Wich is the sense of beauty?

[PkSanTi]

One of the things I wonder the most is wich is the sense of beauty. My life has been my memories, my thoughts and experiencies; but, mostly, she is the books I've read, the verses on my memory and the rare algebras of mysticism and philosophy.

 

As I think of those man, with whom I with my eyes speak (the baroque image belongs to Quevedo), I can not think of anything else other than beauty. I do believe it is the most fundamental and unaccountable phenomenom that we come across as human beings. Angelus Silesius wrote: "the rose is without why; she blooms because she does"; beauty here is justified by itself. We find examples of this on Coleridge, on Clare, in the medieval english and scottish poems. Others thought that beauty hides in surprise and irreverence: on this guild we see Joyce, Dylan Thomas, perhaps even Blake. At last, others thought art, wich is beauty, had to serve practical purposes, and wrote to praise revolutions and ideas: those are many russians and spanish writters.

 

To you, what is the purpose and sense of beauty? Do you agree with one or several of the positions I sketched above?

[TheMastersSon]

"the rose is without why"

The rose is not without why. The rose is to attract birds and other flying creatures so the host plant can pollinate and reproduce itself.

 

What has always amazed me for living beings (including humans) is that the beauty of an individual is directly and completely inversely proportional to their understanding of their beauty. Having grown up in L.A., in my book nothing is uglier than "celebrities" who are utterly convinced of their own beauty. IMO a mediocre plumber is worthy of more celebration than the world's greatest entertainer.

 

I'm also amazed at how nature never makes an aesthetic mistake. It's true from mountains and clouds to tsunami waves and volcanoes.

 

[thanks for the spelling catch :)]

Edited November 11, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[montky]

ah, aesthetics,

its a tricky topic because it is so subjective,

though I enjoy seeing folks' reflections on that.

 

a long form response is on its way hehe.

 

I'm more a 'syncretic pastiche/cogent synthesis' kinda person,

a representationalist, impressionist, constructivist approach

in image, prose, or 'ideas' etc.

[TheMastersSon]

This topic made me recall photos that were published during the Courtney Fire in CA a few years ago. The fire came right to Bass Lake in some spots, and the reflection of the burning trees and glowing smoke became mirrored in the lake water. Without regard for the human judgments that are put on devastating (to us at least) natural events like wildfires, these photos were some of the most stunningly beautiful I've ever seen e.g.

 

http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/images/2014/september/Courtney-Fire-reflected-in-Bass-Lake-Darvin-Atkeson.jpg

 

When I made the above observation at the time, a few people in my house seemed offended, but again I think it's just that some people insist on putting their myopic and limited human judgments on natural processes. It's as true for earthquakes and asteroid impacts as wildfires. Our planet is simply doing what it's always been doing for the last 4.5 billion years. E.g. a wildfire is simply a forest's way of refertilizing itself and returning to the soil nutrients that are stored in overgrown and/or dead plant life. Etc. In the long run it's not catastrophic at all, it's a necessary step in the natural cycle, and what eventually replaces it is much healthier and more beautiful than what was there.

Edited November 11, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[PkSanTi]

This topic made me recall photos that were published during the Courtney Fire in CA a few years ago. The fire came right to Bass Lake in some spots, and the reflection of the burning trees and glowing smoke became mirrored in the lake water. Without regard for the human judgments that are put on devastating (to us at least) natural events like wildfires, these photos were some of the most stunningly beautiful I've ever seen e.g.

 

http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/images/2014/september/Courtney-Fire-reflected-in-Bass-Lake-Darvin-Atkeson.jpg

 

When I made the above observation at the time, a few people in my house seemed offended, but again I think it's just that some people insist on putting their myopic and limited human judgments on natural processes. It's as true for earthquakes and asteroid impacts as wildfires. Our planet is simply doing what it's always been doing for the last 4.5 billion years. E.g. a wildfire is simply a forest's way of refertilizing itself and returning to the soil nutrients that are stored in overgrown and/or dead plant life. Etc. In the long run it's not catastrophic at all, it's a necessary step in the natural cycle, and what eventually replaces it is much healthier and more beautiful than what was there.

 

The image is beautiful, indeed. I tend to believe that there is little we are as humans, and little we can do. I don't believe we're meaningless, since we can creat meanings in our lifes, but we are not chosen creatures of a god nor the good and tender beings that some forms of optimism created ( I don't believe we are mean and selfish by nature either). As creatures, as little creatures, we can do little about the world and our lifes; the most important thing we can do is try to live free -even if this is impossible in a true sense-, good and happy. One of the elements of this happiness we can achieve, to my eyes, is the acknowledgment of beauty, beyond the way it pressents itself. Wildfires may seem terrible, because we deem they put in danger our lifes and life of other people; but when you know that, though that has true value, this fact means nothing to the processes of the world, I think you are able to appreciate beauty even in those feared forms. This is why I think your words were wise.

