WHAT IS BEAUTY?

THE TROUBLE WITH BEAUTY

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is allYe know on earth, and all ye need to know. John Keats (1795-1821)

Beauty in art is often nothing but ugliness subdued.

Jean Rostand, (1894-1977)

Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. Kongfuzi

No object is so ugly that, under certain conditions of light and shade, or proximity to other things, it will not look beautiful; no object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. I believe that in every twenty-four hours what is beautiful looks ugly, and what is ugly looks beautiful, once.

Oscar Wilde, (1854-1900)

Beauty is no quality in things themselves, it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.

David Hume, (1711-1776)

But what is beauty? What makes something beautiful?

What makes something the opposite of beautiful, ugly? What is the relationship between the two? Is Wilde right, that one thing can be both full of beauty and full of ugly?

The quality of beauty is often defined as that which is pleasing, either to the senses or to the mind.

A painting can be beautiful, as can a sunset, a baby, a mathematical formula, or a hockey slap shot.

There is beauty in the things made by us, whether artwork, everyday objects (such as clothing or pencils), ideas, cities, or institutions.

There is beauty in nature, from the macrocosmic

to the microcosmic.

And there is the beauty we find in ourselves and in each other.

But what is it that joins each of these very different things in the category of being beautiful?

There is debate over where the beauty of something lies.

Hume argues that beauty is "in the eye of the beholder", as the old cliché says.

This would mean that beauty is a subjective quality and is in the perceiver, rather than in the beautiful object itself.

This is why people disagree over something's beauty and why standards of beauty change over time.

But many, including Kongfuzi would argue that beauty is objective that it lies in the things we describe as beautiful. It is some quality that they all share which we can recognize and appreciate.

This explains why many people can agree about the beauty of specific works of art, sunsets, or people.

Can beauty tell us anything? Is Keats right, that there is some truth in beauty? Can we learn from beauty?These are all questions to further

explore

SOME PERSPECTIVES ON BEAUTY The Ancient Greeks

the debate about the nature of beauty can be traced back to Plato

His theory of beauty was closely tied to his Theory of the Forms

ultimate form is that of the good, of perfectionThus, we all have the innate ability to recognize the good reflected in things; when we do, we call this quality of ultimate moral goodness beauty

To Plato, then, recognition of beauty is recognition of moral goodness and it lies within the thing called beautiful, reflected from the ultimate good

idealized beauty (forms) were of particular interest to many Greek philosophers

spent considerable effort in trying to develop mathematical formulae to describe what beauty was

In architecture, they employed what is now called the Golden Ratio, a mathematical formula attributed to Pythagoras, which described the relationship between the lengths of the sides of rectangles or triangles

used similar mathematical formulae to describe the relationship between parts of the human body in order to create beautiful, pleasing sculptures

today, many of these figures are still considered ideals of human beauty, despite being grossly out of realistic proportion and posed in anatomically impossible positions, they still strike us as beautiful.

Side Note: Greek sculptures often used many models in

composing a work, for instance, combining the nose of one with the forearm or another to achieve a form closer to their ideal of beauty. This blending of models was considered superior to any one model

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that when facial features of many people are blended together photographically to create an averaged face, most people agree that this averaged face is more beautiful than any individual face of the models. People will also pick a computer-created averaged face as being more attractive than real faces.

DAVID HUME: A QUESTION OF TASTE Middle Ages, the focus on the nature

of beauty was religious and moralistic: beauty was equated with closeness to God and heaven was the ultimate beauty spot

Renaissance, there was a shift back to the ideals of the ancients and a focus on the beauty of the human form and on human ideas: beauty was about humans.

By the 18th century, the scepticism of Rene Descartes had led many to question where the beauty in things lay and how it should be described.A focus on the concept of inner

sense of beauty developed

David Hume argued that beauty was a matter of subjective taste, that is, a thing of beauty is something which an individual finds pleasing.

A strict Empiricist, Hume believe that pleasure, based on the sensations created by something, is what we refer to when we call something beautiful.

So, for example, when I find a sunset beautiful, I am merely finding it pleasing and you may not find it so.

