The Core Of Beauty

I think we are programmed by nature to appreciate landscapes. But I agree with you that other than that, it's a matter of personal experience and education about art that makes one like or dislike something new and/or different. If we understand what goes into the creation of a piece of art or we understand what it symbolizes in its unique way, we can definitely like it and want to purchase it if it moves us enough. I think art in this way appeals to both our rationality and reason and to our emotions.

What a great question Ronald, and I am clueless as to the answer. The best answer I have is that there is no rhyme or reason why something in the arts becomes a masterpiece.

I think beauty in the eye of the beholder is learned by repetitive seeing.

What I mean by that is seeing the perfect face of a beautiful person and being told that is beauty we tend to compare that image to a person that may have a crooked nose or teeth and think they are not what I would call beautiful.

Same as we think a rat is not beautiful but another rat would consider their partner beautiful.

Or if there are other civilizations in the universe – and they are completely different looking than us – we may think they are terrible looking – But they think they are beautiful because that is what they learned though repetitive seeing.

I agree with the word Programmed, but it might be better to use the word Wired.

As kids many of us seeing cartoons would be totally intrigued by the MCD commercials. I am not discussing whether you eat MCD as an adult. I am talking the systems introduced in the commercials. The land, the logic behind having characters for different products. The putting together of products for a meal. The other kids joining Ronald for a meal. The Hamburglar creating a plot. The shrubs and paths. The small buildings.

Was that beauty? What is beauty? It is something that very serenely brings us in as the viewer.

We live in an age where we are jolted by art. That is not beauty.

Do we need beauty? The ancients of Greece thought we did. The courts of Europe thought we did.

Only after WW I and WW II does this become highly questionable.

adding as man records himself with modern technology, ie Vietnam the first televised war, do we as humans allow ugliness that has always been there to enter the arts as a dominant feature.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

Trying to define beauty is like trying to define art...or truth in politics. lol

Art is no more than expression. My 1990 Acura Intgera that I've spent a huge amount of time renovating, is a work of Art from my effort.

Marc Chagall did extraordinary Art, was it beautiful? It's completely subjective. Art Education can help you experience Art that you may otherwise not know about, but it can't tell you what is Art and what isn't.

I would otherwise have to say, the quality of Art is defined by the refinement of technique.

This is an old philosophy question for discussion. You are on a hike and come to a clearing in the woods and there laid out before you is a beautiful valley in the sunset, it takes your breath away! You get back home and tell others about this amazing valley you found. You are informed that this valley was formed by strip mining which basically ruined the natural land and ecology in the area. Does this knowledge change your perception of the beautiful valley? In other words the valley is the same as you found it only your knowledge has changed.

It is completely individual. Some might look for the positive outcome. Other may only see the negative.

It's the individual that sees it one way or the other.

You can certainly say WW2 was horrible, but a mom might tell their child, that's how I met your dad and why you were born.

Ron,

That would spoil it for me.

There is spoiled beauty.

Happens all the time.

On occasion I was, not is, accused of spoiling beauty.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

There are bad things that turn into good eventualities.

I think we should appreciate beauty for beauty's sake.
For me, the valley remains beautiful, regardless of how it was formed.

In the eye of the beholder, in the moment....and it can change at any time.

I don't know the answer but take snow - one of the most beautiful natural occurances there is .

Sitting in front of a fire, watching it accumulate, with good food and drink at hand, and no where to go, it is one of the most beautiful things I can think of.

Looking out the window from work and knowing your commute home will be long and dangerous, that same snow looks quite different.

Makes me wonder if beauty is not more about how we FEEL than how we SEE?

Context matters to me.

Not that selective context does not happen.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

To me, the one adjective defining beauty is:

Peaceful

"To me, the one adjective defining beauty is:

Peaceful"

I agree, to an extent, peaceful is one element, but if that's the only thing about it has then it's probably boring. I think beauty is similar to that quote about pornography "I can't define it but I know it when I see it.".

A truly beautiful moment is something you'll recall years later and when thought about will cause the same emotions, though with lower impact of course. One such moment I had was while visiting a rural area for a couple days. I went there to explore the area and see a plein air exhibit. I was staying overnight but didn't have anything to do in the evening, I didn't want to sit in the motel room watching TV. I discovered there was a dirt track race that night and I enjoy such things so I went. This is a real small town thing, not many people, rickety old stands and I had a whole section largely to myself. The stands faced northwest and overlooked the valley which was entirely agricultural. There were mountains on the western side of the valley. The sun started to go down, as soon as it hit those mountain peaks the light turned very warm, and then the mountains started casting shadows across all those farms. It was one of the most beautiful things I ever witnessed, and since they didn't have race cars out of the track yet and there weren't many people there it was also quite peaceful. I didn't bother taking photos because I knew they'd pale in comparison to my memory.

I have a favor to ask of those of you in this discussion. I reported a problem with the pdf pages for a catalog on the main discussion page. If any of you could check this out and help me, I would really appreciate it. Thank you and I hope this comment is not inappropriate.

Favorite colors, I have heard may be tied into far earlier times. IE, color of fruit and other edibles.

I will stick with what I have always said: Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but in the eye of the imaginative. Your mind tells you what is beautiful and what is less so. The light of an object, regardless of the source, is simply a cognitive interpretation. Ronald, your philosophical example is a very good one.

Beauty I believe, is what tugs at our heart strings - or stimulates our mind. At times beauty is something that provides us with great comfort .

I agree with Val on our perception changing depending on our experiences and needs - and I agree with Edward that beauty can come from bad beginnings.

I can easily dismiss " beauty " if it comes from a source of no substance or negativity .

No generalities. Beauty is totally personal as to what I see, feel. I couldn't/wouldn't dare to expect anyone to see as I do, nor must I care.
Wonderful, thoughtful thread, as always, Ron. I could go on.....but, for once, have said enough !

Ronald, a complicated question. I think that it's many things that influence what one finds beautiful or not so beautiful. It could be societal, ethnic, geographical, political, gender, religious, upbringing, personal experience and many other things none of which would exclude that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Synaesthesia is a very interesting phenmomnenon, and teaches us a lot about how we experience beauty.

A professor once related how he had been at a musical concert in a well-known museum. In this elevated state
of emotion after the concert, he walked out into a museum gallery, where he saw some Lapis Lazuli in a display
case. He said that ever since that day, that Lapis Lazuli had never seemed to blue, so beautiful, and he realised
that his heigntened emotional state due to the music made him extra sensitive to the beauty of this particular
stone - which he says he never recovered afterwards.

Beauty can change due to our emotional state: we may one year deem something of exceptional beauty,
when in another year we express indifference.

Great question! I've often wondered about that. I think a lot has to do with harmony (same in music - think of how major/minor keys affect 'mood'), balance (golden ratio etc.), groundedness (is that a word?). A lot of our perception is culturally influenced though. For example, in the past forests that we now perceive as calming and utterly beautiful may have felt threatening to people because it they were home to creatures that might want to eat you or bands of robbers.
Re favourite colors and fruit. That certainly holds true for birds - they are genetically programmed to go for them > instant carbohydrates. I see it with artificially incubated brooder-reared chicks; they have never seen red currants or whatever but instantly go for them and gobble them up. We too are probably genetically programmed to appreciate those red apples among the lush green foliage.

We put instinct into the realm of animals but despite being able to think around them we do have survival instincts as well. I wonder if survival connects to our concept of beauty in any way. IE, foods , mates, shelter and so on?

Survival-mode filters out all the extraneous: it is our humanity at
its most visceral. Beauty, colour, texture, size, shape - all over-
looked in the chase for existence!

It has long been my contention that art is somehow connected with our species success. In other words it provides some kind of advantage when it comes to survival. Easy to say, easy to believe but difficult to prove. My curiosity into the nature of what we call beauty stems from my search.

"Beauty, colour, texture, size, shape - all over-
looked in the chase for existence!"

