Why beauty matters

[Absurdity]

http://vimeo.com/55426796

Roger Scruton, in “Why Beauty Matters,” his provocative BBC documentary on contemporary art, claims that we are losing beauty, and with it, the meaning of life itself. He coolly maintains that beauty “is a value, like truth and goodness,” and decries the fact that the world has turned its back on beauty… in this hour-long essay he wants to persuade us that “beauty is a universal value” – he bemoans the spiritual desert we have made for ourselves and offers “to show us the way… home.” He says that it all started with Marcel Duchamp, “who signed a urainal“ (urinal, in UK-speak) with a fictitious name… to enter a competition – Scruton concedes that when it was “made” that “the urainal” satirized the world of art, but that now, along with the legacy it engendered, it has been interpreted in another way, “showing us that anything could be art” He goes on to proffer, … with some justification, that when something which is shocking is repeated, it becomes “vacuous, empty… “

“Because art needs creativity” Scruton intones – over a soundtrack of beautiful baroque music – a piece of contemporary art which “shows us the here and now,”… warts and all … a work that might portray the world with all its “imperfections” (cut to cooky installations, the work of Jeff Koons and Banksy (!) ) … that any such work is ultimately imperfect because while it may offer a slice or reality, ugliness included… it falls short of basic human needs… Scruton provokes: …”is the result really art?”

In a way, in the name of skill, taste and creativity, he dismisses much of existentialism and the art made by the avant garde in the last century – or rather he claims, with chilled aplomb, that it has all over time, become “a cult of ugliness.”

At the end of the documentary, Scruton singles out Pergolesi’s truly beautiful “Stabat Mater” extolling the real virtues of such a simple, direct, and … beautiful work of art. While much of the visual art that Scruton cherishes in the film, is sculpture… traditional, figurative, … sublime, and not a little neo-classical.

Source

I find myself agreeing with Scruton's sentiment: that beautiful art fulfills a deep human need, and that the modern world is largely devoid of this sort of art.

If I were to point a finger, it would be at the currents of egalitarianism rippling through our culture and dominant ideologies. Beauty is inherently inegalitarian in its distribution amongst humans, both with respect to appearing beautiful and being able to create something beautiful (some have skill and others do not).

The documentary is very good, but for those who don't have the time (1 hr) to watch all of it, here are some of the messages to ponder:

• Beauty is an inherent good, like truth or justice.

• The difference between appetite (lust) and adoration (love) is the difference between modern ugliness that abounds and classical beauty that is fading away.

• Beauty, be it mathematical, artistic, or otherwise, offers a window into the transcendent or the divine.

• Things with seemingly no utility, like a painting, or a scenic view, or a relationship, are some of the most useful things we can have.

• Ugly, utilitarian, "form follows function" buildings become abandoned and, ironically, useless.

• Good art explores the darkness only to redeem it through beauty (as in a tragic play).

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I wish I had the time to watch it. May get a friend to download it for me.

I completely agree with this:

In a way, in the name of skill, taste and creativity, he dismisses much of existentialism and the art made by the avant garde in the last century – or rather he claims, with chilled aplomb, that it has all over time, become “a cult of ugliness.”

The art I admire projects a certain 'wow' factor that most modern art just seems to neglect. It should move you. It must capture something that is human in its basest form. (I am struggling to explain what I mean). Something you can relate with and/or recognize it as such.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I find this sort of discussion to be sophistic. It's a cry of "I studied philosophy, and philosophy says art is important and a sort of objective value, thus I think I'm an expert in the field of aesthetics and everybody who makes things they like are wrong."

Now, I agree that if we consider anything art, then nothing really is art. The problem is that anything can be art, people just don't want to admit it. They also don't want to admit that it's actually not objective. I consider things beautiful that other people do not. I'm okay with that. I don't feel compelled to make them have the same sense of beauty as me.

 

[Turniphead]

I like beauty,

But I'm probably a classicist for the most part: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/aug/26/thetribesofart
http://imgur.com/a/Snxi3#8pz98

 

[Nezaros]

"Beauty is a form of Genius--is higher, indeed, than Genius, as it needs no explanation. It is one of the great facts of the world, like sunlight, or springtime, or the reflection in the dark waters of that silver shell we call the moon. It cannot be questioned. It has divine right of sovereignty."

 

[BigApplePi]

How beauty matters

A difficult subject to respond to. Background.

