PDA

View Full Version : What Is Beauty?



Constantinus
Friday, June 17th, 2005, 01:20 PM
I don't mean what you find beautiful yourself, I mean: what happens when we notice something and decide it is beautiful? Is it a caracteristic of what is observed, or of who is observing it?

discuss (I am undecided, but I do notice that certain characteristics are widely seen as beautiful, by most individuals)

TisaAnne
Friday, June 17th, 2005, 03:48 PM
Beauty is both objective and subjective... in a material, physical object, beauty can be found, but also exists in the asomatous realm of the mind; in thought and idea, in emotional perception. One does not necessarily have to 'see' something in order for beauty to be established or percieved, for it lies all around in everything from a strand of beach, a melody or in a feeling, etc. And though there are certain pre-concieved understandings of what is beautiful, or widely accepted by most, there is no regualtion or exclusivity of the opinion, as people see things in an entirely personal light. Beauty is not fact, it is opinion.

What I think is beautiful, may not be what someone else feels and that is what makes it such a wonderful opinion... the variety and non-comformity. If everyone thought only flowers, sunsets and pretty faces were objects of beauty... what a boring people we would be!

The Mathematician finds his beauty in numbers, the composer finds it in musical notation, the surgeon in the satisfaction of patching up a torn wound, the writer in words, etc... For some, beauty is symmetry and for others it is chaos and destruction, so there is no definite rule for what is beautiful, and what is not... it is just a cause and reaction that each person processes completely different. So, for one to say: "this is beautiful, because...", only works for the person who thought this, and those who agree. It is not universal, and if it were... the word would have no meaning or value whatsoever.

Beauty has no rules, and that is probably the most beautiful thing of all and the freedom that comes with judging something to be worthy of that title only makes it more so.

Sl ring om Norge
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 09:41 AM
What is beauty?
Visual beauty is some of the first I think of. Balanced and harmonized components. Could be a pretty girl, a symphony, an Italian car, or a place in the woods. Could even be a gold-card or a wellfilled refrigerator...

:redrose

But what is beautiful with humans?
I do certainly not mind a pretty face and a well propotioned body, but real beauty, to me, comes from inside, and among such qualities I find beauty in
humans through

- clear eyes
- using ones talents,
- honest strive to evolve.
- daring to be curageous,
- ablilty to empathy,
- humouristic sense and selfcritics,
- a clear mind

Probably something imortant I have forgotten...I`ll look after it today...;)

What do you think? What is beauty to you?



"... think beautiful thoughts, say beautiful words, and do beautiful things..." - Zoroastr

goldgrube
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Humans are given the aesthetic sence to pick healthy mates from not so healthy ones.

In men beauty is associated with masculine features. Testosterone reduces the effect of HGH (human growth hormone, which promotes health), and only males with very good health (good genes, alpha males) can afford to produce testosterone in such amounts. Thus healthy men develope attractive facial features and have better chances of passing on their genes. The fittest survive etc.

Same for women:
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1851/0

There is a correlation between inner and outer beauty. Truly beautyful people seldomly posess bad inner qualitites. Only very few ones with extremely developed aesthetic sence see the difference between -- as I put it -- a truly beautyful person and a person with a wellgroomed face. On average you need no more than 4 seconds to draw a complete psycological picture of a person (approachable, kind/aggresive, even intelligent...) just by looking at his face.

Jack
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 01:42 PM
What is beauty?

The only thing that matters in the world.


But what is beautiful with humans?

Virtue, balance, proportion, strength, truth, honour.

QuietWind
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 01:58 PM
I'll add just one for now......

putting others before yourself

That is beautiful, in both males and females. Someone who can set aside their own selfish desires and let others be first. Whether it is holding the door to let someone else pass first knowing that they will then be first in line and you will have to wait longer.... or if it is making sure everyone else is served the meal first and has enough..... or allowing someone else the chance to speak without feeling the need to cut them off and get your own words out...... or letting the car in the merging lane in before you, even though they may be slow. Anything that puts another first. :)

Sl ring om Norge
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 03:17 PM
The only thing that matters in the world.


Virtue, balance, proportion, strength, truth, honour.
Knightly virtues.., but some would however maybe not understand the beauty of Truth?


I'll add just one for now......

putting others before yourself

That is beautiful, in both males and females. Someone who can set aside their own selfish desires and let others be first. Whether it is holding the door to let someone else pass first knowing that they will then be first in line and you will have to wait longer.... or if it is making sure everyone else is served the meal first and has enough..... or allowing someone else the chance to speak without feeling the need to cut them off and get your own words out...... or letting the car in the merging lane in before you, even though they may be slow. Anything that puts another first. :)

:kittycat My cat did something very beautiful on a rainy Sunday, he gave away his dinner to another wet cat, that he insisted should be taken in. He really teached me a lesson...

Jack
Friday, February 17th, 2006, 01:06 AM
Knightly virtues.., but some would however maybe not understand the beauty of Truth?

Sure, some might not. Truth in two senses, both effectively the same thing. Truth to one's self - one's basic sense of the good (God, honour, forefathers -IMO) - and truth with regards to the world. Not merely knowing what is true, but the knowledge that truth is a useful hypothesis - but the virtue of truth also consists in having the will to do away with knowledge demonstrated wrong. Proportion and balance are the physical sides of beauty :thumbup Beauty is also the truth of one's being - one's highest aim, highest desire, greatest desirable potential, incarnated in physical form.

Bridie
Saturday, June 17th, 2006, 07:13 PM
What do you think? Is human interpretation of "beauty" a social construct?

I tend to believe that largely, it is. The basis for my point of view is my belief that form in the physical world tends to be symbolically interpreted among humans. The implication of this is that all judgements we pass tend not to be directly concerned with the subject or object in question itself, but concerned with the characteristics or feelings that they evoke in, or represent to, the individual. Yet, as we are all products of our cultures/societies to a greater or lesser extent, but still inescapably so, individual assessments will always be dictated or at least influenced by one's social environment.

For example; tanned skin may be seen among some human groups as denoting socially popular/trendy virtues of being active, "outdoorsy", sporty, fit, healthy.... so it would follow that people who find these qualities desirable would also find tanned skin attractive.

On the other hand, pale, untanned skin may be seen as denoting a person who is more concerned with intellectual, artistic, academic or passive pursuits, and may thereby be judged as beautiful to those who value these qualities to a greater extent.

In this example, skin pigmentation, or lack thereof, may be symbollic of qualities of active v's passive; physical orientation v's intellectual orientation; traditionally masculine qualities (active) v's traditionally feminine qualities (passive), etc.

It is any wonder that pale, white skin was considered the height of feminine beauty in days past when men were still men and women were still women, so to speak (adhering to conservative roles)?? With the mainstream deconstruction of traditional concepts of gender we can now see more "male" characteristics being valued and appreciated as "beautiful" in females, and more "female" characteristics being valued and appreciated as "beautiful" in males (particularly vanity, I think, which was not too long ago largely frowned upon in men, yet is now even encouraged!!).

Could it be a mere co-incidence too, that in many Asian cultures pale, white skin is still seen as the height of beauty for women, when intellectual pursuits and ambitions for people and traditional roles for the sexes are still to a greater extent than in the "Western" world held in high esteem?? The beauty, skin whitening products so popular in Asia are not so different in concept to those that were used among the upper classes in the "West" in older times....
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/13/asia.whitening/

Anyway, this whole skin pigmentation thing is only one example.

So what do you think?

Moody
Wednesday, June 21st, 2006, 05:49 PM
Is human interpretation of "beauty" a social construct?

This begs the question: for if it is an "interpretation" as you say, then it must be a construct of some kind.
However, we do not only apportion beauty to humans, we apportion beauty to the whole of nature.
Therefore, while beauty may be an interpretation, it is not a complete human construct, as it is found in nature [although we cannot know if birds find bird-song 'beautiful' as such, for example].
So there is an argument that says: what we call beauty already exists in nature.


For example; tanned skin may be seen among some human groups as denoting socially popular/trendy virtues of being active, "outdoorsy", sporty, fit, healthy.... so it would follow that people who find these qualities desirable would also find tanned skin attractive.

I would make a distinction between the "attractive" [which means physically/sexually attractive] and the Beautiful [which implies the platonic perfection of form, and needn't be sexual in any way].

My basic position is that 'beauty' denotes the striving [by men] towards the perfection in form; something that may never be achieved, but the closer to it we get, the more beautiful we sense that striving to be.

This sense of perfection is racially and culturally specific.

Bridie
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 02:56 AM
This begs the question: for if it is an "interpretation" as you say, then it must be a construct of some kind.
How could beauty ever be anything other than an interpretation? A rose is a rose, and does not become beautiful until someone labels it as such. And even then its only beautiful to the one who is judging it. Another person may not think it to be beautiful at all.... which leads me to the topic subject.... its my belief that the rose would be considered beautiful, or not, by an individual depending on what the rose (the colour, form, smell of it etc) represents to them.

I argue that beauty is symbollic. (Actually, I believe that all form is symbollic, full stop - created as a representation of the spiritual. But that's another story altogether. ;) lol ) And as such, is a social construct, as individuals in a common society or community belonging to a common culture will often perceive/judge form in a similar fashion due to such interpretations being learned, not congentially inherent.