I'm not quite so sure about that. Look at the exquisite stone age cave paintings in Lascaux, France or the Cueva de las Manos in Patagonia. Those people must have led a pretty precarious existence and yet they invested time and resources into leaving their mark through works of art.

Those protean French folks, the Patagonians too, would prolly not have thought "this life is so precarious!"
Their prairies/grasslands were teeming with animals!

I think sometimes it is more about feeling a connection, plain and simple.

I wish it was plain and simple for me, Dodie.

Sometimes people connect with a work of mine that I cannot connect to at all. Or maybe they're being nice.

might there be a difference between absolute beauty and subjective beauty? Just thinking..............

Absolute beauty cannot exist, as beauty "is in the eye of the beholder!"
But in a democratic society - where all subjective views on beauty are
weighed and balanced against each other - the closest we can get to
an absolute beauty is an objective beauty. Objectivity is the democracy
of subjectivities.

> The question revolves around why do we think some things are beautiful and other things not so much?

It is not just personal taste, but also the visual stimuli that generates excitement and awe.

> Does knowledge change our concept of what is beautiful?

I don't think it is knowledge, but our brain chemicals and life experiences that select beauty. For example, a beautiful spider macro photo will be scary for some people. Or, we will appreciate slower music as we get older. Knowledge, however, contributes appreciation. "Now I know how hard to draw faces, I appreciate this piece of art more"

Deniz ... you make an equivalence between worth and value ... with beauty.

Just wondering,

Can "beauty" simply be a contract between the viewer and the view?

Art is without doubt more interesting than beautiful. Concepts of beauty are not to be applied as a creative mind of a artist is already beautiful.

And yes, my opinion is that depending on the knowledge of each so it will allow him/her to appreciate and comment a work art beyond its beauty.

@Roger - are you living in a constructive world (one you 'make' yourself)?

Or are you living in an already constructed world - one already given - which does not look for your assent and consent to its values?

Teilhard de Chardin - the noted French philosopher - says that any beautiful view is created there and then by the beholder.
He implies that beauty does not exist until 'actively pursued': beauty is an act.

So I guess contract would be right - you are giving your assent and consent to
beauty (which makes you living in a constructive manner!)

"First off I don’t think a work of art needs to be beautiful, just interesting."
Agreed!
It also should be well done.
I also think there are universal beauty indicators programmed into living beings. One of these indicators is physical health recognition and another is mathematical recurrences.

Jack,

RE:...." living in a constructive manner!".

That's right

Right from birth one is faced with a continually evolving more and more elaborate Contract

A "Offer and Acceptance"

An offer to become a functioning human being and an acceptance to act like one.

From the offer of oxygen and accepting to Breathe, to the offer of a milk producing teat, and accepting to Suck, and it goes on and on , "Offer and Acceptance"; an offer of self balancing inner ear hairs and accepting of getting off one's butt and Stand

Of course this "Contract" can go astray, anytime, for all sorts of reasons

Yet, the "Offer and Acceptance" still applies, no matter how it veers from a "straight line" contract

However, as one evolves this "Contract" will evolve, becoming more complex with more and more offers to chose, modify and accept.


So, one element in this "Life Contract" is the offer of an unfettered EYE for the appreciation of Beauty,..that becomes the individual's obligation to accept, what, where, when and how, or not accept at all.

"Interesting"?
OR "thOUGHT PROVOKING"

IMO not the same thing


Bill Tomsa

https://bill-tomsa.pixels.com

Bill how would you separate the meanings? Drew I personally agree about the well done part but there would most likely be debate about what that means.

Looking at some definitions of beauty, there is one word that jumped out at me. Harmony.

"A quality or combination of qualities that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is often associated with properties such as harmony of form or color, proportion, authenticity, and originality." https://www.yourdictionary.com/beauty

Another common feature associated with the word beauty is the female. When Christians think of beauty it is usually associated with God. For example, God created the woman for the man in a way that pleased his eyes and spirit and mind as well as illustrated the relationship of man with God. So what is beautiful is connected to the one who "He has made everything beautiful in its time". Therefore discordant, offensive, crass and meaningless 'art' such as the display of a cross in a vat of urine would not be considered beautiful to most people on earth.

