• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
    • Feasts Website
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

On the Objectivity of the Beautiful

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski · June 26, 2014

OME TIME AGO, I published a piece here at Views from the Choir Loft, “Seven Theses for the Evaluation of Music”, which were intended to be short and provocative, as befits the genre (well, Martin Luther’s Theses were more numerous and lengthier, but they still had laconic force against the backdrop of decadent scholasticism). The article created a minor firestorm in the Musica Sacra forum, for which I was truly grateful, as the critiques and questions gave me the chance to clarify my thoughts and formulate them better.

It is easier to see the obvious ends of the spectrum or hierarchy (Mozart = good, metal = bad) than it is to sort out a ranking in between, and I, for one, don’t think it’s necessary to do that. Is Beethoven greater than Bartók? Undoubtedly; but Bartók was a genius too, and worthy of time and effort. Is Bartók greater than Babbitt? Absolutely―there’s not even a competition there. What about certain styles of popular music? They are as inferior to the great composers (of our age and of every age) as the crude singing style of a rock star is to the sublime vocalizations of an operatic singer, the apogee of human vocal development. I’m not a relativist or a subjectivist about truth claims any more than I am about the objective reality of human nature and the natural law, and I think that anyone who is consistent will see that, however much leeway is allowed for taste, nevertheless the beautiful, like its companions, the good and the true, is not merely subjective, but is based on objective criteria that already point us towards the divine.

My wife is a painter and iconographer, and I have enjoyed looking at her many books, both of great artists and of artists teaching how to paint, and listening to her discerning comments. There are definitely concrete things that make a painting great, from the combinations of colors and textures to the hard or soft edges of shapes to the overall arrangement (e.g., centered vs. off-center), to the vanishing point and you name it. I think something exactly like this is true for all of the arts, including music. Palestrina and Bach, for instance, are great not because they just happened to cough up inspired music, as if in an irrational spasm, but because their minds and hearts were beautifully attuned to the microcosmic and macrocosmic principles of harmony and rhythm. You can get a lot of different styles of beautiful music from these principles, but they are real and they are not created by man―they are discovered, internalized, embraced, and made fruitful.

It is so easy in our age, governed by the dictatorship of relativism, to subjectivize the arts altogether, as if artistic excellence were nothing more than a matter of taste. What’s at stake in this debate is nothing less than our need to undergo a radical conversion of intellect and will towards the beautiful, which is part and parcel of our salvation, and maybe even, in some sense, a precondition for it (and certainly a result of it―in different senses). Far from being merely a matter of taste or cultural conditioning, the nobility of the works of fine art is an attribute they possess, a reflection of the Divine, and a privileged path that leads man to God. Conversely, bad art, art unworthy of its vocation, mediocre and crass art, etc.―and there is indeed such a thing―lead men away from God and even from the dignity of their own nature.

So, to my mind, there is a lot at stake. I am content if I can stir up a debate that may cause people to think about the relationship between music and their immortal souls, but I’m resigned to the fact that, with music especially, lots of folks will merely dig in their heels, cross their arms, and say: “Fooey on you, I’m not interested in thinking about music―it’s all about feelings.”

HERE’S ONE CLARIFICATION WORTH MAKING. I have a large collection of music scores and recordings and enjoy the work of many, many composers (including a number of the “minor” ones listed above). Obviously if I thought that only Bach’s or Mozart’s music had worth, I wouldn’t lift a pen to attempt to compose my own music. But when I do write a piece, as unworthy as I am of this great tradition, I nevertheless strive to say something in continuity with it, inspired by it, and almost as an offering to it as well as to God and His people. And I see that to be true of the mentality of most of the great composers―they know themselves to be within a tradition and they defer to it and trust it, even while they innovate. The loss of a profound sense of belonging, imitation, and gratitude is a kind of mortal sin in fine art, and I think it has much to do with the rampant relativism of judgment that surfaces the moment anyone dares to suggest that there is something in the music of (say) J. S. Bach that transcends time and establishes a measure of the greatness of music.

I don’t think there can be an argument with a person who holds that all beauty (or all judgment of beauty) is merely subjective, any more than there can be with a person who maintains there is no truth, or that the good is solely determined by my appetites. As Aristotle says in Book IV of the Metaphysics, arguing with such a person is like trying to argue with a vegetable―no progress can be made, because the first principles of reasoning are being denied.