Edited November 11, 2017 by PkSanTi

[Fkemman11]

Aesthetic- "concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty". If you can understand the why of it, then you might unlock the door to one of the greatest mysteries of our existence. What we as humans find beautiful- and it's effects on us- is still one of the most wondrous aspects of life I can yet ponder. Why would plants in a scientific study be more healthy when exposed to music? Why does music seem to soothe wild beasts? Why are walls painted one color in correctional facilities better than another color? What is it you can tell about a person from their handwriting or the way they dress? And as far as beauty itself, If nothing and no one in life and in the universe were never considered aesthetically pleasing, would anything ever be considered ugly or displeasing? No. It is by comparison that we teach our five senses what is beautiful and what is not. Or is it? Do we know at least some of this instinctively? Can a new born babe make these distinctions? Or are they taught? Hmmmmm............would take a keener mind than mine to answer that I think. Still, a very worthy philosophical and phsychological subject.

I try to find beauty in every thing and every one that I encounter for instance. Even though it may be hard to find some times, It is still there if I pay close attention. The fire that blazes in the picture from TMS is beautiful to me because it is natural. But I have always been a bit of a pyromaniac- even though I know the destruction that it sometimes brings(or maybe because of it?). I suppose when it all comes down to it, it is our own individual perceptions -and agreement with others on some things- that ultimately defines what is beautiful and what is not. Women of several centuries past were not considered beautiful unless they were somewhat more "plump". The perception there was that heavier, more rounded women were considered healthier and better for breeding- something that has changed in the last century for the majority of people. :smile:

[HeyYou]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has their own idea of beauty.

[PkSanTi]

When I asked which is the sense of beauty, I didn't mean to ask what beauty actually was, wich is the question most are answering. Saying beauty is in the eye of the subject or in the object or in the representation of the object made by the subject tells us nothing about its sense. True question is: what does beauty mean, regardless of what and where you think she is? Is she a self-justifying phenomenom, or a tool to be used to seek bigger purposes? What role does she play in our lifes as humans? Just clarifying what I ment.

 

I was also thinking in literature mostly when I wrote this; it's nice to see how many approaches and angles the quesiton took. That I like.

Edited November 12, 2017 by PkSanTi

[TheMastersSon]

IMO your questions (like the question I thought you were asking) have no objective answers. Beauty can mean anything to anyone depending on circumstances. I took issue with Silesius' claim about roses, but imo the underlying point is self-evident and correct: natural beauty never requires self-justification, in fact the two are mutually exclusive which is what I was trying to say with the analogy to entertainment celebrities. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'tool to be used to seek bigger purposes". Can you give an example? If a girl makes herself beautiful for a date, isn't going on a date even more beautiful? :) Edited November 12, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[PkSanTi]

Oh, of course they don't have objective answers (can we think there even is such a thing as an "objective answer"?), but I believe we can go a little further than the fact that its meaning depends only of the circumstances, since in every social context, period of history and civilisation (this is, in every circumstances!) human kind has had a connection with the phenomenon of beauty, as different and unrelated this connections may seem with each other. Of course this doesn't mean I think is not a personal relation, since, ultimately, the world is nothing else but the representation that our consciences create of the world. I'm just trying to push it a little further in order to give the debate more complexity and richness. For example, how come almost every civilisation had myths so beautiful and rich? What about the fact that almost every culture who had an alphabet began their writing with poetry, and only long time after, if they even did, discovered that prose and simple communication were also possible? At last, why and what does it mean the relation that , as human beings, have with the phenomenon of beauty, being a picture, a poem or a single verse even?

 

I agree with the fact that the claiming of one's own beauty does nothing but assassinate that beauty; nevertheless, I do not think that's what Silesius meant. Of course the rose blossoms for birds and bees; there is a reason for the rose. But the rose, the one Silesius talk's about, is not the rose, but the aesthetic phenomenon. Actually, his verse is quite an example of this phenomenon. If he had said

 

The aesthetic has no reason,

 

well, no one would have remembered such a verse. But tricking the words and symbols, nearly in a magical way it becomes a memorable and beautiful thing (sorry if I exaggerate Silesius' virtues, haha, I do like poetry and his in particular very much). How can that happen? I mean, there's got to be a mystery behind the fact that it's just an individual perception.

 

By "tool to be used to seek bigger purposes" I mean, for example, Miguel Hernández poetry, half of which was written to represent the republican party in Spain's civil war (same happens with Rafael Alberti), or Rossellini's Rome, open city, wich wants to show Italy's situation under the fascist period. I meant mostly that in my expression: artistic works that try's to serve a cause or a purpose.

Edited November 12, 2017 by PkSanTi