However, we do not only apportion beauty to humans, we apportion beauty to the whole of nature.
That is irrelevant. Whether beauty is being apportioned to a human being or an inanimate object, it is still subjective.



Therefore, while beauty may be an interpretation, it is not a complete human construct, as it is found in nature [although we cannot know if birds find bird-song 'beautiful' as such, for example].
Nature may be the subject of beauty, but it will always be deemed as such by a human. Otherwise it is not beautiful. It just is.


I would make a distinction between the "attractive" [which means physically/sexually attractive] and the Beautiful [which implies the platonic perfection of form, and needn't be sexual in any way].
Attractive simply means 'something/one which attracts something/one. Think of magnets. ;) Sexual or physical are only two types of attraction. There is also intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, spiritual etc etc. Beauty is different altogether, because it denotes aesthetic appreciation, but not necessarily any attraction. One may find something beautiful, yet not be attracted to it.



My basic position is that 'beauty' denotes the striving [by men] towards the perfection in form; something that may never be achieved, but the closer to it we get, the more beautiful we sense that striving to be.
Then how would you explain so many people finding "imperfection" the most beautiful of all? I personally find "perfection" (total order) cold, personalityless, unendearing, uninteresting. It can't be beautiful in my eyes. This is what perfection symbolises to me.... to you it may mean something different and therefore you could find it subjectively beautiful. See what I mean?


This sense of perfection is racially and culturally specific.Subjective you mean? ;)

Tryggvi
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 05:35 AM
You are right, Bridie, that beauty is partly subjective. But not entirely. If beauty would be entirely in the eye of the beholder, there could be no term for it. Every human being has a concept of beauty of which the term "beauty" is the sound figure. And in order for such a concept to exist, every human being must have a natural comprehension what beauty is, because it cannot be defined by other means than recursion. So it can't be a social construct.

Beauty embodies in general something that is pleasing to the senses or the intellect. As every human being has a natural comprehension of pleasure, every human being can comprehend beauty.

Everything that is beautiful is pleasing. We have a motivated interest in pleasure, but not a motivated interest in beauty, though, i. e. we can find things beautiful which we do not desire and which do not interest us at all. An organo-ruralist Heathen can find an urban cathedral beautiful.

That means that while the pleasing is (in the last consequence) entirely subjective, beauty isn't. A judgment about beauty has both a subjective and an objective character. Kant called it "uninterested pleasure." So it is definitely something, as Moody said, that is rooted in nature.

Taste is the ability to distinguish the beautiful (which has an objective component) from the ugly. But what is this objective component?

It is in its purest form perfection. Things that are more beautiful than others are more perfect, they are a higher developed. What is perfection? Manifoldness whose differences have been resolved in unity. (Yes, Lucifer, Hegel once more.)

Tanned skin isn't more beautiful than untanned skin or vice versa. Blonde hair isn't more beautiful than black hair. You might just find the one or the other more pleasing.

But symmetric faces are more beautiful than asymmetric faces. Beethoven's music is more beautiful than bongo drumming. And the Taj Mahal is more beautiful than a hut. Albeit you could find all of the latter alternatives more pleasing. Beauty has an objective component and the philosophical school of thought that teaches us about it is called aesthetics.

Bridie
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 06:43 AM
You are right, Bridie, that beauty is partly subjective. But not entirely.You think I'm wrong then. ;) LOL I think its ENTIRELY subjective. And furthermore that this subjectivity is developed in the very early stages of life and further influenced/controlled by social, learned factors.

Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful.


If beauty would be entirely in the eye of the beholder, there could be no term for it. That doesn't make any sense. If beauty is the subjective appreciation of an object, and a beautiful object is one that conveys and inspires pleasure in the viewer, this does not negate use of the term.

But I think that you mean that if there was no universal agreeance on what qualifies as "beautiful" and what doesn't that the concept of "beauty" would be redundant? I disagree. This makes no sense to me.

Perceptions of beauty don't have to conform to a pre-determined assessment in order to be valid.



Beauty embodies in general something that is pleasing to the senses or the intellect. As every human being has a natural comprehension of pleasure, every human being can comprehend beauty.
Yes. Exactly. But what one comprehends as "beautiful" or "ugly" is subjective and varies greatly among individuals - particularly if they are from different cultures.


Everything that is beautiful is pleasing.
Yes. Making it subjective. For example, perfect handwritng may be seen as beautiful to some, it may bring them pleasure to look at it. But for me I can see its perfection and this very thing brings me frustration and negative feelings due to my own past experiences (its a long story involving my great tendancy for obsessive compulsivism/perfectionism! LOL), so to me its ugly. Do you get what I mean?

What we find pleasing, or not, is subjective. Humans are subjective.


That means that while the pleasing is (in the last consequence) entirely subjective, beauty isn't.You're contradicting yourself here. You say that pleasure indunction is subjective. And ealier you equated beauty with pleasure induction:

Everything that is beautiful is pleasing.
So if what we find pleasurable is subjective and varies according to personal factors, then so is beauty, as the two are one in the same.


Kant called it "uninterested pleasure."
Interesting you brought him up.... I haven't read anything of his in years, but from memory he was an aesthetic relativist wasn't he? I think (could be wrong here) I can vaguely remember that he believed that while perceptions of beauty are subjective, there is still a universal agreeance on what constitutes "beautiful"..... leading me to think that this can only mean that it is a "social construct". That our own subjectivity is dictated by our cultural/social environments.



Tanned skin isn't more beautiful than untanned skin or vice versa. Blonde hair isn't more beautiful than black hair. You might just find the one or the other more pleasing.
Yes, thereby finding one or the other more beautiful.


But symmetric faces are more beautiful than asymmetric faces. Beethoven's music is more beautiful than bongo drumming. And the Taj Mahal is more beautiful than a hut. Albeit you could find all of the latter alternatives more pleasing. Beauty has an objective component and the philosophical school of thought that teaches us about it is called aesthetics.I actually find a hut more pleasing and therefore more beautiful than the Taj Mahal. I'm a simple gal. :D I prefer the earthiness and simplicity of a hut. It makes me calm, grounded and secure. The Taj Mahal is grand, but does not evoke pleasant feelings for me. So the hut is more beautiful to me.

Aesthetic philosophy doesn't only deal with theories of universal beauty and objective evaluations.

Tryggvi
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 07:52 AM
You think I'm wrong then. ;) I not only think so. I also know. ;)


LOL I think its ENTIRELY subjective. If you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing then it is -- among adults. Among children not even the the pleasing is entirely subjective.


And furthermore that this subjectivity is developed in the very early stages of life and further influenced/controlled by social, learned factors. What pleases us is determined by genetic dispositions and learned factors imho. Biology and environment.


Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful. Interesting thesis, but what is the evidence?


That doesn't make any sense. If beauty is the subjective appreciation of an object, That's exactly what it isn't. The pleasing is the subjective appreciation of an object.


and a beautiful object is one that conveys and inspires pleasure in the viewer, Yes, it does, be it then you are unable to recognize the beautiful. Then you have bad taste. Beauty has an objective component. If you argue that something is beautiful, you are expressing something absolute and universal. It is beautiful to everyone. If you say (or mean): "It is beautiful to me (but not to everyone)", you actually mean "It pleases me." But that's just a problem of language then.


But I think that you mean that if there was no universal agreeance on what qualifies as "beautiful" and what doesn't that the concept of "beauty" would be redundant? I disagree. This makes no sense to me. Yes, that's also true. There would be no concept of beauty, only a synonym for the pleasing.


Perceptions of beauty don't have to conform to a pre-determined assessment in order to be valid. Perceptions also have no reality, they only exist.


Yes. Exactly. But what one comprehends as "beautiful" or "ugly" is subjective and varies greatly among individuals - particularly if they are from different cultures.Only if you consider beauty as a synonym for the pleasing. Then I rest my case.


Yes. Making it subjective. For example, perfect handwritng may be seen as beautiful to some, it may bring them pleasure to look at it. It's pleasing to some if not most, yes. And beautiful.


But for me I can see its perfection and this very thing brings me frustration and negative feelings due to my own past experiences (its a long story involving my great tendancy for obsessive compulsivism/perfectionism! LOL), so to me its ugly. Do you get what I mean? Absolutely. For you it's not pleasing. But it's still beautiful because it has a higher degree of perfection than if one writes like a rooster on the manure pile. The contradictions of the unorderliness of the manifold were resolved on a higher level creating a system of order. If you really want to argue it's not beautiful, then you simply have bad taste. ;)


What we find pleasing, or not, is subjective. Sure thing.


You're contradicting yourself here. You say that pleasure indunction is subjective. It is.


And ealier you equated beauty with pleasure induction:
Contradictions are resolved on a higher level. The pleasing is subjectively pleasing. The beautiful is subjectively and objectively pleasing. If it doesn't please you, you have bad taste, but objectively beauty doesn't depend on the subject. This resolution creates a more perfect comprehension, by the way, and is thus beautiful. Even if you don't fit it pleasing. :fwink:


So if what we find pleasurable is subjective and varies according to personal factors, then so is beauty, as the two are one in the same. Well, that's what I gather. You try to deny the concept of beauty. You try to construe beauty as another terminus for the pleasing. If you want to view it that way, be welcome, but this point of view has no reality, it just exists.


