No, It Is Not In The Eye

One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long after I'm gone.

How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.

If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.

I am in no way “thinking with my penis.” I have no attraction to Yosemite Park, but I find it beautiful. I have no attraction to the works of Monet or Anna Akhmatova, but I find them exceptionally beautiful. In case of beautiful women, I am attracted to some but not to others. Asian women are usually seen as very attractive, but I do not lust after them.

Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins of jerks.

Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

 

Sorry but a great deal of modern art is beautiful. Art evolves. Go see the Sagrada Familia.

 

Beauty is completely subjective and was created by humans. The definition of beauty is changes from culture to culture and through out time.

This is what Japan in the Edo period, considered beautiful:


This is what modern western culture views as beautiful:


This is beauty for certain cultures in Africa:

 

This seems not at all to support the argument in the title and first sentences. You argue against the idea of beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and then you go on to discuss beauty and art as you see it, i.e. in the eye of you, the beholder. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean that beauty isn't real, just that it's not objective. However, humans are the same in many respects, a lot of us agree that the Sistine Chapel is beautiful, so its beauty is real but originates in the eye of the beholder. If you asked a snail or a rock, they probably would not agree.

 

Irrelevant I know, but what a majestic piece of art and faith that building is!

 

Doesn't do anything for me, but then I prefer classical art (and architecture). Concept art is for those who aspire to be artists but have zero talent for it.

 

I assume you are actually referring to conceptual art. What that would have to do with the Sagrada Familia is beyond me.

 

Yeah, Sagradas Familias is an excellent piece of architecture. It is also beautiful on the interior.

 

There is both objective beauty and subjective beauty, with scientific findings for both. On the first side, a face with a particular set of proportions will be experienced as beautiful everywhere. On the other side, in a study that showed 20,000 faces to 500 participants each face got picked as the most beautiful at least once. The first stands in support of the artistic search for truth in beauty and refutes the idea that beauty is merely subjective. The second stands in support of the stance that there is someone for everyone and refutes the abusive cultures' claims that people they don't see as beautiful are doomed to a life of loneliness. The correct claims on both sides are validated while the wrong claims on both sides are confronted. Beauty can be both objective and subjective. I have been seen as attractive by some people but not by others. My former girlfriend Julia was seen as attractive by everyone.

 

I have seen the PBS presentation of this church in Barcelona, Spain so I am not trying to insult it.

In the videos, one appreciates all the beauty.

Look at this photograph though to notice the resemblance to a Termite Mound.

 

It is my experience that lovers see you beautiful or handsome until they are finished with you and your "beauty."

 

The last photo appears to me to be male dominance over the female to stop her from kissing other males.

 

I have spent 6 hours inside. The stained glass is phenominal, the statues are phenominal, every detail is a work of magnificance. And it has no resemblance to a termite mound. And on top,of that the engineering was a major breakthrough. Literally makes every church I have seen look like a preliminary. And I have seen many in europe and the US. Not all but most of the majors.

 

I have but seen the PBS detailing the builder, his life and his work.

As I said, my intent was not to insult his work.

I had also not seen it appearing as a termite mound until I had looked at it today after a long absence of seeing it. Back then, I was naturally prejudice by PBS. It is said the way to visit it is to pay a bit more for the tour. Tours apparently get past the long lines of tourists quite fast.

 

No you just buy you tickets online and show up at the scheduled time and basically walk right in. Go first thing in the morning and you stay as long as you want. And while there see the Park Guelle , buy a hop on hop off buss pass and visit the art museums and stay on Las Ramblas. And by all means have a black paella at a good local restaurant. A week in Barcelona is about the right amount of time although I admit I could easily move there for a few years or more. I thought Italy was wonderful till I went to Spain.

And if you like art and architecture you should see the Bilbao Guggenheim.

 

In Berlin, I both took a tour with tour guide explaining things and also drove around the City and also visited museums there.

I know the value of an excellent tour guide. But your suggestion will do fine for a lot of people. Actually you are acting as a tour guide if you think about it.

When I was in Germany, my plan was to drive to Barcelona on my intended swing into Italy and back through France, Belgium and the netherlands. It was not to happen since the German mechanic had not finished my car in time.

 

Beauty is an opinion. It’s always changing and it’s different for everyone. You said Asian women are beautiful, my buddy Mike would beg to differ. I would also have disagreed with you 20 years ago, but now I think they are too.

This also goes for all the arts, and even politics, everything is opinion.

 

It would also stop a female from kissing her mate, so I don't think that's it. Besides, most African tribes don't kiss at all. Kissing tends to be a more western idea.

It could be worse, they could be inflating their breasts with bags of salt water or cancer causing gel.

 

Try both of them are forms of modern 'art'? (note the inverted commas to suggest it isn't artistic in the slightest - any more than this gauche blot on the landscape is . . .



ie. no artistic merit whatsoever. 'easy on the eye' it isn't!

 

no?...oh... what a pity because I was actually going to ask you how that works

 

You are quite correct, sir. The interior is immense. It felt like peace had overcome my whole body during my time in there. I was extremely fortunate to go on a day where they had the Barcelona Choir singing and boy, did that take your breath away!

 

Every detail is there for a reason from the stone used, the colours of the ceilings, to the height, length and depth of each spire. Even the holes in the spires are perfectly sized in accordance with the sound of bells, every inch of the exterior has a purpose and is part of the story.

Gaudi was an architectural genius.

 

You're examining a forest through a microscpe here...

It just means that we all perceive beauty differently because we're individuals. Thats all.

 

I don't draw the same conclusion. As long as you're only asking humans, you're still introducing a subjective element. I would say it is in the eye of the beholder, but (close to) all humans have the same subjective bias, so it's still unsurprising that you will find common answers among humans. You would have to get the same statement out of a snail or a rock, or out of existence itself, to really argue that human subjectivity doesn't play the major role.

I doubt those statistics, I bet you have the numbers the wrong way around. That being said, this is not really in conflict with my argument, even though the numbers surprise me (even when done the right way around). I guess it depends on how they choose faces and how the study was conducted.

In a move that I've come to associate with you, you seem to have addressed an interpretation of the argument which wasn't intended. "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" could be used to argue for modern art (although I think it gets a bit more complicated than that) yet in your arguments against modern art, you don't seem to address that argument, you just proclaim it as wrong, while discussing the eye of the beholder in some different context.

 

I think we could debate whether " concept art" has any actual relevence to the world of art.