Just as there is good science and bad science, there is good art and not so good art. I think it was said that science tries to explain things while art observes things. Let's put these two together.

Science looks at something, analyzes it and comes up with cause and effect. It does not say what to do with its discoveries. It just says present this cause and you will have this effect.

Art looks at something and places it in a context. It does not look into causes. It just says here it is and it will have this meaning and this relationship with you. Art looks outward; science looks inward.

While utility can be a value of science, beauty can be a value of art. A way to achieve this is via a harmony of the presentation with something outside of itself.

If I have this right, the modern world seems interested only in a narrow present. We are coerced into viewing unrelated things. We can call this "ugliness." We forget we need to bring harmony with things that matter. We can call the union or unity of things we value, "beauty", creating something that transcends separateness.

It would be interesting to see if the four art forms given in Turniphead's link look outward in contrast to science looking inward ... or is this a false dichotomy?

 

[Cognisant]

What you yearn for is not beauty but reality itself, you desire something that is truly real, something truly worth caring about, a real ideal, beauty is but only the face of it.

Disparity, yes you have begun to see the true face of man for man cannot live without disparity, it is disparity that motivates man to strive and excel, because of it he who has is always at war with he who has not. For without disparity how can a man measure his worth, without darkness how could we see light, it is the egalitarian ideal that all men and women could live together as equals, in harmony, with everyone's needs fulfilled but in truth nobody really wants this, it would be to the misery of us all.

If it meant world peace, that every stomach was filled, for everyone there is a home and no one could stand above another would you be content with mediocrity, would you be happy wearing the same clothes as everyone else, eating the same food as everyone else, sleeping in the same style of home in the same quality of bedding as everyone else, would you, could you, be happy without your individual identity?

Perhaps, though this equilibrium would be so very delicate I doubt it could last for even a second, people naturally strive to exceed each other, not a moment would pass before one turned to another and said "my designation is a prime number, what's yours?" because it is our nature as individuals with individual minds to define ourselves by our differences, indeed individuality itself is by definition impossible without disparity.

So what is beauty, what reality is beauty the face of?

We are born into Dark, and warmed by Fire, but this Fire we cannot touch.
Those whose fascination with Fire persists, learn to hold it in their own hand.

 

[Cognisant]

In a word: Power.

It's why spending money on military hardware seems a better investment than education, it's why we all love the level up mechanic in games and playing "who's the better killer" in most every multiplayer game, it's why we want our own cars and we want them big with big engines and deep growly vroom vroom noises.

Power is everything.

 

[Ink]

What you yearn for is not beauty but reality itself, you desire something that is truly real, something truly worth caring about, a real ideal, beauty is but only the face of it.

It is pleasant to be surrounded by and looking at beauty. I think I read serotonin has a lot to do with it. I'm not sure how what you're going on about relates to the topic (I didn't watch the video), but since looking at beauty is physically pleasent it should be valued. I'm definitely not "into" art, but the fact that you tend to find things you are subjected to on a regular basis as more beautiful could explain how the "ugly art cults" gain popularity. Power isn't everything. Beauty is more than cultural ideals.

 

[Cognisant]

You do not value beauty, you value pleasure, beauty pleases you but have you considered why?

Beauty is more than just pleasure, were it not cocaine would be one of the greatest works of art, and pleasure is fleeting, it is a reward for achievement not an achievement itself the very fact that society is not solely dedicated to hedonism proves this, that there is more to us than just furfilling our desires, we want more than to be merely happy, we seek something more than ourselves, a greater purpose than the lives we are given, we are already the übermenschen seeking power for it's own sake, like a lion's head upon the wall we wish to have it merely to posses it so that by owning it we may attribute it to ourselves.

Besides if art were valued for its ability to please us then the cult of art as we know it wouldn't exist, for example what's the importance of buying an original painting or sculpture, why not buy a far cheaper and visually identical replica? A bullshitter will tell you it has sentimental value on account of its history but everything has a history, so rather the true value is rarity and relative desirability, both of which are factors relevant to power, the more rare and desirable something is the more power you need to get and keep it.

Naturally this works in reverse, go find any old boring bit of worthless junk, take photos of it, throw it at someone noteworthy, then clean it, wrap it, put it in a box and sell it on eBay, unless you got some blood on it in which case don't clean it, bloody stuff is worth more

I could do this AND post a video explaining what I'm doing and why every step of the way to advertise it and knowing it's a nothing but a bit of junk, even knowing that I'm artificially increasing the value of it, someone will still buy it for a hefty price in an online auction because it's the only one.

