Measuring Beauty | Can Beauty be Quantified?

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I don't think anybody mentioned anything about this, but... symmetries in nature are naturally beautiful.

good point, simetry is very important.

I my self, divide beauty in two parts: natural beauty and relative beauty.

What I call relative beauty may be what others call "artificial" beauty. But the problem is that I think that everything artificial is natural.

Well, natural beauty is normally agreeed between the "graders" of it. It is very dificult to etect, because nature does the most dificult work to hide it, so that only the wisests get to find it. This beauty is basicly based on simetry.

Whiles there is the other beauty, relative beauty. This beauty is said to be artificial, but not always it is like that, and I'm not talking only about human, but everything. This beauty is compeltely relative, and is based on the actual appearance in reality of the object. It is what everything is "supposed" to be. You may see a bird that may look cute, but is in fact a hoorribly ugly one.

 

[Loren Booda]

Relative beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[d880640]

seeing beauty through the lens

http://www.seankernan.com/html/articles/thegood.html

 

[mrfeathers]

of course true beauty cannot be defined, it can however be defined by a society. In the middle ages, beauty was defined by weight, the richer you were, the fatter you were, the more beautiful you are. However in our current society, fat people are more or less looked down on when it comes to beauty. However it can be defined socially because in either society, if you had an arm growing out of your head, your not beautiful. beauty is purely judgemental

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

everyone has their own definition of beauty causing them to react to different qualities as beauty... but then a again... a pretty face is called beautiful, even if the heart is ugly...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture? I remember someone saying consumption (Pulmonary tuberculosis) or some sickness was romanticized and thus waifishness became the ideal of beauty. It seems like wanting to be thin would come from a number of sources

- Western thinkers' ideas about beauty, virtue, and grace and what kind of body possesses these (ties back to ideas of control and linearity)
- Christian ideas about gluttony
- Racism and the idea that "primitive" peoples are larger and ungainly (whether due to muscle or fat) and that more evolved peoples will look smaller, thinner, and hence more graceful (and I'm not agreeing with this).
- Western dualism and the division of the sexes (women idealized for looking as non-"male" as possible, influenced by what we perceive to be male)

We don't see this ideal in all cultures, so where did it come from in ours?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Also, not sure if this http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm" was mentioned, but there was a study on facial attractiveness in both sexes. Turns out people preferred feminine looking faces for both sexes. I'm not sure the study really got at sexual attraction, but it would make sense that feminized faces are more appealing since they would look less threatening.
Some interesting findings:
Interestingly, when people were rating the faces of their own ethnic group, they liked an even greater degree of feminization of both male and female faces than when they were ranking the faces of a different ethnic group...
The scientific study of beauty is rife with mysteries and contradictions. A number of reports have demonstrated that a composite face is usually deemed more attractive than anyone particular face -- that is, a consolidated image of 60 people is voted more attractive than is the image of most of the individual members. The classic evolutionary explanation for the triumph of the norm is that an average-looking person conveys a comforting familiarity, and is unlikely to harbor any unusual genetic mutations.
Yet the exaggerated pretty face has been shown to be favored over the average. If the faces of the 15 people rated as most attractive of the original pool of 60 are merged into a composite image, that averaged face outranks the first composite.
And if the features of the top-15 composite are then pushed to extremes, by raising and emphasizing the cheekbones, for example, the image is reckoned more beautiful still.

Also from this study, but written about http://html.channel3000.com/sh/health/conditionsaz/news-health-990623-181600.html" :
For Japanese and white faces, the women preferred faces that were on average about 20 percent and 15 percent feminized, respectively, when they were least likely to become pregnant.
When they were most likely to become pregnant, the women preferred faces that were only about 8 percent feminized for both groups of images.