Interesting you brought him up.... I haven't read anything of his in years, but from memory he was an aesthetic relativist wasn't he? I think (could be wrong here) I can vaguely remember that he believed that while perceptions of beauty are subjective, there is still a universal agreeance on what constitutes "beautiful"..... leading me to think that this can only mean that it is a "social construct". That our own subjectivity is dictated by our cultural/social environments. No, he was a prominent opponent of aesthetic relativism, arguing my case (in a less developed form, we understand it all better since Hegel), namely that the judgment of beauty is universal. He recognized it as a concept or category different from the pleasing.


Yes, thereby finding one or the other more beautiful. More pleasing, in fact.


I actually find a hut more pleasing and therefore more beautiful than the Taj Mahal. I'm a simple gal. :D I prefer the earthiness and simplicity of a hut. It makes me calm, grounded and secure. The Taj Mahal is grand, but does not evoke pleasant feelings for me. So the hut is more beautiful to me. Yeah, well, if you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing. If I would define largeness as a synonym for the pleasing, then the hut would be larger than the Taj Mahal for you. Great insights we get through this. :)


Aesthetic philosophy doesn't only deal with theories of universal beauty and objective evaluations. It does. Sophism is no philosophy. It's a waste of time.

Enibas
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 07:59 AM
I found this on wikipedia:

Beauity.physical attractiveness and sexual attraction are determined by the prevailing culture, i.e. each group within a society will have its own consensus of ideas, beliefs, and behaviours and it is constantly changing over time. Children quickly learn who among them is considered attractive, although this will change as the peer group ages. More often, these evolving judgements are based on appearance, personality and behaviour. Those who win friends, enjoy popularity and achieve high status through sport or employment will be associated with qualities that may match the forms of virtue, beauty, nobility, etc. Those who inspire fear and loathing will often be characterised as unattractive or ugly but, if they nevertheless wield power and accumulate wealth within society, they may be considered sexually attractive. It depends on the qualities the partners wish to see in their children.
People use signs to associate themselves with the most successful groups within their society. In cultures where pale skin is valued, people modify their behaviour to avoid acquiring a tan or use face paints and whitening creams (e.g. in Europe in the Middle Ages and in China, the only people who had dark skin were the poor peasants; the aristocracies therefore valued pale skin as an indicator of their wealth and often relied on lead or other poisonous ingredients in cosmetics to create the lustrous white complexion seen in portraits from the sixteenth-century onward). In cultures where being fat is considered a sign of success, health, and beauty, people modify their diets to achieve a body image reflecting the consensus of thought among those within the social group they aspire to join (e.g. in China, the fat male belly symbolises happiness, luck, wealth, and generosity; in Europe, the Dionysian aesthetic associates fatness with cheerful and relatively innocent decadence; in modern Ghana the popular view is that the thicker and heavier, the richer and more attractive a woman is."). In cultures where certain body parts or athletic forms are desirable, clothing is modified to enhance or disguise a feature (e.g. ancient Greek men exercised in the nude in the gymnasium following the Apollonian ideal, Minoan dresses were usually topless in this matriarchal society, and padded codpieces ensured a European man's reputation appeared intact).

Bridie
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 03:44 PM
I not only think so. I also know. ;)
Now you're just trying to piss me off aren't you Tryggvi? :sway Well, behave, or it will be this for you.... :whip


:lol


Sorry, back to being serious now....


If you use beauty as a synonym for the pleasing then it isWell, it was actually you that stated that beauty = pleasing (have I misinterpreted you here?);

Everything that is beautiful is pleasing. We have a motivated interest in pleasure, but not a motivated interest in beauty, though, i. e. we can find things beautiful which we do not desire and which do not interest us at all.And see, that last statement was a contradiction too.... you say that everything that is beautiful is pleasing, then go on to say that we can find things beautiful yet not pleasing -----You did, after all, say that we are all interested in pleasure ----- so if all beauty is pleasing and we are all interested in pleasure inducing things, then it stands to reason that none of us could ever find anything of beauty undesirable or uninteresting.




Quote:
Even a mother's smile will be construed as beautiful by an infant because of what the smile communicates to the baby. Its not the smile itself that is beautiful.
Interesting thesis, but what is the evidence?
I don't need evidence, its common sense. In any case, I could present you with all the studies and theories of well known scientists in the world and none of it would matter.... because interpretation of such studies will always be subjective, as well as the theorists who write their theories. Theories come and go in and out of fashion. None of them reliable. What's reality one year, may be passed off as rubbish the next, as another reality takes over the minds of the masses.



Yes, it does, be it then you are unable to recognize the beautiful. Then you have bad taste.Does that mean that you have bad taste then Tryggvi? Because the majority of people that I could see in that other thread of yours on the subjectivity of beauty found that Kluft chick beautiful, yet you did not. :wsg (Mind you, I've since seen pics of her body too, and by God! She looks like a bloke!! :-O )



Beauty has an objective component. If you argue that something is beautiful, you are expressing something absolute and universal. It is beautiful to everyone. If you say (or mean): "It is beautiful to me (but not to everyone)", you actually mean "It pleases me." But that's just a problem of language then. The problem with that, is that I don't think there would be one thing or person on this earth that EVERYONE finds beautiful.... which would render the bold part of your quote incorrect. In order for beauty to be universal, everyone must be able to see its beauty. And to just try to save your argument by stating that, 'well if someone doesn't find the supposedly univerally beautiful thing beautiful then they just have bad taste,' is just a bit too convenient. That's a weak argument. A cop out.



No, he was a prominent opponent of aesthetic relativism, arguing my case (in a less developed form, we understand it all better since Hegel), namely that the judgment of beauty is universal. He recognized it as a concept or category different from the pleasing.
Ah-ha, I remember now.... he believed that harmonious objects are always beautiful..... well, here's that problem with that idea....


beauty - 1.n. combination of qualities, as shape, proportion, colour, in human face or form, or in other objects, that delights the sight; combined qualities delighting the other senses, the moral sense, or the intellect. - Australian Oxford Dictionary


beautiful - a. delighting the eye or ear; gratifying any taste; morally or intellectually impressive, charming or satisfactory. - Australian Oxford Dictionary

.... hmmmm.... so it would seem that the good people at Oxford agree with me. And since the dictionary offers universal definitions, it would seem to be univerally agreed that I am right.

Sometimes it hurts being this good. :victory

Tryggvi
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 07:04 PM
Now you're just trying to piss me off aren't you Tryggvi? Nah, just teasing you. ;)


Well, it was actually you that stated that beauty = pleasing (have I misinterpreted you here?); Yes, I did. But once more, beauty has an objective component. It doesn't depend on the perception of any random subject (it could be wrong) and even less on what such a subject claims (it could lie). In addition beauty comes in degrees, in fluent transitions. If a subject doesn't find something to any degree beautiful that is objectively beautiful, it will be most of the time because this subject confuses the category of beauty with a different category (usually the pleasing which is entirely subjective.) Or it could lie, or its senses might be distorted, or it might make a sophist argument in order to win a discussion rhetorically.

Compare beauty to largeness. I mentioned the example already. Largeness is also a category that is both subjective and objective. Usually, we consider largeness much more objective than beauty, but in fact it isn't. And like beauty it is combined with a sensual impression that is entirely subjective. Largeness measures the degree of size. The Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. It is also subjectively larger for me. Now you might come and claim that it isn't larger for you, and thus largeness is entirely subjective. Very well, what could the cause be? Maybe you popped some acid, maybe you are visually impaired, maybe you are comparing a photo of the Taj Mahal with a real fisher hut. Maybe you have a wrong concept of the Taj Mahal and a hut. Maybe you have a wrong concept of largeness and confuse it with another category (such as greatness). Maybe you just get pleasure out of arguing sophist cases. But whatever it might be, it doesn't change a jota about the fact that the Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. To avoid this conclusion you would have the deny that there is an objective reality that can be recognized.

Of course, you could do this. You could defend solipsism and say there is no objective reality, but it's all in our heads. Very well, that argument isn't new, and while this argument is probably philsophically unfalsifiable, there are also no indication that it is true (it can't be verified) and it doesn't correspond with our real-life experiences. So I'd give you the answer Bertrand Russell gave a solipsist woman that asked him why so few people believe in it: If solipsism is true, why you don't you make me and everyone believe in it? It's all in your head after all.

If largeness measures the degree of size, what does beauty measure? It measures the degree of perfection and perfection is objective. That's why it doesn't matter if you say something that is objectively beautiful (like Beethoven's music or the Taj Mahal) isn't beautiful. You are simply wrong. You would have bad taste or maybe you don't understand the concept. You could deny its beauty because of many indefensible prejudices and personal experiences, too. You could be confused. Probably you are only confusing categories. A racist might confuse beauty with Europeanness and thus say the Taj Mahal is not beautiful. You might confuse beauty (which has an objective component, perfection) with the sole pleasing (which is entirely subjective).


I don't need evidence, its common sense. In any case, I could present you with all the studies and theories of well known scientists in the world and none of it would matter.... because interpretation of such studies will always be subjective, as well as the theorists who write their theories. Theories come and go in and out of fashion. None of them reliable. What's reality one year, may be passed off as rubbish the next, as another reality takes over the minds of the masses. Ok, the burden of proof is on you. You seem to be quite a relativist, but not everything can be relative, because even if everything would be relative, there would still be something that is absolute, namely that everything is relative. Not even the postulate of relativism can avoid that there is an objective truth.