 

[BigApplePi]

In a word: Power.

It's why spending money on military hardware seems a better investment than education, it's why we all love the level up mechanic in games and playing "who's the better killer" in most every multiplayer game, it's why we want our own cars and we want them big with big engines and deep growly vroom vroom noises.

Power is everything.

Wanna see an example of what power can do? Go to minute 41 in Absurdity's video Nice eh? If I have this right, this is an example of what art can do for, in this case, power. I could try and describe this in words, using reason, and say that power can result in nasty stuff. Nasty stuff releases the need for more power to stop it. When power meets power, we can get a lose-lose situation. Does Goya through his art say it better though?

 

[tikru]

beauty is subjective... and some subjects are terrible. It can be related to power, ego, Self, the divine, the mundane... anything really.

If one were living in a kaleidoscopic landscape of buildings made of trees and giant mystical castles, would one not get tired of it after seeing it day after day?

"I'll destroy it. There's beauty in destruction. I'll form the opposite of the status quo, forcing others to appreciate the dull and drab. [This is a postmodern work of art! When surrounded by the grey, the rich inner life unfolds! And then we make that inner life a reality! transform the world around us! It's a fucking cycle!]"

Beauty is absurd, child-like. A method of madness used to turn people mad. OR to give them hope! an appreciation for this and that and what and where...

No.

Beauty is indescribable, an imprint of the creative soul... the boundless imagination of the human organism trying to understand Nature and all it entails.

No. Yes.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... a cliche of cliches.

IF one were living in a mundane world with boring buildings, boring people, boring everything would one not get tired of seeing it every day?

"I'll transform it. There's beauty in transformation. I'll form the opposite of the status quo, helping others to gain an appreciation of the colorful, the mystical, the archetypal. [This is a premodern work of art! When surrounded by Life, life takes on new meaning, meaning upon meaning upon meanings... infinity taking hold and never letting go... one with everything and still an individual, still a tiny organism overwhelmed by the BEAUTY inherent in this fucking life, that no one sees because they are caught up in their absurd ideas of this and that and what and where. (pssst... they (you) [me] can't see past themselves (yourselves) [myself] because [I have no fucking idea].)

ahem.

_____ doesn't know what to do, doesn't care, only cares about _____, confused by _____, loves _____, prays to _____... Who is ____? What is ____? How do I think about _____? My motivation is _____.

beep boop beep boop robot on patrol

"good god man, take it down a notch!"

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

HAHAhahahahah

ahem.

Beauty is stupid threads made by stupid people trying to understand something as simple as BEAUTY, overintellecualizing it because... Jesus I don't know, it boggles mine mind.

"Oy Vey!" they say!

"Get this guy some hay!"

Hey! I don't need any hay! good day!

----------------
The wise man cometh... he speaketh wise words pronouncing the relativism of beauty, of our simple lives on thee Earth.
------------------------------------

Beauty should overwhelm, widen the pupils, give you euphoria, a profound sense of otherworldliness. A recognition of the genius of others, or their cleverness.

The WOW factor, baby!
-----------------------
[Lesser beauty] is everyday beauty that one can absorb in an instant and use it for _____.

[Greater beauty] is the transcendental, mystical, the kind of beauty that WAKES YOU UP from living your simian lives, lives built on punching numbers into the ol' calculator that is your robot mind.
----------------------



Beauty is greater intelligence... creative intelligence... coming forth from the unknown becoming known. Wider perspectives constantly becoming wider... Witnessing opposites from the Coast and swimming towards them in order to UNITE them. The formless forever being formed. The finite forever reaching for infinity. Happiness in exponential absurdity.


I am ugly.

 

[Cognisant]

Beauty is indescribable, an imprint of the creative soul...

*jerkoff motion*

Now everybody form a circle, yes that's right.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm pretty sure the Zeitgeist is gonna be going in this direction somewhat soon. The next big thing after postmodernism will be the lack of it.

Edit: And I like it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

key thing with beauty is letting go

 

[Duxwing]

I'm pretty sure the Zeitgeist is gonna be going in this direction somewhat soon. The next big thing after postmodernism will be the lack of it.

Edit: And I like it.

So post-postmodernism? A movement in the retrograde, where formulaic works and tropes abound? Forgive my ignorance; I don't know much about art.

-Duxwing

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think there will be a plethora of different art to begin with, I dare not state any general direction it will take, but there will be a distancing from shunning of the constructed academic postmodern art which relies upon the whole body postmodern art theory, rather than the actual art produced. In the cultural breath of relief that follows a lot will come out, as with all historical shiftings in the priorities of art, it'll probably initially be a step back to those that reigned prior to the current priorities. What those are is kinda hard to get, were still less than a hundred years from modernism, so it's not that distant to us and thus harder to view in a detached way. But that's what I think we'll be building on. God I wish I'll live at least 500 years, would be interested to see how postmodern art will be seen as then, hopefully as a fucking shameful atrophy.

I don't mind postmodern art by definition though, the issue is that is has removed all criteria by which art was previously judged, all in the light of the sudden realization that hey, art is subjective! Of course it fucking is, and it's not like postmodernism went all the way and gave up on art critique at all. Nonono, instead after emptying the term "art" of all it's prior contents turning it into a hollow or void, they've tried to fill that hole with ivory tower academic intellectualism, effectively disenabling intuitive and meaningful grasping of art as something that "transcends discourse" to borrow Bronto's words. And just as effectively making people anxious around a lot of modern artwork for fear of coming of as stupid, thereby suppressing their own thoughts, making them repeat whatever academic dogmatic bullshit they've picked up on; furthermore, an even larger body of people are content with shunning postmodern art as utterly meaningless. It is a shame. At the same time these academics pride themselves on being concerned with art, despite the fact that it currently denotes naught but their own arbitrary intellectual pursuits and shallow dabbling into other academic subjects.

I can see the point of unshackling art from its old connotations, in theory it could lead to amazing things which we've never seen before. But in practice it has meant that each and every retard can be an artist if they want to and produce shit. Tis a devilish shame indeed, for I'm sure there are great postmodern artists out there who haven't fallen into the trap of arbitrariness were most are found lying in a sad pile.

The old method of judging art by set criteria (which did shift slowly over time in sync with the zeitgeist though) had tons of problems, but it fucking worked better than the way things are done now.

Anyway look at the art that was made in the previous epoc and try to imagine a contemporary version of it, that's how I think it will be, granted I'm speculating and what I think will be is vague :P

Also Zeitgeist is a silly term, I need to get a better one lol.

(bronto and I are irl friends and we've discussed this a lot btw)

Here are two ted videos that make clear and great points about the subject of postmodern art as well (if you're interested):

For the first one you can start at 10:00 in he starts talking about art shortly thereafter (with hot-buttons he means shit that upset stupid people).

Steven Pinker: Human nature and the blank slate | Video on TED.com

This second one is more general and doesn't directly concern art, the problem is more or less the same though imo.

Liz Coleman's call to reinvent liberal arts education | Video on TED.com

also steven pinker fucking rules : D

 

[BigApplePi]

Beauty matters because of the importance of what it conveys. Note that beauty is out of the ordinary when related to science or art.

One may think of beauty as the extreme of an ordinary case:

When one combs one hair (if one does so) in the morning, that is minor beauty.
Just to give science equal billing, when one is satisfied by scratching an itch, that is minor science.

 

[Duxwing]

Beauty matters because of the importance of what it conveys. Note that beauty is out of the ordinary when related to science or art.

One may think of beauty as the extreme of an ordinary case:

When one combs one hair (if one does so) in the morning, that is minor beauty.

Just to give science equal billing, when one is satisfied by scratching an itch, that is minor science.

That's not science. That's engineering.

-Duxwing

 

[BigApplePi]

That's not science. That's engineering.

-Duxwing

Just to give science equal billing, when one is satisfied by scratching an itch, that is minor science.

Engineering: applying a lot of stuff to build other stuff. Not sure scratching rates as building, but maybe.


Scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing, verification.

The itch is observed; don't know what to do so propose waiting it out, slapping, or scratching; the former fails, the latter works but no guarantee it will work again; works again but the itch comes back. Needs more testing. Science, lol.

 

[Duxwing]

Engineering: applying a lot of stuff to build other stuff. Not sure scratching rates as building, but maybe.

Engineering is about solving practical problems, not building things.

Scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing, verification.

