What could it be that makes beautiful art beautiful? What is it that makes a person say, “This is beautiful, and that is not,” and how can two people disagree on which is which? Can there be an objective standard behind what makes a work of art truly a work of art? In this brief essay, I will explore the great sculptor Rodin’s thoughts on this question through his conversations with the author Paul Gsell that were published in 1984. What might the essence of beauty be, and can Rodin forge a pathway through a combination of his thoughts and work for humanity to see this essence?

In one of their early conversations, Rodin expressed his thoughts on beauty & ugliness in art to Gsell saying, “There is nothing ‘ugly’ in Art except that which is without ‘character,’ that is to say, that which offers neither outer nor inner truth. The ugly in Art is that which is false; that which is artificial.” Rodin argues that artists create ugliness when they lie. However, is not a significant swath of political art purely propaganda that helps to inculcate a false sense of belief in the state? Do artists of these imperial statues and paintings commissioned by the state (paintings of Napoleon, sculptures of Augustus in the Roman Forum) intentionally depict these leaders in not the truest sense to help promulgate this belief in the state? And if this is accepted as true, would we say that those statues are not beautiful? Maybe Rodin would suggest these are not beautiful works of art (although I do not think he would because of his appreciation for ancient Greek and Roman sculpture), but most would not. This is not to suggest that most people are art critics to be revered more than Rodin–not at all. This is only to suggest that even Rodin, one of the most renowned artists of all time, also has difficulty expressing what makes beautiful art beautiful.

But maybe Rodin is actually correct. On the counterargument to this point of “false beauty is sometimes beautiful,” maybe those false statues of Augustus and Constantine and other revered leaders of history would be even more impressive had they expressed the reality of the people they sought to depict. Maybe the artists or statesmen who decided that they needed to look differently from reality actually were mistaken, and the people would have gained more from the statue had the face and form been that not of a god but of a man. And to this point, the Romans, unlike their Greek predecessors, were known for their depictions of reality in the faces of their sculptural busts: wrinkled lips, sullen eyes, facial deformities: these were seen as that which needed to be depicted for a real Roman sculpture. And maybe that inner need to depict truth was an innate connection with that which is beautiful and a desire to express it. As Rodin declared, “There is only one beauty, the beauty of truth revealing itself.”

Beauty is an eternal question, but it appears that the depiction of truth, the depiction of real human sentiment and being, the depiction of the sentiments of the soul, is innately beautiful. Humans connect with these depictions and call them beautiful, even if at first they are difficult to observe because of one’s desire that these depictions of truth be kept locked away under a false guise. Rodin’s desire, through his sculpture, to tear away that guise and reveal only solid bronze statues of the soul’s inner being might just be why we call Rodin great. Rodin’s art, and art in general, might give life meaning not because it seeks to be beautiful but because it seeks to be true.

-Charlie, January 2024