Aristotle, like his master Plato, was arguing with the sophists of their day, who denied that there was truth or that truth could be known and spoken. In our day, the problem has become particularly acute: moderns have an almost innate anti-philosophical bias, an irrationalism that is ill-suited to patient argument and disputation. So the Scholastics like St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure, through no fault of their own, end up badly off in a modern setting. As a teacher, however, I can say from much experience that if you take a classroom of young people with open minds who are willing to learn, then Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas (among others) will take them very far into an understanding of the mysteries of nature and of faith―not in order to “prove” them, which is impossible, but to delight in their mysteriousness all the more, to revel in their beauty, and, most importantly, to live righteously according to their lofty demands.

All great art is straining and pointing towards transcendence and ineffability (this is why I so love the music of Sibelius and Arvo Pärt, as different as they are: each is a prophet of the Absolute, a pilgrim of the yonder, one who utters boldly the unutterable). As a result, the principles that make art great cannot be reduced to a handful of finite formulas; one cannot merely “connect the dots” to generate a masterpiece. But this in no way cancels out the reality of objective principles that stand behind the works of fine art and serve as criteria for judgment. Perhaps it’s the word “objective” that offends, suggesting as it may a kind of detached and disembodied perspective, but granting the inadequacy of our existential situation and the non-ultimacy of our judgments, we do have potent intellectual equipment for this work of discrimination and valuation, which we first learn by sitting at the feet of great artists and soaking in the beauty they have revealed to us.

Please visit THIS PAGE to learn more about Dr. Kwasniewski’s Sacred Choral Works and the audio CDs that contain recordings of the pieces.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

A graduate of Thomas Aquinas College (B.A. in Liberal Arts) and The Catholic University of America (M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy), Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is currently Professor at Wyoming Catholic College. He is also a published and performed composer, especially of sacred music.

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    Why A “Fugue” Here?
    I believe I know why this plainsong harmonizer created a tiny fugue as the INTRODUCTION to his accompaniment. Take a look (PDF) and tell me your thoughts about what he did on the feast of the Flight of Our Lord Jesus Christ into Egypt (17 February). And now I must go because “tempus fugit” as they say!
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    New Bulletin Article • “12 October 2025”
    My pastor requested that I write short articles each week for our parish bulletin. Those responsible for preparing similar write-ups may find a bit of inspiration in these brief columns. The latest article (dated 12 October 2025) talks about an ‘irony’ or ‘paradox’ regarding the 1960s switch to a wider use (amplior locus) of vernacular in the liturgy.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Reminder” — Month of October (2025)
    Those who don’t sign up for our free EMAIL NEWSLETTER miss important notifications. Last week, for example, I sent a message about this job opening for a music director paying $65,000 per year plus benefits (plus weddings & funerals). Notice the job description says: “our vision for sacred music is to move from singing at Mass to truly singing the Mass wherein … especially the propers, ordinaries, and dialogues are given their proper place.” Signing up couldn’t be easier: simply scroll to the bottom of any blog article and enter your email address.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    “American Catholic Hymnal” (1991)
    The American Catholic Hymnal, with IMPRIMATUR granted (25 April 1991) by the Archdiocese of Chicago, is like a compendium of every horrible idea from the 1980s. Imagine being forced to stand all through Communion (even afterwards) when those self-same ‘enlightened’ liturgists moved the SEQUENCE before the Alleluia to make sure congregations wouldn’t have to stand during it. (Even worse, everything about the SEQUENCE—including its name—means it should follow the Alleluia.) And imagine endlessly repeating “Alleluia” during Holy Communion at every single Mass. It was all part of an effort to convince people that Holy Communion was historically a procession (which it wasn’t).
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Canonic” • Ralph Vaughan Williams
    Fifty years ago, Dr. Theodore Marier made available this clever arrangement (PDF) of “Come down, O love divine” by P. R. Dietterich. The melody was composed in 1906 by Ralph Vaughan Williams (d. 1958) and named in honor of of his birthplace: DOWN AMPNEY. The arrangement isn’t a strict canon, but it does remind one of a canon since the pipe organ employs “points of imitation.” The melody and text are #709 in the Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Did they simplify these hymn harmonies?
    Choirs love to sing the famous & splendid tune called “INNSBRUCK.” Looking through a (Roman Catholic) German hymnal printed in 1952, I discovered what appears to be a simplified version of that hymn. In other words, their harmonization is much less complex than the version found in the Saint Jean de Brébeuf Hymnal (which is suitable for singing by SATB choir). Please download their 1952 harmonization (PDF) and let me know your thoughts. I really like the groovy Germanic INTRODUCTION they added.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Random Quote

“In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things.”

— Vatican II Council

Recent Posts

  • Why A “Fugue” Here?
  • “Three Reasons To Shun Bad Hymns” • Daniel B. Marshall
  • “Puzzling Comment” • By A Respected FSSP Priest
  • New Bulletin Article • “12 October 2025”
  • “Reminder” — Month of October (2025)

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.