VOLDEMORT OF SANTA SUSANA

(In direct connection with this entry, see also my entry Truth As An Unlikely Cinderella, in the Philosophy section, posted on my blog on January 20^th, 2011, as part of the mega-entry The Mystery Of Things, which basically touches upon the same philosophical issue.

This entry raises the intriguing question of a possible correlation between beauty and goodness, or an absence thereof.
I must note, however, that I approach the subject differently from the famous dispute between the romantics and the utilitarians, which puts the question this way: Which is of higher value: the useless beauty of a tiger, or the ugly usefulness of an earth-worm? I have no interest in the outcome of the contest between romantic aestheticism and matter-of-fact pragmatism. On this noteworthy subject I would like to refer my reader to the genius of the Russian poet-fabulist Ivan Krylov, who adapted the fables of Aesop and La Fontaine into the distinctive Russian context, but also wrote his own original fables, which have become part of the gold reserve of the Russian folklore. His particular fable The Dragonfly and the Ant, after Aesop’s and La Fontaine’s Grasshopper and the Ant, serves as a good example of this philosophical polemic.)

During our healthy regular walks in the beautiful Santa Susana Hills, north of Los Angeles, my wife and I have been discovering a variety of rocks, shaped like people, or animals, or some other delightfully fanciful creatures, this effect greatly enhanced by the unusually soft and pliable nature of soapstone, as if they have been touched by the hand of a genius sculptor.

We have given them all special names and always greet them like old friends. Not all of them are pleasant fellows, however. One is a particularly macabre creature with a snake-like nose and thin slits for the mouth and the eyes. We have called him Voldemort, after J. K. Rowling’s half-human monster, who has reduced himself to a half-life, by continually splintering his soul, to prolong his existence virtually indefinitely.

This Voldemort figure thus raises an interesting question. Can something ostensibly “evil” have a positive aesthetic value, worthy of being admired?

Before we answer this question, let us consider the opposite proposition: Can something ostensibly “good” produce an aesthetic shock, that is, be so hideous that we must instinctively shrink from it. What about the hairy tarantula or the blood-bloated tick, or one of the most repulsive creatures on the face of the earth, the hyena? Aren’t they all God’s creations, and didn’t God Himself, having created the world with all of these eyesores included, see that “it was very good?”

It may be hard for us to admit this in principle, but real-life examples are plentiful that not all that is good is also beautiful. And conversely, some things which are breathtakingly magnificent, and can be sincerely and honestly admired as such, may have been guilty of all mortal sins in the courthouse of political correctness. Thus, political correctness absolutely forbids anyone to admit, for instance, that the flag of the Third Reich was a thing of striking beauty. Or that Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will was a thrilling glorification of a despicable and criminal regime. Luckily for all music lovers, the Damnation of Wagner, through the guilt by association, did not kill the aesthetic sense of the post-World War II humanity. A large debt of gratitude is owed, in this case, to the aesthetic excellence of the post-Holocaust Jewish musicians, who would never give up on Wagner, just because Der Führer had loved him above all other composers of music.

…Our Voldemort of Santa Susana is a recognizable monster, and whatever associations with Harry Potter’s nemesis are to be made there, rest assured that they are! And yet, we admire the aesthetic perfection which our rock monster possesses, and, with this in mind, we say, Hello, Voldemort! or See you later, Voldemort!, each time that we see him.