What Makes Beauty?

[Chemical]

[This is an attempt to reconcile the objective and subjective within beauty]

Beauty has long been associated with physical subjects and moral ideals. To be beautiful, thus, was to suggest that the object of consideration exuded both superior qualities of aesthetic and ‘goodness.’ <b><i>This classical notion however is ultimately unable to satisfy my own notion of what is beautiful so that I have now found myself in an attempt to express my ideas in comparison to this approach.</i></b>

Firstly, I would like to address the subject itself. Always within the realm of perception, the subject has relied exclusively on perceptive tools of the human body to give it form and meaning. <b><i>Thus, to glorify an object found within the physical realm requires an individual to subsequently glorify their own perceptive skills.</i></b>

Secondly, I would like to address the notion that beauty is synonymous with a pure and righteous ideal. <b><i>There arises a problem with this approach</color></b> in that it relies heavily on a universal definition of “good.” However, civilization has, since the time of Plato, understood that “good” is not a universal rule and differs significantly between cultures, religions and individuals so that in this instance beauty relies utterly on subjective, cognitive approaches. <b><color=red>Thus, to glorify an object as beautiful based on superior moral qualities also requires an individual to subsequently glorify their own cognitive abilities.<i></b>

At this time I would like to draw attention to the subsequent systems utilized in the process of identifying beauty; the perceptive and cognitive systems. The underlying result of these abilities grants us the conscious experience of hearing, sight, smell, taste, touch and thought. As such, <b><i>an object only becomes beautiful through the use of the systems which by essential nature -must- be beautiful themselves; so that Beauty is a process as well as an object (or subject)</i></b>. Thus, in this instance the look is the signifier of an objective beauty (the process) while the seen is the signifier of the subjective beauty (the object).

[Christmas]

This is too deep for me. :(

[The Devil Man]

All I know is that I am a truly beautiful person with amazing good looks and I bring joy to many women.

And I am nice to women and kind to them and I know how to bring them pleasure because they always come back for more. :)

Yeah. So I am beautiful for sure.

[Chemical]

Well.. what I was trying to get at is that every object and subject is both beautiful and not beautiful. The object of contemplation (which may be yourself) is only capable of ever being subjective... but since everyone feels or knows beauty then there has to be an objective force involved which I hypothesize to be the process itself.

But feel free to argue or offer your own theories on <b>why</b> objects are beautiful.

[Christmas]

Because my eyes and heart tell me so? :bigsmile:

[Jebus]

Beauty is a physical quality bestowed upon something based on subjective criteria.

Nothing is beautiful to everyone. Each person finds different things beautiful. I for instance love the ocean, sunsets and the night sky. However some other person won't think the same way because they're frightened of the ocean, sunsets make them feel sad, or because the night sky makes them feel insignificant.

As for beauty having to do with something's inherent goodness, I'll have to disagree. Using the same examples I used earlier, being forces of nature, they have no inherent goodness. Nature is a neutral force, lacking good or evil.

There is no objectivity to beauty, as there is no objectivity to a lot of the things humans do. I would recommend not trying to objectify it. Every time I've tried, I nearly went mad.

[Captain Maxx Power]

To truncate the first post;

Beauty is usually about looking good and feeling good. I don't think this is correct.

Seeing beauty requires someone to be good at recognising beauty.

Knowing beauty requires someone to understand the idea that what is good and pleasing to the eye differs and should know their own idea about what is beautiful.

All in all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Nifleheim7]

There is no objectivity to beauty,

Well,the ancient Greeks tried to define beauty using the objectivity of maths.At least in their art.There are certain laws in maths that apply to art and someone can try to use them to achieve perfection.
BUT,knowing that, they also tried to not make something entirely perfect.Beauty for them was something that was nearly perfect(based on maths) but still leaves something to be desired.Nature isn't 100% perfect either.
With that being said,i personally agree with what Christmas said...

[KentaRawr!]

Beauty is when something really looks nice. :)

[GeneralSapphire]

I would say that beauty doesnt exist except to those who can really appreciate it!!!!!!!
Beauty for me is the wind and forests and beautiful landscapes nothing humans can display!!!!
But that si my opinion so.!
:) :)

[Loony BoB]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. So only you can decide on what is beautiful to you.

[Shaun]

Anybody who sees beauty as "good looks" is very shallow, being deceived by the typical conventional views of human nature. But, then again, it depends what kind of beauty you're talking about. Beauty in humans, scenery... what?

[Rusty]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. So only you can decide on what is beautiful to you.

[Rainecloud]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. So only you can decide on what is beautiful to you.