In http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beauty.html":
"We found that that there definitely was a type of adult female face that men found attractive and that it was different from the average face," says Johnston. "The two key measurements are the distance from the eyes to the chin, which is shorter - in fact it is the length normally found in a girl aged eleven and a half; and the size of the lips, which are fatter - the size normally found on a fourteen-year-old girl". The Kate Moss view seems to be confirmed, but where does that leave actress Sigourney Weaver as an example of an attractive mature face, for instance?
Johnstone came to these conclusions by running a computer program that tried to mimic the process of evolution. Faces randomly selected by the computer were rated according to attractiveness by volunteers, and the most attractive were combined to breed a second generation of faces, continuing the process on to third and fourth generation,and so on. Gradually a shorter,full - lipped face took over. But Johnstone doesn't believe that the reason for its success was that it triggered protective feelings. "Although the features are juvenile, the face wasn't seen as being babyish," he says. The ideal face turned out to be that of a woman of 24.8 years.
The proportions seem to point to fertility, specifically the effect of the hormone oestrogen on the female face. "Up until puberty the faces of boys and girls are similar," says Johnstone. "But then the rise in oestrogen in girls gives them fuller lips, while testosterone in boys gives them a fuller jaw . So what people are picking out as beauty is really a sign of fertility brought on by oestrogen. Interestingly, 24.8 years - the age when most women achieve ideal facial proportions, according to the study - is the time when oestrogen levels are highest and women are at their most fertile"...Cunningham also found that attractive women with mature features, such as small eyes and a large nose, received more respect ."It could be that societies where women have more power and autonomy idealise women with more mature features," he says, "while those which value submissive females may prefer baby faces".

 

[nameless]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!

I have a different take on beauty. I haven't read the entire thread so excuse if I'm redundant, but I somehow doubt it...

I have found that our access to our own inner health, beauty, etc... is what the 'world' reflects back at us. The healthier, the more beauty we find within, the more beauty we see around us. It is all within anyway!

As I watch my wife heal and blossom and grow, she constantly comments on the 'ever increasing amount of beauty' surrounding her. She, like us all, open our eyes and look into the mirror. Wherever we look.

Please permit a short parable that perhaps someone hasn't heard yet;

A traveller arrived at the gate of a city and spying an old man asked him what sort of people lived in the city, that he was looking to relocate. The old fellow asked the traveller what the people were like in the city from whence he came? The traveller was sullen as he described a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, backstabbing, thieving horrible people there. The old fellow looked at him and said that he was sorry, but that was the kind of people that he would find here also. The traveller was sad as he bypassed the gate and traveled on down the road.
Soon another traveller stopped and asked the old man that same question. The old fellow asked the same question of this traveller also to which the traveller responded that they were lovely, caring, compassionate and generous people where he came from. The old man replied, "Welcome! That is exactly who you will find here also!" And smiling and thanking the old fellow for his time, the traveller entered the 'city'.

No matter where you go, there you are!
Beauty too.
*__-

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!

Concerning the studies I posted, I don't think they're actually talking about beauty. I think they're talking about physical attractiveness as it matters for survival. EG the peahen chooses the peacock with the biggest tail because it displays his ability to survive even with that ridiculously costly and dangerous accessory. I agree with you actually, I don't think beauty (as you are thinking of) can be quantified or pinned down. Just like art, certain sights connect with and speak to us, it's not a sexual thing like physical attractiveness. I think beauty has a lot to do with our thoughts and usu within a context. However, certain things like music do seem quantifiable, at least for certain characteristics. Usu pieces that resolve tension in a piece are the most pleasing.

 

[nameless]

Music is so very personally 'meaningful'. Some pile of testosterone or estrogen driving by with his/her 'beautiful meaningful music' blaring and polluting the soundscape is nothing but painful noise to me.

 

[Human Being]

My Take

It's interesting that so many people "believe" or at least "espouse" the adage, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For what follows that statement, is the assumption that everyone *understands* what beauty is, such that they are not "wrong" if they perceive something to be beautiful. If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder...

What surprises me about this thread isn't the "incompleteness" of so many posts, but that not a single person has introduced the concept of "rating" human visual beauty from 0-10. Since this thread is quite generally about *measuring* beauty, even if one is of the belief that such an endeavor is for naught, the most common definiton of beauty is human visual beauty. And the most commong measure of that specific beauty IS a point scale. :-) Some prefer a minimum value of 1, which is fine. I myself prefer the 0-10 scale as it provides an integer value for the "middle" beauty value of "average" - neither beautiful nor "ugly". Which leads me to another aspect of the measuring of beauty. Many people will quickly give the value of 10 to someone they find quite beautiful, and 0 (or 1) to a person if they are "mostly" ugly. It seems that people often err towards an extreme, when making "objective" evaluations of beauty. They don't put forth enough effort to be accurate, even more so when evaluation is "difficult" because the object being evaluated is nearer the middle of the continuum. That said...

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.

I'd like to get back to the "scale" that people often use to measure human visual beauty. Almost exclusively, people implement a linear scale for evaluation, where 10 is the "maximum" amount of beauty possible. Sure, some like to use "11" in "special" cases, but let's ignore that anomaly. Theoretically, the "maximum" measurement of beauty should be very rare, if not "unattainable". However, there's a different scale which I find can be more "useful" - the exponential scale. Whereas "average" beauty is but the "mid-point" between the two extremes of "maximum beauty" and "maximum ugliness", and hence would be a "5" on the 0-10 scale, on the exponential scale, "average" beauty is more akin to "beauty to the zeroth power". Something which is "ugly" can then be described as "beauty to the negative first power", and something "beautiful" would be "beauty to the first power". As ugliness increases, so does the negative exponent - likewise, as beauty increases, so does the positive exponent. If, in one's evaluation, they determine the beauty of a thing to be an "order of magnitude" greater than merely "beautiful", they could describe that thing as "beautiful squared" - etc. (yes, I really like math) Of course, any rating system is only good if a "rater" is trying to be consistently accurate.

The point of my post is twofold. Firstly, to highlight the adequacy and/or inadequacy of "rating scales" as they pertain to beauty. Secondly, to say that beauty IS something which CAN be measured - and not everyone is "qualified" to measure it accurately. Just as it is true that not everyone knows how to calculate a derivative or integral, or knows how to prepare Peking duck, there certainly are people who don't know how to measure beauty. What they state is then mere opinion and CAN be "incorrect"...

I look forward to your feedback and the ensuing discourse. (and forgive the edits, I didn't like what I said in a couple places)

 

[nameless]

If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder...

What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?

 

[Human Being]

Humbug

What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?

Beauty, in the general sense of the word, has no regard for your personal tastes. If you choose to *think* that a "road pizza" is beautiful, I'm not going to *stop* you from thinking that. However, it's my opinion that you would be *wrong*. Don't like my opinion? Darn. Although you grossly mischaracterize my platform, I will assure you anyway that I'm no fascist. Perhaps you'd like to drop the chest-beating style of your posts? If not, that's okay. I don't have to like your style. If you wish to debate the merits of my diatribe, then be a little more exacting. Anyone can respond as you have.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.

Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

 

[Human Being]

Development of the "measuring beauty" culture

Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

Certainly. I appreciated your posts, please don't think otherwise. The redundancy in my own post wasn't intended to slight those whom have said similar things.

Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture?

Great question. I think the "Thin Movement" began only after distribution methods of art and entertainment became pervasive thoughout the world's "alpha" cities. With focus being on visual human beauty, the trend also had to begin after televisions became commodities. It seems like a somewhat "modern" development of U.S. social norms. My guesstimate is that other countries which also have "elevated" physical appearance trends are being influenced by the U.S. For example, on NPR the other day they did a story about the increasing amount of purely cosmetic plastic surgeries in the Middle East. As for "when", after World War II would have been a great time to "elevate" particular trends such that they become a future "norm". And what better vehicle than the "sex symbol"? Which female celebrities were the first to be "underweight" for their height/build? How did they get "discovered"? More questions, the answers to which could help explain the "why" part of the *original* question. Me, I'm a "moderate" cynic, and I think the "Thin Movement" was started as a supremely effective way to polarize societies and genders against one another. Keep some people's attention on human visual beauty, and a great many are kept. Base pleasures fulfilled, many people could care less about what's going on in the world until it affects them directly. The grand chess match can go on as planned. Okay, perhaps I'm not moderate.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Certainly. I appreciated your posts, please don't think otherwise. The redundancy in my own post wasn't intended to slight those whom have said similar things.

No problem, just wanted to make sure I was heard I'm vain like that

More questions, the answers to which could help explain the "why" part of the *original* question. Me, I'm a "moderate" cynic, and I think the "Thin Movement" was started as a supremely effective way to polarize societies and genders against one another.

That sounds plausible, but why is being thin considered beautiful? Seems like evolutionarily speaking, males have sought plumper females because it indicated the ability to give birth to and rear more children. Plus having more fat indicates being female. Why didn't the trend go the more "natural" way? Seems like being small and thin is a characteristic of pre-pubescent kids. Maybe that is the answer then, males might have preferred juvenile appearing females. That is why females have higher voices (beyond their ontogeny, I mean evolutionarily) - males would want to protect them as if they were juveniles.

 

[jimmie]

An individual will not know what beauty is until that individual eliminates the 'thought' of what they 'think' beauty is.

It is not possible to measure beauty.

Beauty is all that is, and that is all it is.

 

[Human Being]

(ir)rationality

That sounds plausible, but why is being thin considered beautiful? Seems like evolutionarily speaking, males have sought plumper females because it indicated the ability to give birth to and rear more children. Plus having more fat indicates being female. Why didn't the trend go the more "natural" way? Seems like being small and thin is a characteristic of pre-pubescent kids. Maybe that is the answer then, males might have preferred juvenile appearing females. That is why females have higher voices (beyond their ontogeny, I mean evolutionarily) - males would want to protect them as if they were juveniles.

As I understand it, the dynamic between man and woman has been severely messed with over the last several decades. "Fitness Indicators" are no longer as rationally formulated, and that's because *survival* has changed so much within the context of human civilization. Men and woman of today, at least in U.S. society, are often times concerned only with "trivial" fitness indicators, like visual beauty. It seems to me that among the "middle and upper classes", the biggest fitness indicators today are IMAGE, FAME, FORTUNE, and POWER. Hence, a woman having the "proper" amount of body fat for her natural body size is seen as a negative contributor towards these four "false" indicators.

It should be noted that in "many" cases, having what is seen as "favorable" image, fame, fortune, or power CAN and DOES enable a "higher-level" survival. I'm thinking that in modern society, survival isn't about merely living, but living the "good life" - buying anything you want, vacationing anywhere you want, driving fancy cars, wearing the latest fashions, eating sophisticated meals, having similar friends, etc. Surely, if one IS living life in such a way, they are more likely to be able to seek "quality" health care when necessary.

Ugh, I can tell that I have more to say than time to say it. So I'll leave things here for now.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think http://www.glendale.edu/title5/120_cpe/beauty2.htm" article makes a good point. Seems that beauty is racialized, so I see how we would want blonde hair, and I've addressed the whole breast thing in another thread (see below), so perhaps being thin is racialized or part of class stratification ie thin upperclass women vs husky lowerclass workers. I've also read that being this is an expression of the Western ideal for control over the physical world.

From https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=780597&highlight=breast#post780597":

It is gender obsessed. Western culture is based on a separation of the sexes. And this comes from religious and philsophical ideas that organize those concepts for us. That is why when women began encroaching on the "male" domain of work, breast enhancements became popular. That is why women who look less like men and who emphasize female characteristics (ie breasts, butt) and de-emphasize the male characteristics (having muscles, being tall, being strong in general) are the ones thought of as "real women" and "sexy." Simply put, they don't threaten a man's maleness. This shows just how important a separation of sexes really is [in Western culture]. Even if you hear about equal rights and equality for the sexes, it is still a major division in our culture. Why do females still get paid less?[etc.]

 

[fuzzyfelt]

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."
There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor.

Quote from Human Being.


Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

Quote from 0theswerve0.

Just to clarify, do you think there are aesthetic universals, and if so, on what basis do you think so? What is your definition of art, or music in particular, how would you measure its value, more specifically? For example,
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/kaiserslautern.txt
do have any thoughts on this?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Just to clarify, do you think there are aesthetic universals, and if so, on what basis do you think so? What is your definition of art, or music in particular, how would you measure its value, more specifically? For example,
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/kaiserslautern.txt
do have any thoughts on this?

I don't think there are aesthetic universals. I think it's all in our minds. I discuss music below, which has a system based on mathematics, ie the proportions between notes. I think that our brains are designed to recognize order so that we may survive, that's why we like it, it's very ordered and we can grasp it. We enjoy things that make sense to us. Whether or not order is universally beautiful is the question in that case. For human's it might as well be.

I find it hard to untangle physical attractiveness, pleasure-inducing behavior, recognition of order and symmetry, and this intangible concept of "beauty." When I talk about music, for example, I am differentiating between the mental pleasure one experiences upon grasping resolutions of tensions in something like Palestrina and the unknown reasons for why people like other kinds of music. This seems to be what that link of yours is discussing. I definitely think that the dynamics created by the arrangement can be analyzed. However, trying to do a paint by numbers thing seems to still be missing something - the human part. That link talks about auditory scenes, I think this is what I am referring to.