I agree. To me, it’s not so much about “beauty”, and much more about a message and being able to recognize or relate to it. Art can be so many things though.

Just wondering,

Can beauty truly be enjoyed, if there wasn't a built in criteria/ prejudice already deeply set in all of us.?


Envision the following:

Instead of the female breasts being on the chest, they were on the ladies' hips

or, a bit less radical, instead of side by side, the breasts were one above the other

What we consider beautiful or ugly, for that mater, varies from person to person and culture to culture but why do we think anything is beautiful? Is there some kind of instinctual or survival benefit to beauty? Are we the only creature that sees beauty or do other creatures as well?

There is one aspect of "Beauty" we are ALL born with.

Symmetry

The appreciation of Asymmetry is definitely a learned thing, and is strongly resisted throughout all cultures.

It seems that not only in humans, but probably all sentient creatures, tend toward symmetry, since asymmetry connotes unhealthiness.

Two words: wabi sabi.

Peggy,

RE:..."Wabi Sabi

"In Zen philosophy, there are seven aesthetic principles in achieving wabi-sabi:
Kanso — simplicity
Fukinsei — asymmetry or irregularity
Shibumi — beauty in the understated
Shizen — naturalness without pretense
Yugen — subtle grace
Datsuzoku — freeness
Seijaku — tranquility"

I can certainly abide by those principles

Roger: "First off I don’t think a work of art needs to be beautiful, just interesting."

Yes, Guernika doasnt have one single beautifull detail, but picture is still beautifull cause it speaks about horrors of war, intresting things are beautifull on its own way, cause they inerve us on a special way, good thing is when work of art is beautifull and interesting at the same time.

"The question revolves around why do we think some things are beautiful and other things not so much?"

Truth obout war is beautifull cause it is truth? And all other positive things like truth, health, good, human are beautifull?

" Does knowledge change our concept of what is beautiful?"

Yes, as all other higher functions of our brain..

But I promise you something in a thread "Nothing new under sun, we should paint under moonlight" .. your painting in a first post remind me of this: Obelisk found in woods in Europe, nobody knows who made it or why, but take a look: a head of a wild pig, just a head with some strange undefined elements, no body, spirales remind on a brain a little bit? :)

And another example, a head of a pig on a stick, carved on a temple somewhere in Asia



Really hard to find something new under the sun or moonlight :)

Milija,

RE:..."... beautifull on its own way, ..."

I'm trying to separate "Beauty" as the pure unspoken contract the viewer has with the view.

And "Beauty" as a noun requiring a modifier...or an adjective requiring an article

Googled "The Core Of Beauty" [specifically - What is The Core Of Beauty?]
Top item - simplicity, “The core of beauty is simplicity.” - Paulo Coehlo
Paulo Coehlo author of The Alchemist
Which lead to this site that might be interesting to the group at large - https://theanthrotorian.com/travel/2018/4/7/10-inspiring-paulo-coelho-quotes-adventure

Interesting, I would have thought that 'beauty', at its finest core, would have been a metaphor for something like 'truth'; but simplicity is interesting.

Roger, would you believe I wanted to quote Ronald :)

So there are only beautifull people who see beautifull stuff, not beauty on its own? So artist are beautifull people? :)

Terrance, The Alchemist is truly a beautiful and fun book to read. It is on my top 5 books of all time.

The perception of beauty may varying; the emotional response, I dare say is universal.

The emotional response being universal is something I strongly agree with Drew. My only question is why do we have an emotional response or any response to outside stimulation. I can understand certain reactions such as fear or wow there’s some good or there is a great place for shelter or she/ he would make a great partner but what good and why a response to beauty?

Ronald, to fully explore your question is to get into the ideas of Intelligent Design and Natural Selection. Unfortunately, a theological and philosophical discuss would have to be allowed on this forum and it is not.
With this said, I will reference my original response.
"I also think there are universal beauty indicators programmed into living beings. One of these indicators is physical health recognition and another is mathematical recurrences."