:D

For example, some people may find heaps of manure quite beautiful. Then again, those particular people may not recognise beauty correctly ... but who is to say they are wrong? Perhaps we're wrong for disliking giant piles of manure, and those people are right because they have the ability to appreciate beauty properly. Then again, can you even define beauty?

Bleh. =/

[BarelySeeAtAll]

beauty is in the soul dudes!!!!!

[Shiny]

Beauty is just opinion.

[GeneralSapphire]

I like that!!!!!
Beauty is an opinion!!!Yep
Who knows if it really does exist!!!!!!!Well until you have seen it
:)

[Xander]

I think beauty = a good person with a beautiful soul :) And in terms of things that aren't people, it's whatever you interpret it to be.

[Jowy]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. So only you can decide on what is beautiful to you.

That couldn't have been said any better.

[Yamaneko]

Humans select for beauty in their mates, so although the characteristics of beauty are subjective, the idea of beauty is universal, be it physical qualities or otherwise.

[I Am Stoner]

I think beauty = a good person with a beautiful soul :) And in terms of things that aren't people, it's whatever you interpret it to be.

[10-Breaker]

Beauty is just opinion.

Its just an opinion for me too.

[Chemical]

Humans select for beauty in their mates, so although the characteristics of beauty are subjective, the idea of beauty is universal, be it physical qualities or otherwise.

I follow you, and I think you're onto something.

I would say that subjective and objective elements must exist simultaneously. I feel that the object of contemplation (person) is the subjective beauty. (because even though we all look for attractivenessin a partner, the 'type' of attractiveness is a variable)


But more importantly I think the universal beauty lays within the process. What I mean by that is the feeling of beauty and the method of locating beauty is universal. I don't think it matters where you locate the beauty (that's the subjective aspect) but the universality of beauty is that everyone does experience it.

I think it's best put in an equation:

Subjective Beauty (Object) + Objective Beauty (Essence) = Complete Beauty.

And I don't think one can exist without the other.

Like if you only had the object without the cognitive process of conjuring emotion then you wouldn't be able to recognize the object as beautiful. Similarily, if you only had the essence you would never be able to appreciate it since it would never manifest and thus would never capable for digestion or appreciation.



Well,the ancient Greeks tried to define beauty using the objectivity of maths.At least in their art.There are certain laws in maths that apply to art and someone can try to use them to achieve perfection.
BUT,knowing that, they also tried to not make something entirely perfect.Beauty for them was something that was nearly perfect(based on maths) but still leaves something to be desired.Nature isn't 100% perfect either.
With that being said,i personally agree with what Christmas said...

I'd just like to correct this statement. The Greeks did actually use math to try an achieve perfection however at the same time they were aware to futility of the matter. At this time Plato's allegory of the cave was the ruling theory of beauty, that this whole world was a lesser creation, a pale shadow in comparison to pure, perfect objects that existed in another realm. So their architecture, scultupres all echo these divine ratios and golden rules as a means to solving the issue of "true" beauty.

(Google: Plato's cave allegory for mo' info.)

[Shlup]

My ass makes beauty.

[rubah]

Is there some thing or some one that is universally agreed to be beautiful?

Contrariwise, is there something or someone who is universally agreed to not be?

Beauty is subjective; If you have a reason to think that a thing is beautiful, you will begin to believe it.

If you are a little kid, and the little boy sitting across the aisle from you gives you a coloring book page scribbled on, and you like him, it doesn't matter how good the coloring is, you'll think it was beautiful.

There is beauty in proportions, in position, in texture (oh, it's so soft!), in taste(this one is *very* subjective), in coloration, in behavior (oh wow, look at this thing, it's perfectly balanced even if you unset it!), in magnitude (oh it's so teeny-tiny^_^), and a million other aspects.

I have two bawls bottles sitting on my desk, one on top ofthe other, mouth to mouth. They are beautiful because of their blue color, because of how well they are balanced. They are not beautiful in their proportions, or in their size very much, or their texture (dumb bumps on them!). someone else might disagree on some of those points, thinking that the bumps were the best part, and it was dumb how they kept standing up and didn't show reality by lying on the desk's plane.

Beauty is more than behavior though. People are at this time simultaneously conditioned to believe that something must either have wonderful behavior (personality) or physical aspect (good looks) to be beautiful. These sets are almost entirely mutuall exclusive. However, a combination between them should be met, and weighted accordingly.

If you were to have a comely person and a homely person, and they had both been conditioned to think that they were not beautiful, and they both completed the same good works for the same reasons (self sacrifice, not in search of praise etc), which would be more beautiful to you? The one you don't much like the looks of, or the one you do?