The political critique of beauty is composed of two distinct arguments. The first urges that beauty, by preoccupying our attention, distracts attention from wrong social arrangements. It makes us inattentive, and therefore eventually indifferent, to the project of bringing about arrangements that are just. The second argument holds that when we stare at something beautiful, make it an object of sustained regard, our act is destructive to the object.
Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just (p. 58). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
In this journal I’d like to talk about Scarry’s defense of sensationalism. As the quote above suggests, Scarry feels as though beauty is under political fire and argues that these “… arguments against beauty are incoherent” because they confound the act of viewership with the act of condoning. I think that, in theory, this is a fair point of view. Artists should not feel the need to censor themselves because of their fear of how their art might be misinterpreted to be influence. However, I think this argument ignores the very real and diverse audiences that view art. Specifically, I think of the show/book Thirteen Reasons Why which addressed adolescent suicide. The show claimed to be bringing awareness to the issue and no “reifying” the issue. However, as cinematic presentations often seek to, the show ended up aestheticizing/beautifying the issue. As the target audience for this show was teens (who do not have fully developed brains— especially regarding decision making) the show ended up influencing teens suffering from depression to carryout their suicidal ideation. Scarry says that this is illogical and an attack on beauty because the subject matter does not inherently suffer from being made beautiful. However, she neglects to consider that what is often being made beautiful is suffering. In this way, I believe that Scarry’s argument is wholly theoretical and does not actually consider the commercial society that art has to exist within.