The itch is observed; don't know what to do so propose waiting it out, slapping, or scratching; the former fails, the latter works but no guarantee it will work again; works again but the itch comes back. Needs more testing. Science, lol.

It's kind of science then, I guess.

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

splendid TED clip cherry

liz coleman that is. you're right pinker is good too, i will check that clip.

joining the comma-to-denote-new-independent-clause club, hiya cherry and own8ge

dat fuzzyfeels

 

[Milo]

When I experience beauty, I feel like my soul awakens. A burning passion to experience more beauty takes me and I look deeper into meaning which is invisible to most. Something inside of me reaches, and it is yearning for the meaning in beauty in a world of meaninglessness that brings tears to my eyes.

 

[Polaris]

Hmmm...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

I find these interesting as they present images of things/people/landscapes that we would not normally classify as beautiful. However, seen through the eyes of someone else, these become somewhat beautiful as it is presented through the subjective medium of an alternative human interpretation. It can change the way we see things.

I do not agree that classical beauty is the only real beauty personally. However, I understand that humans generally prefer the familiar; and those things that were traditionally regarded as beautiful we cling on to in the face of a rapidly changing environment.

I have a fascination for old and dilapidated industrial sites, for example. There is something nostalgic and melancholy about the future gradually becoming the past, and eventually being left behind. Some strange part of me wants to hang onto these elements and to capture them as they are subject to the forces of time and thus further degradation. There is something beautiful about this process as well....

I find traditional values of beauty bore me after a while and continue to search for beauty in unusual places/people...

 

[BigApplePi]

Hmmm...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Notice how in each of these three cases the "beauty" seen presents a harmony in a context ... to put it crudely.

1. We see a contrast between the size of these men and the huge machine. The harmony is in the undistracted message.

2. We see a unity in the common place of these men. Each man is individualized yet is in a common place.

3. The different kinds of lines, shapes and distances all fit together. The blue color emphasizes the harmony. I don't know how it does it.

Notice also that this "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. We could struggle to find the right words as I have above, but words are inadequate as the visuals capture the whole all at once while words are inadequate pieces.

What value do these three photos have in contrast to the science and technology they represent? What would it mean if we never saw these photos yet their concept was there? What would we miss?

Nice one Polaris.

 

[Absurdity]

In a word: Power.
[...]
Power is everything.

Well this took a delightfully Nietzschean turn. I think power can (but not necessarily does, in all cases) flow through beauty. However I don't think you can collapse everything into power, because there is such a thing as innocent, "uncorrupted" beauty in the world.

Hmm. Does power corrupt beauty?

The old method of judging art by set criteria (which did shift slowly over time in sync with the zeitgeist though) had tons of problems, but it fucking worked better than the way things are done now.

Anyway look at the art that was made in the previous epoc and try to imagine a contemporary version of it, that's how I think it will be, granted I'm speculating and what I think will be is vague :P

It's difficult to imagine something beyond postmoderism (at least for me) because the movement seems to be a sort of singularity or black hole that progressive and successive art movements have finally reached. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot to build off of because they've effectively broken every guideline and tradition that had been developed. It was like Pinker said in that video of poetry without meter or rhyme and all that. Seems to me that the only way forward is backward, so to speak (and I think this is what you were getting at). Backward not in the sense of regressing but rather reclaiming that which is timeless which we have discarded, which is inherent to human nature, like the human universals Pinker talked about.

I find these interesting as they present images of things/people/landscapes that we would not normally classify as beautiful. However, seen through the eyes of someone else, these become somewhat beautiful as it is presented through the subjective medium of an alternative human interpretation. It can change the way we see things.

I do not agree that classical beauty is the only real beauty personally. However, I understand that humans generally prefer the familiar; and those things that were traditionally regarded as beautiful we cling on to in the face of a rapidly changing environment.

[...]

I find traditional values of beauty bore me after a while and continue to search for beauty in unusual places/people...

Yeah one can't deny the need for novelty. I don't think we should worship or replicate the great art of previous centuries, just reclaim their form.

There doesn't seem to be any premium placed on skill or craftsmanship in contemporary art, but that is what art is all about. Those pictures of ordinary guys are beautiful because the artist took the mundane and redeemed it by means of artistic (in this case, photographic) skill.

 

[Cherry Cola]

you got me perfectly : )

 

[just george]

The most powerful men in the world are obsessed with beautiful women. Kind of says it all, really.

 

[JimJambones]

I watched this video awhile back and found it interesting. Anything can be called art, but it does not make it art. For example, Jackson Pollock's work was, in my opinion, utter crap. I've heard him called a great artist. This is nonsense. His work is valuable because it was trendy and has a market value, which is sadly the case with so called "art" nowadays. Years down the road when he's forgotten someone will value the wood the canvas is stretched upon to heat their home. His work will be forgotten like much of the music that saturates our culture today. Now art, what if I took a bunch of crayons, melted them together and they formed a swirly pattern when they resolidified. Would that be art? Let's take life processes as an analogy. Life is beautiful because it is not random. Oxygen in the atmosphere is random and therefore not beautiful. But, the electron transport chain is slightly more beautiful because it utilized oxygen in a more purposeful way. The cell that contains the mitochondria, which utilized random oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, is much more beautiful than that; you can keep going up in complexity and my point becomes more evident. Pollock took colorful paints and took a controlled chaos approach to his art. This involves very little technique, is not complicated, and says very little about life, but says a lot about culture. Michaelangelo sculpted and painted human forms and the techniques involved are complicated and take years of practice to master. His work is beautiful because humans value its complexity and how it makes us reach higher than ourselves. Now anyone can call something art, anyone can extrovert their opinion, but do they really believe that a piece of shit is art inside? Sometimes I think some people just like to rebel against beauty just to get attention or to try to raise their own status. That also says a lot about our culture. Of course, what I find to be beauty is often relegated to the art and literature of the Renaissance, and I'm aware that what I define as beauty has been conditioned into me because I'm part of Western civilization, which was born out of ancient Greece, and the art created then has been valued in varying degrees since that time, and strongly emphasized during the Renaissance. We are all so biased. If hominids never existed, would beauty exist? I forget sometimes how much our concept of beauty was influenced by Plato.

 

[BigApplePi]

@JimJambones

Anything can be called art, but it does not make it art. For example, Jackson Pollock's work was, in my opinion, utter crap.

One could argue that beauty is not an objective term, existing in the object itself, but is a relationship* of the object and the viewer. We call this "subjective."

Not everyone sees anything of interest in Pollack's work. They can call it "poor" art, if art at all. That's a feeling reaction of rejection. My understanding is one can look at some (I've only seen a few and not studied them) of his works and see a fractal situation. That is, no matter where you narrow your viewing area, what you see has the same sensory thrust as the larger viewing area. That is unusual and to make that work and be consistent is rare. To be successful creates a harmonious theme. Fractals are useful in science. They work like a coastline where no matter how you narrow your view of a section of coast, it looks the same.

This could be impressive to some people so they could call Pollack's work good art. As I said, not so to others.

Spoiler

*X sees Y as beautiful.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Jim: You got it backwards, anything is art, going by it's present meaning. And "anything" can by its virtue of being any thing not be valued in any way - positive or negative - whatsoever. That would require it to be something, ie an assignment of characteristics or criteria.

Le postmodern nihilistic roadblock

Also your definition of beauty is weak. And begs the questions of why we began to see things as beautiful and ugly to begin with.

 

[JimJambones]

Cherry Cola,
Well, perhaps that definition will change in due time. I just can't help but be aware of the subjective view I hold, which is that object beauty exists in the world and that only certain types of art can capture it. I know not everyone agrees, but even if beauty doesn't exist as a form, it exists in our collective consciousness or culture. I wonder if indigenous tribes define beauty in the abstract such as western culture does. In other words, if a woman is beautiful to a male tribesman, is it more than just a sexual desire. I'm just curious as to how far back in history does our concepts of beauty go. Did it start with homo sapien, neanderthals, erectus, or as far back as australopithecus? Does beauty have evolutionary origins or is it just a bi-product of language and philosophy.

If my definition of beauty is weak, what would you suggest? Weak in what ways?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Lol perhaps my reading of your post was weak. Because now it sounds like were on the same trail.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to state that I believe there is objective beauty. Nonetheless, it is transcultural, and most certainly has a biological origin.

But ugh to goddamn tired cba to write must sleep

 

[JimJambones]

Lol perhaps my reading of your post was weak. Because now it sounds like were on the same trail.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to state that I believe there is objective beauty. Nonetheless, it is transcultural, and most certainly has a biological origin.