To Hume, the pleasing aspect of the object creates a sensation we refer to as its beauty, much like the flame of a candle against your hand creates a sensation you call pain. The beauty (and the pain) is in your

perception, not in the sunset or the candle.

There is no objective beauty in things, beauty is all "in the eye of the beholder", as the quote from Hume

Similarly to his view of Ethics, Hume argued that all moral standards are relative and subjective. However, we all share similar sensory

perceptions, and Hume argued that through education many people might learn to understand these sensations and come to agreement on the beauty of particular things

In the end, these decisions about what is beautiful are subjective. Each person will find that different things will create this sensation.

This accounts for differing tastes, and you may not share my pleasure at watching Spongebob Squarepants. This doesn't mean that I am wrong to consider Spongebob beautiful, nor does it mean that you are right in not finding it so: we can both be right (or neither of us may be right).

IMMANUEL KANT: THE 'AESTHETIC JUDGEMENT'

Kant's theory, rested on his notion of the rational; that humans make reasoned judgements based on the way our minds are structuredargues that we can only perceive things

in the ways that we do because our minds work in certain ways

we all share this same structure of mind, though how we use the structure may differ

human ability to reason allowed us to make sense of what we perceived

KANT: HANDOUT When we come to a decision that

something is beautiful, Kant identified four moments in the process by which we come to this aesthetic judgement:

DisinterestednessUniversalityNecessityPurpose

HUMAN BEAUTY Beauty pageants are popular

worldwide. They typically involve young women competing against each other to be crowned queen of the pageant. In the Miss Universe pageant, contestants are judged not just on how they look in a swimsuit, but they must also impress the panel of judges with their intelligence and education.

Beauty, in this setting, is thus judged on both outer qualities, the physical appearance of the contestants, and inner qualities, attributes of their minds.

While some may debate which plays a greater role in the final decision of the judges, the point is that the notion of beauty in the contest is based on criteria which include both what can be seen and what can't.

But what makes a person beautiful? We tend to define human beauty in terms of traits that we find attractive. But is beauty "only skin deep"? Most would agree with the organizers of Miss Universe that it is a combination of inner and outer qualities that are considered attractive. Can a person who is physically attractive, yet morally or intellectually repugnant, be beautiful?

Standards of outer beauty change over time; one period may favour taller people over shorter, another more corpulent over thinner. Standards used to judge outer beauty vary over time and by culture. Our culture currently esteems the beauty of

youth over age; women are considered more objects of beauty than men; thin is in.

Ideals of physical beauty are notoriously fickle: outer beauty is another element of fashion, and this year's look will be replaced by a new one for next year. As well, the kind of person you find attractive now may not attract you in 20 years.

The same holds true for inner beauty, although standards change more slowly.

The qualities of personality, of someone's mind, that we find attractive, will also change over time and across cultures.

kindness and compassion may be considered attractive here; elsewhere, they may be seen as unattractive.

Someone may find income earning potential attractive; others may see artistic ability as more beautiful.

different standards for men and women: some cultures believe submissive women are more attractive, while others favour more independence of mind.

THE CASE OF CLEOPATRA: Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, who lived in the

1st century BCE and was linked to the two most powerful men in the world; Julius Caesar and Mark Antony.

Cleopatra is usually described as a seductress, who wielded her extensive beauty to control these great men. In art, she has typically been portrayed as an exotic, physically attractive woman. A steady subject in films and on television her qualities of physical attractiveness are usually emphasised.

However, this Cleopatra is not what the ancient sources describe: They describe a seductress, a great beauty,

but one based on her inner qualities-her political savvy, her education, her ability to make things happen.

Her appearance, apparently, was quite ordinary and of little account to the ancients, but her mind, her intellect and personality were what distinguished her.

What made her beautiful was not how she looked, but who she was.

Human beauty continues to be a focus of modern Canadian society. It is a multi-billion dollar industry, as people attempt to match their outer appearance to the current standards. Being beautiful has well-documented advantages: people who are more attractive tend to get higher grades and better jobs. We tend to associate qualities of inner beauty with those of outer beauty and expect that good-looking people are morally good as well.

But what makes someone beautiful? What combination of physical appearance and intellectual qualities is needed to classify someone as beautiful?

Article on beauty

Taboo Series: Identity Culture and beauty