I was interested to see the BBC getting out its sophisticated costume the other night to offer a temporary escape from the relentless drivel on TV in the shape of a slightly pompous Roger Scruton waxing philosophical on the nature of beauty.
With some invoking of philosophy – Kant, Plato – the odd sprinkiling of the ghouls of yesteryear propped up with an attempt not to sneer excessively, he managed to come across as not unreasonable. Beauty to him was defined as something that wasn’t defined by use, but that aesthetics spawned use rather than the other way round. His main focus was art and architecture, with a brief sidestep to music at the end. It was a bit too brief to really get into the detail, but I thought it raised a decent question about attempts to define value.
While value in terms of how ‘good’ art or architecture is will always be subjective, I think there is a hint that aspirations are changing. Not easy to define, but I do find myself put out by the fixation on cheap celebrity, often at the expense of anything challenging and interesting, anything that broadens the mind. Money is king these days – and however loudly you can spend it.
Maybe I’m on my way to becoming snivelling and bitter, but I do wonder how the next generations will be inspired or engaged. Things seem to be heading for the dystopia of Fahrenheit 451 – gormless wall to wall TV, books banned as they are considered dangerous as they might actually inspire ideas.