But ugh to goddamn tired cba to write must sleep

No you probably read it right. I started out defending the video's view of beauty and then tried to backpedal and say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wrote it real quick and I was tired last night too. Not the best arguments presented, I agree. Yes, biological orignin most likely.

 

[Cherry Cola]

oh, I never watched the video in the OP I just went on to discuss stuff anyway :P

 

[Seed-Wad]

I'm busy watching the video. I had to think of the time in the Gugenheim museum where I saw a orange canvas called 'orange square' and next to it a triangle with one curved side, in blue. The text explained that this was part of the artist's quest to 'examine the natural shapes'. At the time I didn't know why I got so angry and offended, so my anger was tempered, but now I get it was more than justified, that this pretense of art not only offends me deeply, but all of mankind, and that I should have torn that piece of crap off of the wall, in what would be the sole exhibition of true soul in the god-forsaken excuse for a museum.
What a shite museum, omg

 

[kora]

My definition of beauty is "what momentarily gives us the illusion of meaning in a meaningless world" which is why love feels beautiful, because it's always accompanied by this sense of 'it was meant to be, this must be fate' stuff. Illusion of meaning and something greater. Obviously I say illusion of meaning because I believe the world to be meaningless, if you do think otherwise then beauty is 'the revelation of meaning within our world', which is what all those Italian renaissance guys like Leonardo and Raphael thought they were doing, uncovering the work of God. Which is also probably why they're so fucking good.


Otherwise I agreed with a lot of things in the video, but something about his tone and the way the video is put together annoys me, too nostalgic and kitsch or something, I want to slap him.

 

[kora]

Also, good thread, but I think it would do better in the philosophy section, seeing as we're discussing the nature of beauty and art. Maybe it's just me but I usually come to this thread to see art work done by other members.

 

[Absurdity]

Also, good thread, but I think it would do better in the philosophy section, seeing as we're discussing the nature of beauty and art. Maybe it's just me but I usually come to this thread to see art work done by other members.

Fine.

 

[Absurdity]

“Beauty is vanishing from our world because we live as though it does not matter.”
- Roger Scruton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gww9_S4PNV0

 

[Puffy]

I don't think the 20th century lacks in great art (I mean art as encompassing all mediums - film, painting, literature, whatever), I think there's been a decline or advancing desensitisation towards art in the postmodern period. It's more a cultural phenomenon. It probably owes to a lot of factors, though I do think late capitalism is significant.

Baudrillard's notion of "simulation" or Debord's one of "spectacle" both encapsulate the notion that, in the postmodern period, our telecommunications and spectacle-making industries come to assimilate reality and redefine it in terms of itself: a simulatory world without clear boundaries of real and false. Most of my friends and acquaintances don't really have a notion of art that is independent from entertainment, because the spectacle largely constitutes itself in such form as distraction. It comprises a numbing or dulled feeling to me, anti-depressants made of screens with smiling faces.

The closest understanding I can come to is that art is perception, a way of seeing. A street, or any space, can (and deserves to) be a beautiful place -- rich in character and palimpsestic layers of history to be unraveled (beneath the plastic crust of whatever big brand stands there.) In an age of artificiality and falseness, the art, the beauty, is contact -- contact with the real. It's beautiful to you, because it's actually touched you somehow; it carries authentic feeling, a sense of you in a genuine relationship with something.

It's rarely things touch me in the dominant culture because it feels so stale; whenever I've left the West I've always felt this feeling of death sweep over me when I return, everywhere; like something's rotting. I sometimes feel I was born into some kind of sublime cadaver.

Maybe there's something inherently conservative about my views on art, I guess I'm almost defining it as rediscovering something beyond the technicolor veil (in the same tone as a few other posters too.)

Art is a way of seeing that brings things to life.

 

[BigApplePi]

While the beauty is to be appreciated, those players would do well to have an unobtrusive bodyguard along just to make sure someone doesn't want to make a contrary statement.

 

[Trebuchet]

I loved the photos Polaris posted, and the point of them.

Beauty is at least partly in the intention of the beholder. To someone being sanctimonious and decrying how there is no more beauty and no one cares, of course the world will be ugly and uncaring. You have to look for beauty, and expect it, and create it, if you want it in your life.

Richard Renaldi is a photographer I recently learned about, who finds/creates/reveals beauty from an unusual source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_cun-MIzZo