Does that mean that you have bad taste then Tryggvi? Because the majority of people that I could see in that other thread of yours on the subjectivity of beauty found that Kluft chick beautiful, yet you did not. :wsg (Mind you, I've since seen pics of her body too, and by God! She looks like a bloke!! :-O ) I might simply have been guilty of using "beautiful" where I should have written "pleasing" or "attractive," as we do it so often in colloquial language. But that here is a philsophy thread, so we should try to be precise. I might have bad taste, who knows?


The problem with that, is that I don't think there would be one thing or person on this earth that EVERYONE finds beautiful.... That's not necessary. It's also not necessary that everyone agrees on degrees of largeness. Try an optical deception test.


which would render the bold part of your quote incorrect. In order for beauty to be universal, everyone must be able to see its beauty. Nopes, I would only be necessary that human nature and reality provides us with a concept of beauty. It's not necessary that every concrete human being comprehends it or that the concept is developed in every concrete human being. The vegetable in a lunatic asylum might not have it.


And to just try to save your argument by stating that, 'well if someone doesn't find the supposedly univerally beautiful thing beautiful then they just have bad taste,' is just a bit too convenient. That's a weak argument. A cop out. It's a bit unprecise, for sure, as there can be many reasons. Only somebody that comprehends the concept of beauty and whose senses and mental faculties are developed but still can't distinguish the more beautiful from the less beautiful has bad taste.


Ah-ha, I remember now.... he believed that harmonious objects are always beautiful..... well, here's that problem with that idea.... Harmony in disharmony. Order in the manifold. Contradictions resolved on a higher level.


- Australian Oxford Dictionary

- Australian Oxford Dictionary

.... hmmmm.... so it would seem that the good people at Oxford agree with me. And since the dictionary offers universal definitions, it would seem to be univerally agreed that I am right.

Sometimes it hurts being this good. :victory General dictionaries are really of little use when it comes to philosophical concepts. They only reflect how words are frequently used. ;)

Bridie
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 05:25 AM
Largeness is also a category that is both subjective and objective. Usually, we consider largeness much more objective than beauty, but in fact it isn't. And like beauty it is combined with a sensual impression that is entirely subjective. Largeness measures the degree of size. The Taj Mahal is objectively larger than a fisher hut. It is also subjectively larger for me. Now you might come and claim that it isn't larger for you, and thus largeness is entirely subjective. No "largeness" is 100% relative. "Large" is an ambiguous term which merely compares the size of one object to another. Therefore the Taj Mahal is large compared to a hut, yet it is small compared to the size of the moon. ALL descriptive terms are relative. Only precise measurements can be absolute.... the object is 10cm long = objective..... the object is pretty small = relative. So the measurement is objective, but the interpretation of that measurement is subjective.

As "beautiful" is an adjective, it is by definition subjective.



So I'd give you the answer Bertrand Russell gave a solipsist woman that asked him why so few people believe in it: If solipsism is true, why you don't you make me and everyone believe in it? It's all in your head after all.
LOL Well touche to Mr Russell! :D That's funny.

But anyhoo..... Well firstly, something doesn't have to be true for everyone to believe in it. Is God true? Who knows.... but plenty of people believe in Him. And let's face it, some people are so devoid of discrimitive abilities and intellect that they'll believe anything that anyone tells them.

Secondly, I've never said that I believe in solipsism.... if I did, I wouldn't believe in social construction, as this resides external to the self.



If largeness measures the degree of size, what does beauty measure? It measures the degree of perfection and perfection is objective.Nope, I've already refuted that, see above.



You seem to be quite a relativist, but not everything can be relative, because even if everything would be relative, there would still be something that is absolute, namely that everything is relative. Not even the postulate of relativism can avoid that there is an objective truth.
I am a bit of a relativist I guess, but I do have my limits. No I don't really believe that EVERYTHING is relative, just that all interpretations of reality are. We are infinitely variable. There are of course absolutes.... but how can we as humans, with our limited senses and awareness, ever know what they are? We might look at an apple and see an apple.... when from a different vantage point it may look like a cluster of electrons, protons and neutrons. So which is the truth? Is it an apple according to popular discourse? A stable, unanimate object? A piece of fruit? Food? Or it is a buzzing, dynamic group of sub-particles? I say both, depending on the person who is interpreting it.



I might have bad taste, who knows?Well, let's see.... do you like the same dresses as me? If you do then you have good taste, if you don't you have bad taste. (Hey, maybe there is only one reality after all.... mine! ;) :D )



General dictionaries are really of little use when it comes to philosophical concepts. They only reflect how words are frequently used. ;)Well now Tryggvi, for someone who is such a fervent advocate of universal truth, you are being very open-minded. ;) If there is only one definition of the term "beauty" then surely you can't dispute the universal one? (I could, but then that's my perogative as a relativist.:D LOL Only joking.... I do believe in standard definitions for words.... they act as a yardstick for communication.... otherwise how are we all supposed to understand each other?)



Maybe you popped some acid, .... you're pushing me to it Tryggvi... you're pushing me to it....

:wsg

Tryggvi
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 05:34 AM
Nope, I've already refuted that, see above. You are, as always, examplary in behavior and magnanimous in victory. ;)


Well, let's see.... do you like the same dresses as me? If you do then you have good taste, if you don't you have bad taste. (Hey, maybe there is only one reality after all.... mine! ;) :D ) I don't know, which dresses do you like? Maybe you can make a thread about it in The Lounge. Wait, better make one in the Realm of the Senses. :P


Well now Tryggvi, for someone who is such a fervent advocate of universal truth, you are being very open-minded. ;) If there is only one definition of the term "beauty" then surely you can't dispute the universal one? (I could, but then that's my perogative as a relativist.:D LOL Only joking.... I do believe in standard definitions for words.... they act as a yardstick for communication.... otherwise how are we all supposed to understand each other?) Philosophy has its own language and definitions because language itself is a core problem of philosophy. It might be the biggest obstacle to conveying thoughts and truth.

Bridie
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 06:00 AM
You are, as always, examplary in behavior and magnanimous in victory. ;)
Oooh... what a nasty man. :P Okay, well I'll admit that my behaviour is often disgraceful and I'm somewhat lacking in humility, if you can say directly that I am victorious today! :D



I don't know, which dresses do you like? Maybe you can make a thread about it in The Lounge. Wait, better make one in the Realm of the Senses. :P
No worries.... I'll create the thread.... you can model the dresses. Deal? :nod

:lol

Moody
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 01:43 PM
How could beauty ever be anything other than an interpretation?

That's why I said you were begging the question that you ask in the title of this thread.


A rose is a rose, and does not become beautiful until someone labels it as such.

I disagree; the rose is 'beautiful' whether or not it is labelled by someone as such. As Shakespeare said, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".


And even then its only beautiful to the one who is judging it. Another person may not think it to be beautiful at all....

Those differing opinions do not alter the rose itself; indeed Nature herself has equipped the rose in such a way that it attracts bees in order to carry out pollination.


which leads me to the topic subject.... its my belief that the rose would be considered beautiful, or not, by an individual depending on what the rose (the colour, form, smell of it etc) represents to them.

Would it not be possible to recognise that something is objectively beautiful, even if it did not 'do it for you'?
In other words, there is the possibility of an impersonal sense of beauty.


I argue that beauty is symbolic.

Symbolic of what?


And as such, is a social construct, as individuals in a common society or community belonging to a common culture will often perceive/judge form in a similar fashion due to such interpretations being learned, not congentially inherent.

There is evidence for there being 'hard-wired' responses too, which are not learned but inherited.



Nature may be the subject of beauty, but it will always be deemed as such by a human. Otherwise it is not beautiful. It just is.

How do you know that bees don't find roses 'beautiful' too?
Do you think that Nature's riot of colour and form is only for the benefit of humans?



Then how would you explain so many people finding "imperfection" the most beautiful of all?

They are attracted to the imperfections; some people profess to enjoy the ugly. Just because you enjoy the ugly doesn't mean that the ugly is then beautiful; it just means that you enjoy the ugly.


I personally find "perfection" (total order) cold, personalityless, unendearing, uninteresting. It can't be beautiful in my eyes. This is what perfection symbolises to me.... to you it may mean something different and therefore you could find it subjectively beautiful. See what I mean?

No - you merely reject beauty in favour of the ugly.


Subjective you mean?

Is subjectivism a personal [individual] state, or can there be a collective subjectivity?

Bridie
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 02:58 PM
Umm Moody.... I think you mustn't have read any of my posts which followed the post which you've taken quotes from. I disagree with pretty much everything that you've said and the reasons why and my rationalisations be found in those other posts.



That's why I said you were begging the question that you ask in the title of this thread.
Nope. Just expressing my understanding of the concept of "beauty" if you disagree (which you do) you can always just refute my implication (which you did), so it's no problem right? :)



I disagree; the rose is 'beautiful' whether or not it is labelled by someone as such.
Remember "beautiful" is a adjective. Adjectives are always relative and thereby subjectively determined. Until the rose is labelled, it is just a rose. Nothing more.


