Aristotle, who identified six core aspects of beauty:
Principles like these from Graeco-Roman civilization formed the humanistic bedrock of the Italian Renaissance with its enormous achievements of beauty in all the arts.
During the German Enlightenment, the founders of aesthetics (e.g., Christian Wolff and Alexander Baumgarten) summarized many of these factors under the rubric of harmony or perfection, by which they meant unity in variety (exemplified, for instance, by the music of J.S. Bach).
Subsequent aesthetic movements have proposed many additional or alternative principles of artistic creation, such as Louis Sullivan's concept of "form follows function" and the modernist practice of aesthetic parsimony. All of these might be worthy of deep consideration and application in pursuit of beauty.
But isn't there only one true conception of beauty? No. Although small-minded traditionalists might dismiss anything that isn't conventionally pretty, beauty can also be strange, new, unfamiliar, stark, fierce, calm, empassioned, vibrant, joyous, tragic, hot, cool, intellectual, earthy, ecstatic, terrifying ("the sublime"), asymmetric (as in much East Asian art), etc.
The key insight here is that the love and practice of beauty is not the monopoly of any particular aesthetic movement or school, just as the love and practice of wisdom is not the monopoly of any particular intellectual movement or school. Too often, the focus on aesthetic and philosophic "isms" has obscured the underlying unity of purpose inherent in the pursuit of beauty or wisdom - which, paraphrasing Duke Ellington, is "beyond category."
In philosophy, the aim of wisdom is self-mastery and self-knowledge, rooted in an existential commitment to live an examined life and pursue truth wherever it may lead. In aesthetics, the aim of beauty is artistic mastery and self-expression, rooted in an existential commitment to live a creative life and give birth to beauty in all of its forms.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all understood that the love of wisdom begins in speechless wonder and ends in the serenity of pure awareness. As Glenn Gould recognized, the love of beauty can lead to a state of wonder and serenity, too. Indeed, philosophia and philokalia seem to be two complementary roads to experiencing the divine aspects of human existence, as the priestess Diotima taught to Socrates long ago in Plato's Symposium.
The love and practice of wisdom steers a middle philosophic path between simplistic self-help and useless abstractions. Similarly, the love and practice of beauty steers a middle aesthetic path between popular entertainment and an avant-garde whose works are too often deliberately ugly or meaningless. In both cases, the middle path can be more lonely and difficult, but ultimately it is more fulfilling.
The foregoing is the merest précis of philokalia. A more complete exposition would spell out at least the following factors:
Clearly this would be a huge undertaking that must involve aesthetic creators in all the arts as well as scholars versed in philosophy, psychology, anthropology, art history, musicology, and so forth. Quite literally it would be the work of generations. But we must start small or not at all...