There is also the question of synesthetes who have crossed senses. I have a friend who can taste names. She hates the sounds of machines, eg vacuum cleaners. They taste and sound bad to her. Some famous composers have been synesthetes who see colors and shapes dancing and morphing when they hear music. They see actual ordered patterns. This seems like a good argument for the idea that symphonic music appeals to the mind. The more one studies music and is aware of what to be listening for, the more pleasure one derives. I think this is analogous to Maimonides' golden apple in his intro to Guide for the Perplexed:

...It refers to the image of a golden apple covered by a silver filigree that is itself punctured with small openings. [A] saying uttered with a view to two meanings is like an apple of gold overlaid with silver-filigree work having very small holes,” writes the 12th Century Jewish Rabbi, physician and philosopher, quoting a Sage from Proverbs 25.11:

Now see how this dictum describes a well-constructed parable. For he says in a saying that has two meanings—he means an external and an internal one—the external meaning ought to be as beautiful as silver, while its internal meaning ought to be more beautiful than the external one […] When looked at from a distance or with imperfect attention, it is deemed to be an apple of silver; but when a keen-sighted observer looks at it with full attention, its interior becomes clear to him and he knows that it is gold[10]

That's how I understand composed music. Music today can be appealing for many reasons. For myself, I tend to like histrionic singers, eg Jeff Buckely, Chris Cornell, Muse. They could be singing anything and it'd still sound wonderful to me (not that I don't appreciate their wonderful lyrics). Perhaps this is related to the composed music because the singers are creating and resolving tensions, instead of just repeating the same 3 chords over and over.

We tried to do this in my music class with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint" . We'd have the cantus firmus (the pre-existing melody) set, then we'd create a new line of notes that worked with the cantus firmus to create a theme. To do this successfully, we'd use Fux's rules EG no parallel 5ths or octaves (the consonant chords), use imperfect 3rds and 6ths, always resolve with either unison or octave. We always ended up liking the pieces that followed what Fux set out, but even when everyone used the rules, some pieces were better than others - so it wasn't just using those rules but going beyond in some inexplicable way. I just skimmed over that link btw, so point out whatever parts you want me to look over in particular.

I also brought up the idea of attractiveness and pleasant sights. One example could be of a child's face or someone smiling. We are designed to be attracted to these sights, and to receive pleasure from them. We also get pleasure from smiling back, if it was a genuine smile. So this isn't strictly universal, it's just another part of the human experience.

As for art, what is considered beautiful varies from person to person. But I do think there are universal bases for these estimations - they appeal to our individual minds, our unique perspectives and understadings, and are not simply about perceiving order. For example, my favorite artist is http://www.epilogue.net/cgi/database/art/list.pl?gallery=142". She draws mostly dark fairytale in digital media, but she also has a story behind them. That's what I find appealing, the character that I perceive. It isn't the pretty faces, it's the ideas I find appealing that are communicated through the art. I don't have a solid definition of art, there are too many ideas I've encountered to actually choose. I did find one telling point, tho; in my book Material Culture Reader, one of the articles points out that early anthropologists were pretty much antiquarians who would bring back material objects and call them art. In their original context, they may have had a functional use, EG Native American ceremonial masks were now being called art in it's new context - sitting in a museum to be looked at. Are the cave paintings of Lascaux art, or merely functional? Or both? I don't know. I guess you could say art is whatever fits my original statement - anything that speaks to your mind; we can say it can only be man-made, man-made for that purpose, or unintended natural scenes.

Lastly, you asked about value. I guess value would function a lot like my understanding of art - it varies from individual to individual.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I simply gave the link for a few reasons, not because I agree entirely, but because it exemplified some of the issues. As well because I haven’t come across many such theories (I mentioned Kant’s obsolete views earlier in the thread), and would be interested to hear of any more. Also I linked it because he is a Noble Laureate in Physics, which suggests a good grasp of the physical world, and which of this might be most analogous, as well as maybe more readable for the users of this forum. I do agree however with ideas that art is symbolic language that is capable of touching all people.

I enjoyed the points you made and am interested to learn more about synesthetes.

I appreciate that you don’t have a solid definition of art, nor do I, but I am interested in some of the ideas you suggested. You said art could be anything that speaks your mind, that this could be man-made, man-made with intent, or an unintended natural scene. Googling around, I have found some other broad interpretations, too. I like your idea, that sounds rather like Tolstoy’s ‘emotional response’. Where you mention an unintended natural scene, I would call that nature, but, more in line with your words, would say art includes the mind’s selection of some natural scene to perceive and its response to that. This would not be a far step from a photograph of a natural scene, which is widely considered art. Choosing and responding to a natural scene could in fact be the simplest form of art, unencumbered by another human artist and various communication channels.