Those differing opinions do not alter the rose itself;
No. That's why I stated;

am a bit of a relativist I guess, but I do have my limits. No I don't really believe that EVERYTHING is relative, just that all interpretations of reality are. We are infinitely variable. There are of course absolutes.... but how can we as humans, with our limited senses and awareness, ever know what they are? We might look at an apple and see an apple.... when from a different vantage point it may look like a cluster of electrons, protons and neutrons. So which is the truth? Is it an apple according to popular discourse? A stable, unanimate object? A piece of fruit? Food? Or it is a buzzing, dynamic group of sub-particles? I say both, depending on the person who is interpreting it.





Quote:
I argue that beauty is symbolic.

Symbolic of what?
Of whatever is represents to the individual.



Would it not be possible to recognise that something is objectively beautiful, even if it did not 'do it for you'?
In other words, there is the possibility of an impersonal sense of beauty."Do it for you?" It sounds like you're talking about attraction, which is different from beauty remember? I don't think there is any possibility of impersonal beauty.



There is evidence for there being 'hard-wired' responses too, which are not learned but inherited.
Responses for attraction, sexual or otherwise, not for perceptions of beauty.

You might argue that there has been research done which suggests that people generally find symmetrical faces beautiful.... and that if they find a asymmetrical one beautiful that it must merely be bad taste, or that they are rejecting the beautiful, (to say "bad taste" would be to imply that it is somehow lacking in virtue or health, so to speak, to find such things beautiful, but that is clearly false in my mind.) only someone who's never felt great love could think this imo. Eg, my sister had a severely deformed baby a few years back, he died 3 days after birth. Although, being so deformed and small and lacking health, the vast majority would find him ugly, yet my sister found him to be the most beautiful little person she'd ever laid her eyes on. As a new mum myself at the time I could relate to her, and when I looked at him and his little jewel eyes so wide with wonder and innocence, his little vulnerable, helpless body, I saw great beauty too. True beauty, maybe on a higher level than merely looking at some face in a magazine and thinking... hmmmm yes they're beautiful. Love makes things beautiful, and no amount of scientific studying will ever uncover its secrets, nor be able to deny it.




Quote:
Nature may be the subject of beauty, but it will always be deemed as such by a human. Otherwise it is not beautiful. It just is.

How do you know that bees don't find roses 'beautiful' too?
Do you think that Nature's riot of colour and form is only for the benefit of humans?No, nature's colours serve the purpose of attraction, not beauty. I think we can safely bet that bees are not capable of comprehending such abstract concepts as "beauty". They are purely instinctive creatures that do not have the ability to partake in such complicated thought processes and perceptions as to label something as "beautiful" or not. I mean, seriously, how many bees do you think are buzzing around out there thinking to themselves.... "hmmmm.... which flower shall I gather pollen from today.... the yellow flower (a bit dowdy) or the bright red one? Yes, I'll go with the red one as it is quite splendid looking..." ??? It is indiscrimatory (in regards to beauty) instinct that drives them.



They are attracted to the imperfections; some people profess to enjoy the ugly. Just because you enjoy the ugly doesn't mean that the ugly is then beautiful; it just means that you enjoy the ugly.
You're talking about "attraction" again. I'm talking about beauty. :)



Is subjectivism a personal [individual] state, or can there be a collective subjectivity?Well true subjectivity is a personal state, but it will most likely conform to a greater or lesser extent to the collective/society in which they resided when their biases/base perceptions were being developed in infancy and early childhood.

Moody
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 03:52 PM
Remember "beautiful" is a adjective. Adjectives are always relative and thereby subjectively determined. Until the rose is labelled, it is just a rose. Nothing more.

Adjectives are not 'always' relative/subjective.

'Beauty' is a noun.

The quality of beauty is inherent in the sense of 'roseness'.


It sounds like you're talking about attraction, which is different from beauty remember? I don't think there is any possibility of impersonal beauty.

I said that beauty doesn't need to have the element of sexual attractiveness [given that you used an example of sexual attractiveness to which I responded].

I said that beauty could be platonic. That means that beauty can be impersonal [or platonic].


No, nature's colours serve the purpose of attraction, not beauty. I think we can safely bet that bees are not capable of comprehending such abstract concepts as "beauty".

We cannot say that for sure, not being bees.

Do birds find bird-song beautiful?

However, it is notable that what we find beautiful is also considered 'attractive' in nature amongst other creatures. As we are part of nature too, then there may be a connection.
Indeed, it could just as well be assumed that similar processes are at work in human beauty as are at work in nature's mating rituals, nature's bird-song etc., etc.,

Beauty in human terms could just be an evolution of similar attraction processes in nature.


They are purely instinctive creatures that do not have the ability to partake in such complicated thought processes and perceptions as to label something as "beautiful" or not.

Aren't humans instinctive too?

Isn't our response to beauty likewise instinctive?


I mean, seriously, how many bees do you think are buzzing around out there thinking to themselves.... "hmmmm.... which flower shall I gather pollen from today.... the yellow flower (a bit dowdy) or the bright red one? Yes, I'll go with the red one as it is quite splendid looking..." ??? It is indiscrimatory (in regards to beauty) instinct that drives them.

The flowers offer a variety of colours in order to attract pollination from a variety of different pollinators.

If it were indiscriminatory then there would be no variety.



You're talking about "attraction" again. I'm talking about beauty

But you haven't made a distinction between them .

What is the big difference between 'attraction' and 'beauty' that makes them so completely different [i]to you?

Bridie
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 05:04 PM
'Beauty' is a noun.
But in order for beauty to be present, an object or person must be beautiful.... an adjective.


Adjectives are not 'always' relative/subjective.
I can't think of any that aren't, can you?



The quality of beauty is inherent in the sense of 'roseness'. We just aren't going to agree on this. I think that beauty is a label, you think that it is intrinsic. I guess we're both entitled to our own subjective perceptions. ;) hehehe



I said that beauty could be platonic. That means that beauty can be impersonal [or platonic]. Platonic and impersonal are not the same thing. Platonic = non-sexual..... Impersonal = have no personality, reference to human feelings. The former is about sexuality (or the lack of), the latter isn't.



We cannot say that for sure, not being bees.
:D LOL We can say for sure. A bee's brain is not sophisticated enough to comprehend such abstract concepts. This is an objective, tangible fact.



Indeed, it could just as well be assumed that similar processes are at work in human beauty as are at work in nature's mating rituals, nature's bird-song etc., etc.,
I understand what you're getting at here, but I disagree. We are naturally, instinctively, sexually attracted to certain characteristics as a matter of the continuation of our species (as determined by nature), and we even find babies cute on an instinctive level to ensure that they are cared for by adults and that they survive, so these sorts of instinctive drives to care for young animals and humans is natural too, but this is NOT the same as finding them beautiful as such.



Beauty in human terms could just be an evolution of similar attraction processes in nature.
That's an interesting idea. I'd never thought of that before.... I'll give it some thought. :) Although you do admit here then that human views of beauty differ from attraction processes in nature? You denied it in your previous paragraph.



Aren't humans instinctive too?

Isn't our response to beauty likewise instinctive?
We are partly instinctive. But instincts are less developed in us than they are in more simple creatures, to make way for our increased awareness and intellect.

Our response to beauty is symbolically determined imo, not instinctively.



The flowers offer a variety of colours in order to attract pollination from a variety of different pollinators.

If it were indiscriminatory then there would be no variety.
I meant that the bees don't discriminate between beautiful and ugly flowers.



But you haven't made a distinction between them .

What is the big difference between 'attraction' and 'beauty' that makes them so completely different [I]to you?
I did dinstinguish between them...

Attractive simply means 'something/one which attracts something/one. Think of magnets. ;) Sexual or physical are only two types of attraction. There is also intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, spiritual etc etc. Beauty is different altogether, because it denotes aesthetic appreciation, but not necessarily any attraction. One may find something beautiful, yet not be attracted to it.

That was my response to your statement....

I would make a distinction between the "attractive" [which means physically/sexually attractive] and the Beautiful [which implies the platonic perfection of form, and needn't be sexual in any way].



I think we may just have to agree to disagree Moody. :)

Moody
Friday, June 23rd, 2006, 05:49 PM
But in order for beauty to be present, an object or person must be beautiful.... an adjective.

No; beauty is a noun, it can be the quality of a thing and therefore not separable from it and certainly not a label ;

Beauty:
1) The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or colour, excellence of artistry, truthfulness and originality ...
See link;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beauty


I can't think of any adjectives that aren't relative, can you?

Of course;

Adjective ... 2. Any words belonging to this part of speech such as white in the phrase a white house;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adjective


I think that beauty is a label, you think that it is intrinsic. I guess we're both entitled to our own subjective perceptions.

No, I am going by English usage, as the defintion above shows. 'Beauty' is not just a label, it is an actual quality or property.



Platonic and impersonal are not the same thing. Platonic = non-sexual..... Impersonal = have no personality, reference to human feelings. The former is about sexuality (or the lack of), the latter isn't.

I deliberately used 'platonic' in the lower case indicating that I was using the word in its more general sense too, that of transcending the physical.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/platonic


A bee's brain is not sophisticated enough to comprehend such abstract concepts. This is an objective, tangible fact.

What isn't a "fact" is that beauty is "sophisticated". It may be the very opposite [and only human vanity pretends that it is 'sophisticated'].
If beauty is 'unsophisticated', then it would be possible for a bee to appreciate it.


We are naturally, instinctively, sexually attracted to certain characteristics as a matter of the continuation of our species (as determined by nature), ... but this is NOT the same as finding them beautiful as such.

Again, it could be very much part and parcel of all of that; we like to think of it as something higher, but then are we in the position to make such objective judgements about ourselves?
Wouldn't it be better to ask another species about whether our sense of beauty is any different to theirs?


Although you do admit here then that human views of beauty differ from attraction processes in nature? You denied it in your previous paragraph.

There are differences to be sure; but there are also indications of connections too.
Indeed, the concept of beauty may have its origin in the sex drive [which is not peculiar to humans - ergo,].


We are partly instinctive. But instincts are less developed in us than they are in more simple creatures, to make way for our increased awareness and intellect.

So much that we call "intellect" may actually be instinct.
As I said, we are not far enough removed the subject of our study to make an unbiased comment.


Our response to beauty is symbolically determined imo, not instinctively.

Symbols are certainly instinctive!


I meant that the bees don't discriminate between beautiful and ugly flowers.

So you now admit that they [i]do discriminate.



I did dinstinguish between them...

You only said that attraction was sexual/physical while beauty was "aesthetic".
To say 'beauty is aesthetic' is not really saying anything as aesthetics is the 'appreciation of beauty'!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetic

Also, what you said about attraction could apply to some kinds of beauty.

What I said, in the piece you quote from an earlier post is that beauty "needn't" be sexually attractive.


What is beautiful in humans... many things, but this is what I can think of for now:

Loyalty, be it to a partner or cause/goal. It goes hand in hand with respect, passion and dedication.
The ability to love or hold affection towards others - Love leads people to do unimaginable things, and most impressive of all is the feeling of unconditioned love. For example, parents' love for their children.
Self-sacrifice, generosity, compassion - Jennifer already said what is to be said regarding this.
The ability to make objective and constructive criticism
Ambition - the will to strive for someting bigger/better.
Honor - adhering to certain standards and the ability to keep to one's word.

These are all admirable ethical qualities - but they are not aesthetic ones. That's not to say that aesthetics and ethics aren't connected, though, as I shall suggest.

I believe that we all have an awareness of aesthetic beauty within us, yes; but it must be expressed as outward form in order to be perceived by the senses [and therefore be aesthetic].

The artist is he who is particularly evolved in this direction, able to express beauty through the sensual medium he chooses [this could even be the medium of his own Being].

I believe that race dictates the sensual forms we find aesthetically beautiful [and therefore not 'social conditioning']: this is a biological/spiritual nexus and also relates to reproduction - the will to create beautiful off-spring.

The most highly evolved members of the race in terms of aesthetics are able to create those beautiful forms in art etc.,

I therefore think that beauty, ethical excellence and high intelligence are connected.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 05:45 PM
I don't mean what you find beautiful yourself, I mean: what happens when we notice something and decide it is beautiful? Is it a characteristic of what is observed, or of who is observing it?

discuss (I am undecided, but I do notice that certain characteristics are widely seen as beautiful, by most individuals)

I do not think one can divorce a personal sense from beauty in any aesthetic decision, so to answer this question detached from what I myself find beautiful seems quite impossible to me. Not to say there is no universality to beauty, but there is a very personal component, or it would not be beauty, it would not move one emotionally.

Beauty is like all things natural: in balance between what exists and what is beheld. Truly beautiful things are those things which reflect a natural state of things, and therefore reflect the natural order. In this way both the raw, brutal killing power of the lioness and eagle as well as the soft, dainty possessing appearance of the flower are both beautiful in the truest sense. In art, it is the perfect reflection of natural beauty in one form or another that makes an artwork beautiful. Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, and other forms of modern art eschew this beauty by divorcing themselves from the natural and pursuing the unnatural.

There is something further, however; art can be beautiful and still not true art. True art must strike a balance between the communication of the raw emotion of this natural beauty as well as a rational thoughtfulness to be true art. In this way, Impressionism and Realism represent the last truly beautiful art form before the descent into degenerate art.

QuietWind
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 05:50 PM
These are all admirable ethical qualities - but they are not aesthetic ones. That's not to say that aesthetics and ethics aren't connected, though, as I shall suggest.

I believe that we all have an awareness of aesthetic beauty within us, yes; but it must be expressed as outward form in order to be perceived by the senses [and therefore be aesthetic].



Do you not believe that these "ethical qualities" can be expressed as an outward form that can be perceived by the senses?

Sigurd
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 06:31 PM
In short terms, beauty is - regardless of whether it relates to persons, other living organisms, or things - conceiving something as "aesthetically pleasing" (sorry for the easy way out :D)

When it comes to persons - it is easy to find a distinction between attraction and beauty. There might be a supermodel which I conceive as beautiful, but which I might not consider attractive because she does not conform to my "type" in the slightest, and because attraction includes character, intelligence etc., thus an "ugly", that is aesthetically unpleasing, woman can be attractive for a variety of other reasons. Let me explain this further:

For example, I tend to favour women who sport a combination between progressive and paedomorphic features. As such, I can often find women of an ultra-progressive phenotype beautiful, but as a general rule, I do not feel attracted to them. I then tend to admire them more like a piece of art.

Only if attraction of the physique and beauty of the physique is seen as separate can we pinpoint down what beauty is, because attraction is subjective. Beauty is however objective: Pictures of people with pitch-black skin, in the terms of human diversity and extreme racial purity in the opposite sense is beautiful, it is however not conceived as attractive in the slightest by yours truly, rest assured.

The perfection of physical beauty would be achieved in perfect looks, regardless of the phenotype or other characteristics, and the closer that one actually gets to attaining such beauty, the less attractive the person becomes: We tend to feel attracted to people who have faults, and are not perfect.

So much for the physical beauty of human beings.

When it comes to the beauty of character, what we are really doing is helping ourselves to a linguistic trick: We use personifications of the character traits, like old Romans personified Luck or Victory, etc. etc. etc. and thus apply a certain sense of beauty or ugliness to these character traits.

A character is usually conceived as beautiful, if the person who holds the character is one who lives a noble life, strides for the best (the "aristocratic principle"). Beauty is that which is considered aesthetically pleasing, and since the physical aesthetics concern "good looks", character aesthetics would concern a "good demeanor". The beauty of character is thus showing good will towards matters, and the manifestation of such is usually a positive rather than negative deed, in whatever respect.

And again, a beautiful character can be utterly unattractive, and can be conceived as boring, in fact. When women go for "assholes", they go for an ugly but attractive character.

And once more, the attraction of character is subjective, but the beauty of character is objective. The beauty of character is achieved to the fullest when a person only does noble deeds. Etc. etc. etc.

The main issue thus, to cut matters short, is that people tend to confuse "beauty" with "attraction", which is where the consideration evidently leaves the philosophical and enters the mundane: Beauty is a matter of the observed, and attraction is a matter of the observer. :P

At least my take on this type of "beauty", the beauty of persons. When it comes to the beauty of inanimate objects, that is a different matter altogether, and would have to be answered in a post of its own. I will try to tackle that at another point.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Friday, September 12th, 2008, 10:00 PM
In short terms, beauty is - regardless of whether it relates to persons, other living organisms, or things - conceiving something as "aesthetically pleasing" (sorry for the easy way out :D)

When it comes to persons - it is easy to find a distinction between attraction and beauty. There might be a supermodel which I conceive as beautiful, but which I might not consider attractive because she does not conform to my "type" in the slightest, and because attraction includes character, intelligence etc., thus an "ugly", that is aesthetically unpleasing, woman can be attractive for a variety of other reasons. Let me explain this further:

For example, I tend to favour women who sport a combination between progressive and paedomorphic features. As such, I can often find women of an ultra-progressive phenotype beautiful, but as a general rule, I do not feel attracted to them. I then tend to admire them more like a piece of art.

Only if attraction of the physique and beauty of the physique is seen as separate can we pinpoint down what beauty is, because attraction is subjective. Beauty is however objective: Pictures of people with pitch-black skin, in the terms of human diversity and extreme racial purity in the opposite sense is beautiful, it is however not conceived as attractive in the slightest by yours truly, rest assured.

The perfection of physical beauty would be achieved in perfect looks, regardless of the phenotype or other characteristics, and the closer that one actually gets to attaining such beauty, the less attractive the person becomes: We tend to feel attracted to people who have faults, and are not perfect.

So much for the physical beauty of human beings.

When it comes to the beauty of character, what we are really doing is helping ourselves to a linguistic trick: We use personifications of the character traits, like old Romans personified Luck or Victory, etc. etc. etc. and thus apply a certain sense of beauty or ugliness to these character traits.

A character is usually conceived as beautiful, if the person who holds the character is one who lives a noble life, strides for the best (the "aristocratic principle"). Beauty is that which is considered aesthetically pleasing, and since the physical aesthetics concern "good looks", character aesthetics would concern a "good demeanor". The beauty of character is thus showing good will towards matters, and the manifestation of such is usually a positive rather than negative deed, in whatever respect.

And again, a beautiful character can be utterly unattractive, and can be conceived as boring, in fact. When women go for "assholes", they go for an ugly but attractive character.

And once more, the attraction of character is subjective, but the beauty of character is objective. The beauty of character is achieved to the fullest when a person only does noble deeds. Etc. etc. etc.

The main issue thus, to cut matters short, is that people tend to confuse "beauty" with "attraction", which is where the consideration evidently leaves the philosophical and enters the mundane: Beauty is a matter of the observed, and attraction is a matter of the observer. :P

At least my take on this type of "beauty", the beauty of persons. When it comes to the beauty of inanimate objects, that is a different matter altogether, and would have to be answered in a post of its own. I will try to tackle that at another point.

Beauty must, though, be something more than merely that which is aesthetically pleasing. There is a reason something is aesthetically pleasing to some (as you have termed it "attraction") and what is truly beautiful. It is a mistake to reduce true beauty to physicality, for it is not the physicality which makes beauty; rather, physicality is what defines what you have termed "attraction"; it is a mistake to say that physicality applies at all to true beauty, which is communicated and captured purely in the reflection of the Form, of Nature, by the subject. In this way, beauty is found in humans primarily in personality, in character, in conformity to natural objective laws. The attractive and the beautiful woman or man are therefore two completely different archetypes, though they may manifest themselves in the same being.

Likewise for non-human subjects, amongst which I submit the majority of subjects termed "beautiful" reside, that which is attractive and pleasing to the eye but empty is exactly that: attractive and pleasing to the eye. It is not, however, beautiful, for it communicates nothing, captures nothing. Thus it is with Pop Art. It looks cool, sure, but it's not art. Also, likewise with hellscapes: hardly pleasing to the eye, but indeed beautiful for they communicate true terror manifested in imagery. Does this open the door to abstract art? Perhaps, so please allow me to slam that door firmly shut. The reflection in a work of art must be purely natural, and therefore must capture and portray something which comes itself from the land of pure nature, that is, from the land of archetypes (Forms).

There is no such thing as an abstract archetype; where terror, power, fear, love, hate, joy, anguish, awe, and even apathy manifest themselves in nature, that is the way to communicate them through art. Where they do not manifest themselves in nature, they cannot be communicated through art, only through skewed and thoroughly imperfect human lenses (since the painter is indeed twice divorced from the realm of Forms, in that his is an imitation of an incarnation). The painter who tries to capture emotion and pathos by skipping the natural and trying to imitate the Forms will always fail, which is why modern and contemporary "art" is all empty: it communicates nothing, captures nothing contains nothing. If it incarnates anything it is utter failure on the part of the impassioned artist to make any progress in the realm of reasoned Natural order.

I suggest to all here Plato Republic and Symposium.

Moody
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 12:13 PM
Do you not believe that these "ethical qualities" can be expressed as an outward form that can be perceived by the senses?

Yes, I agree that they can.
However, I do not think they are expressed purely as themselves in art, for example, but rather accompany such an outward manifestation in form.

There is no single way of expressing 'loyalty' as outward form, for example, but a work of art might be imbued with that ethical quality.
In other words, there always remains a separation between the ethical and the aesthetic in my mind.



When it comes to persons - it is easy to find a distinction between attraction and beauty.

Yes; the former is connected to the erotic and the latter to the aesthetic.

In Idealistic terms the latter is of an higher order than the former.
Attraction is connected to base desire while beauty is connected to the higher mind.

Of course, as with ethics and aesthetics, lust and beauty can be intermixed. But I might say that in its purest Form, Beauty is without Lust and without Ethics.
We are here forced to adopt a Platonic view of aesthetics it seems.



Beauty must, though, be something more than merely that which is aesthetically pleasing..

Of course, the Platonic view is that the pure Ideal of Beauty, its particular Form cannot be fully realised in physical expression.
Any such expression - even by the greatest artist - is a mere imitation and approximation of this perfect Form of Beauty.

Only the Philosopher-Ruler can get near to the Form through contemplation.

Therefore all physical manifestations of Beauty [whether in beautiful art or beautiful persons] are mixed and imperfect.

Does the pure Form of Beauty need to convey anything other than itself, its Beauty?
I think not.

It is only human and imperfect art which needs to 'say something' besides itself [and therefore be mixed with lust, politics or ethics etc.,].
Pure Beauty is sheer Beauty and so is 'empty'.

Hanna
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 12:30 PM
When I see beautiful native scandinavian children, then I think its natures wonderful masterpiece.

Moody
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 04:12 PM
When I see beautiful native scandinavian children, then I think its natures wonderful masterpiece.

This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

Does a person need youth to be beautiful?

In broader terms, does all decay [for visible aging is nothing but decay] militate against Beauty?

From the Platonic perspective it must, as the Form of Beauty is Immortal and therefore Unaging.

Hanna
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 04:20 PM
This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

Does a person need youth to be beautiful?

In broader terms, does all decay [for visible aging is nothing but decay] militate against Beauty?

From the Platonic perspective it must, as the Form of Beauty is Immortal and therefore Unaging.

Let me put this way, Teenage is Nature's gift, aging is Nature's work of art. I hope you're happy with the explanation

Moody
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Let me put this way, Teenage is Nature's gift, aging is Nature's work of art.

Aging gives humans the chance to develop their higher selves as the unworked for gift of youthful beauty fades.

This makes aged wisdom somewhat tragic, in my view.

I think the quip has it: "youth is wasted on the young"!


Aging gives humans the chance to develop their higher selves as the unworked for gift of youthful beauty fades.

This makes aged wisdom somewhat tragic, in my view.

I think the quip has it: "youth is wasted on the young"!

Sigurd
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:38 PM
This is the racial aspect of Beauty, of course. However, it raises another point - that of youth.

Does a person need youth to be beautiful?

Calling on the mythology, no it does not require youth. The goddess Holda is alternatively quoted as an elderly, grandmotherly figure and a goddess of beauty (which is where her well likely comes from ;))

I feel that they do not however exclude each other. Youth is one type of beauty, advanced age is a different type of beauty. One who is beautiful in youth can be ugly in age if they age unnaturally or well, unbeautifully, and likely vice-versa.

Just like youth radiates a certain type of characteristics which are aesthetically pleasing, age will radiate other types of these characteristics. When we think of a young lass to draw our eyes, different things come to mind than when we think of motherly beauty, or when we behold the tested visage of a war veteran.

An aged person can of course only be beautiful if the decay has not taken away their beauty but instead possibly added to it: Many old books will be antiquaries, but that does not mean that all books will be of antiquarian value just because they are old. And some paintings are more aesthetically pleasing partially because they no longer look fresh.

Hence, an aged person can be beautiful if they "age well", and in that I do not mean the retaining of youthful features.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 09:47 PM
It still seems to me that we are restricting beauty far too much by keeping it in the realm of "What I find beautiful" and physical beauty. Is there beauty in youth? I would say that depends on if you find beauty in the navet inherent thereto. There is great ugliness in ignorance and great beauty in wisdom; beauty in the truest sense, divorced from the physical attractiveness of any given concrete thing.


Of course, the Platonic view is that the pure Ideal of Beauty, its particular Form cannot be fully realised in physical expression.
Any such expression - even by the greatest artist - is a mere imitation and approximation of this perfect Form of Beauty.

Only the Philosopher-Ruler can get near to the Form through contemplation.

Therefore all physical manifestations of Beauty [whether in beautiful art or beautiful persons] are mixed and imperfect.

Does the pure Form of Beauty need to convey anything other than itself, its Beauty?
I think not.

It is only human and imperfect art which needs to 'say something' besides itself [and therefore be mixed with lust, politics or ethics etc.,].
Pure Beauty is sheer Beauty and so is 'empty'.

I don't know if I'd say it is empty; I would say that true beauty is the fullest kind of beauty because of its sublimity.

Art, indeed, is that which is mere imitation, and therefore needs to communicate something, which is why I speak of true art in those terms. Art, after all, shares common roots with our word "artificial", that which is made, which is inherently tied to the Greek τέχνη, the lowest form of knowledge, the realm of the cave-dwellers (for those on-lookers to this discussion, see Plato's Allegory of the Cave, The Republic 7:514a520a and his Analogy of the Divided Line, 6:509d-513e). So it makes sense that perfect art (which is inherently imperfect) would be the expression of best imitation.

Moody
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 08:38 AM
Calling on the mythology, no it does not require youth. The goddess Holda is alternatively quoted as an elderly, grandmotherly figure and a goddess of beauty (which is where her well likely comes from ;))
I feel that they do not however exclude each other. Youth is one type of beauty, advanced age is a different type of beauty. One who is beautiful in youth can be ugly in age if they age unnaturally or well, unbeautifully, and likely vice-versa.
Just like youth radiates a certain type of characteristics which are aesthetically pleasing, age will radiate other types of these characteristics. When we think of a young lass to draw our eyes, different things come to mind than when we think of motherly beauty, or when we behold the tested visage of a war veteran.
An aged person can of course only be beautiful if the decay has not taken away their beauty but instead possibly added to it: Many old books will be antiquaries, but that does not mean that all books will be of antiquarian value just because they are old. And some paintings are more aesthetically pleasing partially because they no longer look fresh.
Hence, an aged person can be beautiful if they "age well", and in that I do not mean the retaining of youthful features.

