HadToRegister Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The difference however is between those aspects which are culturally based and those which are innate and present across cultures. Everything you've mentioned for the last few posts has been something entirely culturally based. Yes, I know that, I've been trying to get a point across about that, but have been doing it dismally.It goes hand-in-hand with Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.What is considered beautiful for one culture or time-period is not considered beautiful by another culture or time period, which goes along with the "Beauty is in the eye",because that quote states the "Individual", but on another level Cultural/Societal/and Time get added on top of that individual quote to narrow theview of the quote to fit within the confines of that particular culture/timeline/society.... hmmm For instance, if you brought back a picture of Cindy Crawford to the Ancient Egyptians they might think, "Yuck, where's her Eye Liner and Headress" etc.If you brought a picture of Cindy Crawford to that tribe that has those 2" wooden plugs put through their bottom lips, they would look at her picture and might say "Well, she'd probably look OK, if she had one of these through her lip, otherwise...."Or the tribe that elongates the necks of women with rings (Actually, collapsing the shoulders and ribcage is more correct) Am I still missing the point I'm trying to make? Maybe this? What is beautiful is in the eye of the individual, but it usually only gets chosen from the palette that is current in a current timeline/society/culture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilibran Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 In the end, you wake up in the morning, both of you have bad breath, her make up has worn out, you are lying flat on your back unable to hide your beer belly. At that moment you decide either to leave it at that and move on sepperatly or together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The difference however is between those aspects which are culturally based and those which are innate and present across cultures. Everything you've mentioned for the last few posts has been something entirely culturally based. Yes, I know that, I've been trying to get a point across about that, but have been doing it dismally.It goes hand-in-hand with Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.What is considered beautiful for one culture or time-period is not considered beautiful by another culture or time period, which goes along with the "Beauty is in the eye",because that quote states the "Individual", but on another level Cultural/Societal/and Time get added on top of that individual quote to narrow theview of the quote to fit within the confines of that particular culture/timeline/society.... hmmm For instance, if you brought back a picture of Cindy Crawford to the Ancient Egyptians they might think, "Yuck, where's her Eye Liner and Headress" etc.If you brought a picture of Cindy Crawford to that tribe that has those 2" wooden plugs put through their bottom lips, they would look at her picture and might say "Well, she'd probably look OK, if she had one of these through her lip, otherwise...."Or the tribe that elongates the necks of women with rings (Actually, collapsing the shoulders and ribcage is more correct) Am I still missing the point I'm trying to make? Maybe this? What is beautiful is in the eye of the individual, but it usually only gets chosen from the palette that is current in a current timeline/society/cultureExcept that, again you are only talking about those purely cultural aspects. And again, referring only to those things which are marks of status and wealth within that culture. It's not that among those cultures the lip plates are something which one would consider sexy, but is because those lip plates, or jewelry are a status symbol. A picture of a woman would not get much reaction on that end because in their culture she has no status. In many cultures, the value of a woman is not on her appearance, but what family she is part of, and what status in society... Appearance only has significant meaning in the West, and arguably only because we place meaning on little else. What I am talking about however is the underlying form by which humanity has judged beauty for centuries. That is the beauty in smooth contours, roundness, fluidity. This sort of beauty applies not only to our preferred aesthetic of other humans, but also how we tend to prefer our environment and art as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadToRegister Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Except that, again you are only talking about those purely cultural aspects. And again, referring only to those things which are marks of status and wealth within that culture. It's not that among those cultures the lip plates are something which one would consider sexy, but is because those lip plates, or jewelry are a status symbol. A picture of a woman would not get much reaction on that end because in their culture she has no status. In many cultures, the value of a woman is not on her appearance, but what family she is part of, and what status in society... Appearance only has significant meaning in the West, and arguably only because we place meaning on little else. What I am talking about however is the underlying form by which humanity has judged beauty for centuries. That is the beauty in smooth contours, roundness, fluidity. This sort of beauty applies not only to our preferred aesthetic of other humans, but also how we tend to prefer our environment and art as well. No, this isn't about "Status and Wealth", those neck rings and the lips plugs aren't about status and wealth, the ancient Egyptian stuff, yes. The tribe I'm talking about doesn't have lip "plates", it is a round 2" diameter wooden Plug that EVERYBODY has to get when they reach a certain age.the plug starts out small as children, maybe the diameter of a drinking straw and a larger diameter plug is inserted every once in a while.The documentary, IIRC asked them about what is beautiful and showed pictures of European Women and American women without plugsand the men thought it was weird and unnatural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Except that, again you are only talking about those purely cultural aspects. And again, referring only to those things which are marks of status and wealth within that culture. It's not that among those cultures the lip plates are something which one would