The art of Beauty

[kvnchrist]

I still don't get what your saying...

 

Its not deep, by definition it does not just cover the looks of the body, it also covers other areas.

 

 

I think you should refrain from textbook definitions and look into your own experiences. Did you have a grandma, and if so did you visit her as a child. I want you to think of the feelings you had, when you were around her. were they warm? Did those feelings bring you joy? If so, weren't they beautiful memories?

The thing is, by a textbook definition beauty is considered both inner beauty and outer beauty.

 

 

My friend, what I'm trying to tell you is that beauty is more than the definition. Someone once said that we are more than the some of all our parts. This is true for beauty, as well. Art even more so. They both make us think and reason beyond ourselves. Textbook definitions are cut and paste. What true beauty and inspirational art brings to the world is beyond the meer words others have placed in books.

 

You guys might think me strange, but in a way your very words are art, to me. They bring forth thoughts and ideas far beyond what we alone can create.

[HeyYou]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's an opinion. That's it. What one person finds 'beautiful', another may not care for at all. (impressionist art anyone?)

[Aurielius]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's an opinion. That's it. What one person finds 'beautiful', another may not care for at all. (impressionist art anyone?)

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/lapromenadebyclaudemonet.jpg

 

Will Monet suffice?

[HeyYou]

Seems I have my art styles confused. (wow, big surprise there.....) I suspect what I was thinking was actually abstract? Ack. I don't have a clue. :D

[Nintii]

There seems to be two schools of thought here, one saying beauty is skin deep and the other saying it encompasses the inner being as well. I'll agree that attraction may only be skin deep initially but do think that true beauty is both the outer and inner person. I have met some truly stunning women whose inner self was not the least bit nice and hence my subjective opinion of their overall beauty went way down and conversely have met what might be termed as simply attractive women who were a delight to get to know and my subjective opinion of their overall beauty went up. Just my two cents.

 

 

Alright, on one hand, I do say that beauty is skin deep, because let's face it no one deliberately goes out and marries some one who is unattractive because "I look for the inner beauty and IGNORE the outer", nor do we buy a vehicle for the sole purpose of it's practicality nor do we purchase a house, clothing, sometimes even food because it's "only what i need", no, we buy goods and even marry because we are attracted to what we can see on the outside.

And this is sometimes brushed aside because we don't want to appear shallow, but still, it's ok to like what we see, because this is where we live our everyday lives...

 

On the other hand, I do understand the deeper aesthetic that moves us to admire the works of Rembrandt, Monet, Michaelangelo etc., that type of artistic expression for me personally is for contemplation, it has it's place and is a part of me but it's not a part of me all the time, I don't neccessary live it all the time.

I remember as a teenager visiting our local national art gallery almost every second month on my own just to connect with something other than my normal existance.

 

I see people as having multiple levels of "beauty" within themselves, I imagine it like a tall building, the uppermost floors are easy to see and easy to entreat, but as you go lower down some of the floors disappear below ground level and take a bit more to satisfy, they need more stimulus than the frivolity of those things manifest above the surface and are closer to our inner psyche and give us greater inner satisfaction ... like a painting or a piece of music.

 

Then there is the dungeon level, it's way deep down below, far far away from that which we accept as normal ... here in this world, disconnected from reality, we encounter those things that creep that give us an almost salacious satisfaction ... this we hide from the world, this we try to hide from ourselves even, but here it lives.

Now how is this beauty ?

Because it gives us satisfaction and that which brings joy is beauty.

 

It is truly the place where we say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ... as I've said in my previous post here, this is the place of whatever floats your boat or flicks your switch.

I just choose not to go there, I believe in control, responsible control ... let me stop here.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Nintii

[grannywils]

1. For those non-automatons out there, although I am aware that there are descriptions in the dictionary for every single word out there; somehow I suspect that our OP had something else in mind. Hmmmm?

 

2. While Nintii (my good friend) has a right to her opinion, in this case I am afraid that I disagree. Although, as usual I did love reading what you had to say; and to a large extent could relate to a lot of it. It was just not enough for me.

 

Yes, I do love to gaze upon something that is appealing to my eye, be it another human being, a beautiful sunset, a gorgeous Irish setter or a myriad of other physical beings. However, the truth is, as someone said already, that beauty sometimes (but not always) is only skin deep.

 

Someone mentioned Mother Teresa, one of my idols in life. For me this woman epitomized the true beauty of a human soul. I did not find her particulary physically attractive, but I would have given a lot to be in her presence and to gaze upon her face and learn from her. She was beautiful to me. (aside: although I did read that she did not suffer fools gladly. I would hope to not have been foolish in her presence)

 

Some say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Absolutely true, I say

 

One man's Jackson Pollack is another man's color palette for experimenting with his paints

One man loves Monet another loves money.