'Youth' in this context does not purely mean 'young', but rather 'in the prime of youth'.
By the latter definition a person [or a culture etc.,] is at the peak of their condition - like the noonday sun they cast no shadow.
This is the optimum point for beauty.

Another point before that peak and any point after it, and beauty is not at its most beautiful.

Aged things cannot therefore be beautiful in comparison with a thing in its prime.

I think it a misuse of langauge to refer to aged things as 'beautiful'. They can be 'lovely, 'charming', 'exquisite', 'engaging' - even 'awe-inspiring', but we must reserve the term beautiful for things that are in their prime. Otherwise we fall into the modern trap of calling 'everything' beautiful and thereby lose all sense of distinction.


It still seems to me that we are restricting beauty far too much by keeping it in the realm of "What I find beautiful" and physical beauty. Is there beauty in youth? I would say that depends on if you find beauty in the navet inherent thereto. There is great ugliness in ignorance and great beauty in wisdom; beauty in the truest sense, divorced from the physical attractiveness of any given concrete thing.

Again, we must watch our language. To say that a mind is 'beautiful' is to make a metaphorical statement.
What this statement really means is 'this mind is excellent as a mind, like a beautiful thing in its prime is beautiful'.
We transfer the term beauty [which depends on the sensual] purely as a metaphor to something that is non-sensual.
This doesn't change the fact that in essence, 'beauty' refers to the things in their prime which can be perceived sensually.
If we reject metaphor, then it is perverse to call wisdom 'beautiful'.



...So it makes sense that perfect art (which is inherently imperfect) would be the expression of best imitation.

This is an obvious self-contradiction. By Plato's lights no man-made art can be 'perfect'.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 05:48 PM
Again, we must watch our language. To say that a mind is 'beautiful' is to make a metaphorical statement.
What this statement really means is 'this mind is excellent as a mind, like a beautiful thing in its prime is beautiful'.
We transfer the term beauty [which depends on the sensual] purely as a metaphor to something that is non-sensual.
This doesn't change the fact that in essence, 'beauty' refers to the things in their prime which can be perceived sensually.
If we reject metaphor, then it is perverse to call wisdom 'beautiful'.

This is an obvious self-contradiction. By Plato's lights no man-made art can be 'perfect'.

I should probably have put quotation marks around "perfect" to clarify my meaning.

Regarding beauty as a metaphor, I disagree. Beauty is not a metaphor. There is such a thing as a beautiful mind, and wisdom is indeed beautiful in the truest meaning of the word beautiful. You have failed to refute my point that we are making beauty far too physical and placing it in a realm where it does not belong- the sensual. Beauty, true beauty, belongs to a higher realm than the sensual; it belongs to the which can be felt with the heart and mind, not with the eyes and hands. Physicality can have beauty on only the lowest and most superficial level, attractiveness. In this sense, physical beauty is far more of a metaphor because it is the most removed from the true definition of Beauty.

One can use beauty metaphorically, I suppose, if one has such a superficial notion of it, but the true use of the word in saying "a beautiful mind" is not "this mind is excellent", but rather "this mind is beautiful, i.e. this mind moves the heart and stirs the mind in the way all beauty moves the heart and stirs the mind." There is real beauty there; it is a redundancy to refer to "abstract beauty": all beauty is abstract, in that it cannot be felt or touched with the senses, it can only felt or touched with the soul.

And so, I reiterate, in our definition of beauty we are far, far to concrete and far, far too physical. Beauty cannot be reduced in this way or you result with things like abstract art: what is pleasing to the eye to one person can disgust another, and vice versa. Holding Beauty to such a relative standard is absurdity incarnate.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 04:46 PM
... Beauty, true beauty, belongs to a higher realm than the sensual; it belongs to the which can be felt with the heart and mind, not with the eyes and hands. Physicality can have beauty on only the lowest and most superficial level, attractiveness. In this sense, physical beauty is far more of a metaphor because it is the most removed from the true definition of Beauty.

What then is the metaphorical content of non-physical beauty which makes it applicable to what you claim is only metaphorical physical beauty? What is it about a physical thing that invites the comparison with the true non-sensual beauty that you claim originates the metaphor?


One can use beauty metaphorically, I suppose, if one has such a superficial notion of it, but the true use of the word in saying "a beautiful mind" is not "this mind is excellent", but rather "this mind is beautiful, i.e. this mind moves the heart and stirs the mind in the way all beauty moves the heart and stirs the mind." There is real beauty there; it is a redundancy to refer to "abstract beauty": all beauty is abstract, in that it cannot be felt or touched with the senses, it can only felt or touched with the soul.

But surely, if you are right, to call a work of art 'beautiful' is the most profound thing - not superficial. You are comparing it [according to you] metaphorically with the greatest beauty, the non-physical. You are using a metaphor too - only in the other direction.
I say that things are ab-stracted from the physical - i.e., that the physical comes first.
From there the abstractions and the Universals are made.
Therefore mankind first understands beauty as a physical thing and then starts to develop his intellect, abstracting towards concepts and making metaphors which begin in the concrete.


And so, I reiterate, in our definition of beauty we are far, far to concrete and far, far too physical. Beauty cannot be reduced in this way or you result with things like abstract art: what is pleasing to the eye to one person can disgust another, and vice versa. Holding Beauty to such a relative standard is absurdity incarnate.

You prejudice your argument by mentioning "abstract art" - surely Classical Art would be far better a comparison. Here the Form of the Beautiful is first realised in sculpture and then - later - inspires philsophers to make abstractions using Reason. Only after the development of sculpture does Plato offer the Theory of Forms.

Sigurd
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 01:58 AM
Aged things cannot therefore be beautiful in comparison with a thing in its prime.

The question to be asked however is - can there be beauty in decay, or must beauty refer to something in its prime? I.e. Does it follow that because late spring/early summer is the time of blossom; or that because late summer/early autumn is the time of harvest, that they automatically hold more beauty than late autumn/early winter ... or could it be argued that there is a beauty in the falling of coloured leaves, and the increasingly longer nights because the decay takes place in a natural course - or would such instead be more of a romanticisation of the obscure, much like one can be attracted to a substantially older man or woman?

Gorm the Old
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Beauty: a visual or auditory experience which gives one pleasure.

Pro-Alpine
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 04:05 AM
It's something that living beings perceive in some sensory manifestations, it's objectively without any basis.

CrystalRose
Monday, October 6th, 2008, 06:37 AM
In Molly Bawn, 1878, there's the line "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I find this to be true. Something I might find beautiful people might find ridiculous or hideous. Who's to say what's beautiful or not and does their opinion matter? "Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye." So, is that the beauty of beauty?

Chatte
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Beauty is subjective.
Nature made our genes in such a way that we find certain things beautiful
to get attracted by them, because they are good for our species.
Sometimes the reason why we find somthing beautfil is not obvious, but if you study it there's
usually some biological sense behind it, sometimes a complex one.
Simple example for other species : bee and flowers. Flies and shit :)

Moody
Thursday, October 9th, 2008, 08:03 AM
The question to be asked however is - can there be beauty in decay, or must beauty refer to something in its prime? I.e. Does it follow that because late spring/early summer is the time of blossom; or that because late summer/early autumn is the time of harvest, that they automatically hold more beauty than late autumn/early winter ... or could it be argued that there is a beauty in the falling of coloured leaves, and the increasingly longer nights because the decay takes place in a natural course - or would such instead be more of a romanticisation of the obscure, much like one can be attracted to a substantially older man or woman?

I think when we use the phrase "a beauty in ..." we are speaking metaphorically again. We are a saying 'a kind of beauty', meaning something like beauty. When we see something in its prime, we don't say that it has "a beauty", but that it is beautiful.

Of course, some people can find beauty in the most ugly things - but this is stretching metaphor too far.


Beauty: a visual or auditory experience which gives one pleasure.

But not all pleasurable visual/auditory experiences are beautiful.


It's something that living beings perceive in some sensory manifestations, it's objectively without any basis.

Pleasure is subjective - but beauty isn't.


In Molly Bawn, 1878, there's the line "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I find this to be true. Something I might find beautiful people might find ridiculous or hideous. Who's to say what's beautiful or not and does their opinion matter? "Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye." So, is that the beauty of beauty?

I agree that beauty is sensuous, but there are things that are beautiful by definition and objectively so. There are others things which are beautiful only metaphorically - and there are things that are said to be beautiful perversely.
Only the first is truly beautiful.


Beauty is subjective.
Nature made our genes in such a way that we find certain things beautiful
to get attracted by them, because they are good for our species.
Sometimes the reason why we find somthing beautfil is not obvious, but if you study it there's
usually some biological sense behind it, sometimes a complex one.
Simple example for other species : bee and flowers.


Attractiveness is not beauty.

The real objective beauty can actually keep us at a distance as we are over-awed by it.

Uncle Seany
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 10:19 AM
I find it worthwhile mediating upon what it is in the mind of the degenerate Modernist artist: To him, beauty is something shameful, his art strives to be dispassionate, even ugly, in order to evoke admiration for not bothering about beauty.

Therefore, art is that which makes me feel like a god. For me, to consider something beautiful, it has to appear rare, vibrant, brilliant, and dangerous.

Alice
Monday, June 10th, 2019, 11:14 AM
Beauty is an objective reality which elevates one to the infinite. Three elements of beauty are integrity, proportion and clarity.