To quickly link this with the thread, beauty is a pleasing emotional response to something, and falls within this definition of art.

You did seem to draw a line yourself, to some distinction between art and function, rather like a different definition I found – ‘Art refers to all creative human endeavours, excluding actions related to survival and reproduction. I agree that if you look for boundaries are difficult to distinguish. As an example, clothing, food, shelter, sex, themselves are needed for survival, but become artistic symbols themselves, of wealth, status, style… and these symbols in turn are used as functions for survival advantage. I think your example of ancient artefacts, or another example, Duchamp’s finding a urinal and placing it in an exhibition back in 1917, are more obviously delineated, for function becomes secondary in this context. But the lack of boundaries between function and art makes it difficult to decipher how much of human nature is bound by utility and how much is bound by art. Begging the questions is art necessarily non-functional, is it a different form of survival technique, and if not why does it happen? When emotional meaning other than an identified purpose for survival occurs, is this all that constitutes art? Or, is all human endeavour artisitic on a level? Is basically everything that distinguishes us from animals our ability to symbolise artistically and that is basis of what it is to be human and our more complex abilities that may have evolved for the purpose of survival? This is a further quote about art- ‘From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits — such as science via alchemy, and religion via shamanism.’ If this is the case, is art that is more obviously functional (such as science) a lesser art than something that is more non-functional? Is something that has more layers of meaning a measure of greater art? Are these measures of art? I don’t know.

I see I touched on symbolism a bit in the last paragraph, I think symbolism allows creativity/art/conceptual thought, again, everything that distinguishes us mainly as humans. I don’t think I’m the only one, but I’m getting a bit bogged down now.

Although you say you don’t think there are aesthetic universals, you do say that ‘what is considered beauty varies from person to person’, but that you do think there are universal bases for these estimations, and in your first paragraph, you said that these were based on order, that our brains are wired like that for survival, ‘and that’s why we like it’. If I have understood you correctly, I agree entirely. I think all easily identifiable art involves a sense of order based on, ( there are different words for these) the inclusion of pattern, symmetry, emphasis, counterpoint, harmony, balance, movement, rhythm and unity. Possibly, jointly and severally these aspects relate to the human condition, and probably to its survival, as you say. This is going to sound generalised and obvious, but I think these are symbolic of life, finding an appropriate mate, sex, living a social animals, basic needs and death and renewal, the human condition. I think there is something here that can move the whole species, and that is how I see it as universally human.

And I do think that there are different ways of combining these that can be more understood by those who are more familiar with a certain way of combining these, that is culturally, and further there can be more differences in this combination that speak to us on a personal, individual basis.

At the beginning I mentioned appraising nature was art, and I think that anything artistic involves also some amount of human judgement, whether it be selecting the natural scene, idly choosing what to wear, or selecting the combination of elements for a composition, an amount of skill is involved.

As far as using this idea for measurement at all, or more precisely for one of the components of this, beauty, things start to get pretty hard. It must, as you say, vary from individual to individual, though have cultural and human criteria as well. And as beauty is something that is pleasing, something we find attractive, it probably involves the apprehension of something important to survival. Perhaps measuring beauty can be done in two ways, by evaluating our individual response, or by evalutating what is beneficial to our survival, on different levels, perhaps evaluating too its lack of obvious benefit or function, and also evaluating the skill involved, or the notion of our own skill in choosing to enjoy it.

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

I don't care what anybody says, Adriana Lima is HOT!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

My roommate said the same thing last night. We were talking about what race has the most beautiful people (not seriously of course), and he said Brazilians - an example being Adriana. I really don't get it tho...She'd snap like a twig if you tried to do anything with her! Men like this?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Guess she does get maximum exposure;)

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

reinvesting in beauty.

That stars should form and produce the elements of life and that a life form should arise with the ability to be the eyes and mind of the universe and allow the universe to have awareness, knowledge, understanding and appreciation for its existence is where beauty is created, blossoms and grows.
The human ability to do this is at the core of beauty for without the ability to appreciate beauty it is meaningless. Using this standard go forth and measure beauty for as long as you maintain a body and a mind to do so.