It is all in the eye of the beholder

 

Finally, my experience in life has been to take each person one at a time. Sometimes the better looking someone is, the more (s)he seems to have depended on those looks to get through life in lieu of developing any character. Now obviously this is not always the case. Ergo, my reasoning for taking each person one at a time. However, generally speaking I have found the more natural looking a person is (i.e. without extraordinary physical beauty or extraordinary physical flaws, but just a normal looking person) that person seems to have developed into a more well-rounded human being. Once again, this is just a generalization. One must take each person as an individual.

 

In any event, for me beauty tends to lie within another human being. I like to look at an attractive human being, but very soon I am looking inside and have forgotten the wrapping.

 

 

 

[HeyYou]

1. For those non-automatons out there, although I am aware that there are descriptions in the dictionary for every single word out there; somehow I suspect that our OP had something else in mind. Hmmmm?

 

2. While Nintii (my good friend) has a right to her opinion, in this case I am afraid that I disagree. Although, as usual I did love reading what you had to say; and to a large extent could relate to a lot of it. It was just not enough for me.

 

Yes, I do love to gaze upon something that is appealing to my eye, be it another human being, a beautiful sunset, a gorgeous Irish setter or a myriad of other physical beings. However, the truth is, as someone said already, that beauty sometimes (but not always) is only skin deep.

 

Someone mentioned Mother Teresa, one of my idols in life. For me this woman epitomized the true beauty of a human soul. I did not find her particulary physically attractive, but I would have given a lot to be in her presence and to gaze upon her face and learn from her. She was beautiful to me. (aside: although I did read that she did not suffer fools gladly. I would hope to not have been foolish in her presence)

 

Some say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Absolutely true, I say

 

One man's Jackson Pollack is another man's color palette for experimenting with his paints

One man loves Monet another loves money.

It is all in the eye of the beholder

 

Finally, my experience in life has been to take each person one at a time. Sometimes the better looking someone is, the more (s)he seems to have depended on those looks to get through life in lieu of developing any character. Now obviously this is not always the case. Ergo, my reasoning for taking each person one at a time. However, generally speaking I have found the more natural looking a person is (i.e. without extraordinary physical beauty or extraordinary physical flaws, but just a normal looking person) that person seems to have developed into a more well-rounded human being. Once again, this is just a generalization. One must take each person as an individual.

 

In any event, for me beauty tends to lie within another human being. I like to look at an attractive human being, but very soon I am looking inside and have forgotten the wrapping.

 

 

 

 

 

If you wrap dog poop in pretty paper, it is still dog poop. :) While physical beauty may attract at first, if there isn't something on the inside to enjoy as well, well, then there is no enjoyment. (applies to people.)

 

Yes, I agree with you completely.

Edited September 5, 2011 by HeyYou

[frakle]

Seems I have my art styles confused. (wow, big surprise there.....) I suspect what I was thinking was actually abstract? Ack. I don't have a clue. :D

 

During the time of the Impressionists, the norm for art was dark, grayish colors. Many of the non-Impressionist paintings were portraits of people. The Impressionists, on the other hand, used bright, vivid colors. Many of the Impressionists during their life time were poor. Very poor. In fact, Vincent Van Gogh (the Starry Night was arguably his most famous work) had painted a portrait of a woman's child. She hated it so much she used it as chicken fencing, where the chickens scratched it up. His paintings sold for very little when he was alive, but now, they are some of the most expensive in the world, with one of his paintings selling for over 80 million dollars on a US auction. Claude Monet was also an Impressionist, and he was poor. He did indeed paint the painting that the earlier user posted (their name escapes me). It is called the Woman with a Parasol. And no, it is not abstract.

 

Sorry to put this off topic, though, although at the time many people found the Impressionists' art to be ugly and too strange. Now we regard their paintings as some of the most beautiful ever made!

Edited September 5, 2011 by frakle

[kibblesticks]

 

If you wrap dog poop in pretty paper, it is still dog poop. :) While physical beauty may attract at first, if there isn't something on the inside to enjoy as well, well, then there is no enjoyment. (applies to people.)

 

Yes, I agree with you completely.

 

Have to disagree with you there. If you have sex with someone outwardly attractive the experience can still be considered "beautiful" even if you experience nothing of that person's personality. Bit of an endless debate though really. I'm sure if you were an omnipotent being with the power to document the thoughts of every human on the planet I think the only thing you'd be able to say about beauty would be "purely subjective".

[Nintii]

HeyYou said;

 

If you wrap dog poop in pretty paper, it is still dog poop. :) While physical beauty may attract at first, if there isn't something on the inside to enjoy as well, well, then there is no enjoyment. (applies to people.)

 

I say;

 

Ahem, this is about what you find beautiful ... on the surface IT IS beautiful, if however, you decide to dig deeper and discover that what lies under the surface is not so attractive, then THAT IT IS NOT attractive ... but that still does not take away from the fact that what you FIRST saw was beautiful.

The paper is still pretty ... you said so yourself, and that's the focus ... what is beautiful.

Everything in this life has a flaw if you look hard enough but that's not the focus here, is it.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Nintii