consider sexy, but is because those lip plates, or jewelry are a status symbol. A picture of a woman would not get much reaction on that end because in their culture she has no status. In many cultures, the value of a woman is not on her appearance, but what family she is part of, and what status in society... Appearance only has significant meaning in the West, and arguably only because we place meaning on little else. What I am talking about however is the underlying form by which humanity has judged beauty for centuries. That is the beauty in smooth contours, roundness, fluidity. This sort of beauty applies not only to our preferred aesthetic of other humans, but also how we tend to prefer our environment and art as well. No, the tribe I'm talking about doesn't have lip "plates", it is a round 2" diameter wooden Plug that EVERYBODY has to get when they reach a certain age.the plug starts out small as children, maybe the diameter of a drinking straw and a larger diameter plug is inserted every once in a while.The documentary, IIRC asked them about what is beautiful and showed pictures of European Women and American women without plugsand the men thought it was weird and unnaturalSame difference. It's something that is a cultural norm for them, so when that norm isn't present they don't know how to react. Documentaries about native cultures are almost always contrived anyway, either by stage events or because the tribe is purposely screwing with the anthropologist to get them to leave in peace. Documentaries and national geographic specials are a poor substitute for actual peer reviewed research and long term sociocultural studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadToRegister Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Same difference. It's something that is a cultural norm for them, so when that norm isn't present they don't know how to react. Documentaries about native cultures are almost always contrived anyway, either by stage events or because the tribe is purposely screwing with the anthropologist to get them to leave in peace. Well, either way, my point/observation is going nowhere so I'm just going to leave it in the corner of this post, right over there ----------------------> :nuke: as I'm just wasting space with my last few posts. :mellow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Exactly, and those 'styles' quickly started to culturally define what 'beauty' was in each of those time periods as well. I remember Spandex and Leg warmers and huge hair looking all kinds of "hot" in the 80's, and now, it looks silly. You're conflating the two: fads and fashion are not synonymous with beauty. It's not your fault, beauty is difficult to define. Most people know it when they see it, Aristotle said no one that is not blind would ask why we desire it, Plato said it's "a harmony of parts with a certain pleasing color". Culturally, over the same centuries beauty has been both revered as the embodiment of bliss, "Only in the contemplation of beauty Is human life worth living," -Plato, and maligned: "there is nothing good in the flesh," St Clement said. At any rate. Oblivion and now Skyrim represent my fantasy world of beauty, if I want grit New Vegas and Fallout3 are always there full of drab depressing ugliness, but I can only take them in smallish doses comparatively. Then back to the verdant fields of Tamriel I run. In a pretty body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingersnapples Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 love how a simple topic ended up within the realms of philosophy and fashion.... my excuse is pretty much the same as most... id rather look at that than the backside of girl than a guy. (except for in mass effect, there i chose a girl because the voice actor is better, but anyway...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadToRegister Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You're conflating the two: fads and fashion are not synonymous with beauty. It's not your fault, beauty is difficult to define. Most people know it when they see it, Aristotle said no one that is not blind would ask why we desire it, Plato said it's "a harmony of parts with a certain pleasing color". Culturally, over the same centuries beauty has been both revered as the embodiment of bliss, "Only in the contemplation of beauty Is human life worth living," -Plato, and maligned: "there is nothing good in the flesh," St Clement said. At any rate. Oblivion and now Skyrim represent my fantasy world of beauty, if I want grit New Vegas and Fallout3 are always there full of drab depressing ugliness, but I can only take them in smallish doses comparatively. Then back to the verdant fields of Tamriel I run. In a pretty body. OK, your post might help me make the point I've been trying to make. :geek: If not, I will corral my dead horse. :tongue: Beauty is universal and has no "set in stone definitions", especially with the old adage about the eye of the beholder, I guess what my point has been trying to be, is,the Definition of Beauty has no bounds....however, BECAUSE of Societal/Cultural/Timelines, that Definition of Beauty sometimes gets forced to have borders and limitationsthat Societal/Cultural/Timelines put on it. What was considered Beauty to people in the 1920's may not be considered Beauty to people in 2011, and what is considered Beauty by 2011 standards due to Societal/Cultural/Timeline, mightnot be considered Beauty in 1640. I think Lauren Bacall was gorgeous back in her heyday in the 40's, and she maintained that "air of beauty" she had until she died.The same with Helen Mirren, I had a massive crush on her when I was 18, and 30 years later I still do. Those two women, to me, are the type who used to get statues made and poems written about them in ancient times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmaad Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reasonably healthy individual who didn't admit that Lauren Bacall, Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot were all representative of great beauty. I do disagree that beauty relies at all on fads. The greek sculptor Periklitus set the standard of aesthetic perfection when he gave us the canon about 450 bce; interestingly enough a recent study bore this out. Many other studies have noted a hip to waist ratio that is a common standard of feminine desirability across all cultures. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1539035/Men-lust-for-hourglass-curves-say-researchers.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts