Malevolent/Benevolent Universe Premise In Art

An analysis of how an artist's universe premise defines the subject of his art and how it will look. And what is the unique value of art that originates from a benevolent universe premise.

“The benevolent universe premise is the view that the universe is open to man’s achievement and success - that the achievement of values and the enjoyment of happiness are the natural states, the norm, the to-be-expected.” [1]

(Crucifix, Cimabue, 1265)

A “universe premise” is like wearing glasses with a particular tint. When seeing reality from a malevolent tint, the bad things will immediately pop, the bad will always be the center of attention, and the goodwill rarely is or ever be noticed. When wearing a benevolent tint, The good and the positive parts of life will pop, and the bad will not be the center of focus. The meaning of holding a benevolent universe premise is that one always starts with the positive, with what can be done, and what could go right and not what could go wrong—combined with a rational and a reality-oriented approach to life.

When looking at a work of visual art such as painting or sculpture, one of the first things that may be visible to the viewer is the artist’s implicit universe premise - his view of the nature of life on earth. For example, suppose a painter from the medieval era portrays man as an ugly monstrosity, standing in an unnatural, uncomfortable, and even torturous position. In that case, you can tell what the artist thinks about life on earth. Is suffering the accidental or the norm? Can values be achieved? To what should one aspire -- escape to the afterlife or happiness on earth? From looking at the painting above, you can find the answers to these questions.

Throughout art history, there was a mainstream trend toward either side: Benevolent or malevolent universe premise. What determines the direction of the trend is the prevalent metaphysical view, i.e., the most fundamental attitude and ideas regarding life on earth. Generally speaking, the Greeks held a naturalistic, this-wordily attitude. The Greek gods were a natural phenomenon and not a supernatural one. The gods couldn’t bend the laws of nature and logic. As a result of these beliefs, there was no fear of God. This unique metaphysical view gave birth to the first benevolent universe premise culture in human history. In the aesthetical realm, this benevolent view of the universe was captured by the magnificent portrayal of Greek gods in what remnants of Greek sculptures we have. In the medieval era, the view was the complete opposite of the Greek (as the painting above shows). The renaissance was a revival of Greek values and traditions. This was apparent in the art, which was once again this-worldly and man-centered. When we get closer to the 19th century, the border between the benevolent and the malevolent artworks begin to become blurry. Some artists held an idealistic view of man, some went back to the malevolent medieval view of man, and some didn’t want to show any view of man - they were naturalistic, i.e., They didn’t aim to show us any specific view of man, they didn’t want to project any moral judgments in the art, they simply wanted to show us the subjects that they were painting as the subjects were in real life. The choice of which part of reality they painted still implies a view of life on earth. There were some benevolent-leaning naturalists, and there were malevolent-leaning or even completely malevolent naturalists who chose only to show us the ugly, the unimportant, and the bad sides of life.

Great value could be gained from a benevolent, idealistic work of art. It could give man vital emotional affirmation and serve as inspiration. A benevolent, heroic work of art can motivate a man to go out and achieve his values. On the other hand, a malevolent, pessimistic work of art can have the opposite effect. It could discourage man and make him want to give up. I’m not arguing that no value could be gained from a malevolent piece of art, but if what you are looking for in art are motivation and emotional affirmation, then try to focus on positive, benevolent idealistic works of art. 

I shall now give you some examples from different European painters from the late 18th and early to mid-19th Centuries. When looking at these paintings, please try to pause and contemplate some of the questions I raised above in the second paragraph. 

English Romanticism

(John Constable, The Hay Wain, 1821)

The Hay Wain is one of the most well-known British pictures from the romantic era. John Constable (1776-1837) grew up in these sceneries, and he loved them. There’s a great sense of nostalgia in his painting, a longing for a return to nature, a longing for a simpler way of life. These were common ideas in the European romantic movement. This painting is benevolent because it shows a positive of man’s life. It focuses on nature’s beauty. Man can live happily in harmony with nature. The women drawing water from the river also implies a harmonious relationship between men and nature. 

(J.M.W Turner, Calais Pier, 1801)

Whenever discussing seascape (a subcategory of landscape), J.M.V Turner (1775-1851) is sure to appear. The picture above shows a storm arriving, causing panic and hysteria across the pier. Small fisherman’s boats are drifting into the open sea with their helpless fisherman desperately trying to retain control, but the waves are too strong. In the background, we can see one sail almost touching the sea. This is a horror scene. 

The small boats are nothing compared to the strength of the waves. This scene will surely end in some disaster. The selection of such a scene implies that Turner holds a malevolent universe premise. He chooses to focus on an emergency situation in which men are overwhelmed by nature. 

Neoclassicism

(Venus and Adonis, Antonio Canova, 1794)

Neoclassicism was a significant art movement that flourished around 1790-1840, mainly in France. It was not only a movement in painting or sculpture but a substantial movement in fashion, architecture, music, theatre, literature, and more. The main idea was a return to classical ideals of beauty. Idealization and dramatization were the key elements. When men were the subject, they were presented as heroes, as an idyllic version of themselves. All imperfections of the human body were erased, and the beautiful parts of the body were idealized. 

If a man is shown as able and beautiful, it means that he is capable. It means that the universe is open to his achievements. This could be clearly felt in the sculpture above. I would argue that Neoclassicism was the last significant art movement that almost entirely originated from a benevolent universe premise. All the art movements that followed in the 19th century, such as Romanticism and Impressionism, were mixed in that regard, and from the 20th century to the present day, art has been mainly malevolent. 

Realism/Naturalism

(View of Ornans, Gustave Courbet, Mid-1850’s) 

The mid to late 19th-century “realist” art movement is considered a reaction to the romantic movements of the early 19th century. The idea of showing an idyllic picture, not of life as it is, but as it could or should be, is what the realists were attacking. Great art, according to the realists, is about daily life, about the ordinary. What universe premise does Courbet portray in the picture? Many arguments for either answer could justifiably be given.

Some may say that the mere fact that Gustave Courbet (1819-1877) here is only showing us a typical view of an ordinary French village implies a malevolent universe premise. The banality of Courbet’s many paintings implies that he is seeking the boring, the ordinary instead of the out-of-ordinary. And that mere fact alone could indicate that he is coming from a malevolent universe premise. On the other hand, some may argue that the fact that nothing bad is happening here and that Courbet is painting the village in a somewhat positive light indicates a mild benevolent universe premise. There is a third option:

It could be said that there is neither a malevolent nor a benevolent universe premise here; what Courbet and other realists tried to do was to show reality as it is, and therefore, they were not creating true art according to Ayn Rand’s definition. She defined art as: “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” [2] In Courbet’s painting, there is no re-creation of reality. There is a selective creation of reality. But there is no re-creation, or it’s at the bare minimum. A selection which is a crucial aspect of art has indeed been performed, it is also limited, but there was a selection regarding the subject, the structure of the composition, perspective, and other aspects of selectivity. But Courbet here attempts to perform with paint brush what a photographer does with a camera. He captures reality precisely as it is from where he stands. It is not a hyperrealist painting, and therefore I wouldn’t want to say that this is not art; I do believe that there is a minor aspect of a re-creation in the color work and the composition. And, out of respect to Courbet’s contribution to art history, with which he served as an inspiration to other great artists in the impressionist movement. Yet, the declared attempt here is to mimic reality as it is; therefore, it is at least not “full art.” Because this is not a proper artwork, the question of a universe premise might not apply here. The lack of a universe premise is a primary reason why the main emotional reaction people may get from the works of Courbet and other realists such as Millet is boredom.

Why does it matter? 

(Bonaparte Before the Sphinx, Jean-Léon Gérôme,1886)

If a work of art doesn’t project either a benevolent or a malevolent universe premise, It loses its ability to evoke emotions and provide man with the strengths that great works of art can provide. One of the crucial roles of art is evoking feelings and thoughts in man, either positive or negative. When looking at the marvelous sculpture mentioned above by Canova, people may be reminded of their romantic partner. They may want to go and interact with their partner with the great passion that is portrayed in the sculpture. When looking at the Hay Wain, one may get a sense of nostalgia. Good childhood memories could be evoked. What emotions can the Courbet painting create? If any arose, it would be Peacefulness and other natural emotions. 

If you are looking to incorporate more art into your life, to live a more beauty-oriented life, go and look for works of art that show positive values being pursued, works of art that capture a certain sense of life, a specific emotion. Only pieces that tick these boxes can genuinely provide you with the powers that art can provide. I believe there is also value in malevolent works of art because they tend to be interesting and powerful. But if you are looking only for that unique emotional affirmation that art can provide, then be on the lookout only for art that comes from a benevolent universe premise. 

---

[1] - “On Ayn Rand”, Chapter 11 - Allan Gotthelf.

[2] - “The Romantic Manifesto”, “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art” - Ayn Rand