I Deny That There Is An Objective Beauty

[Era Might]

So, basing the discussion on this post at Nihil's blog (please read before commenting):

 

http://irenaeusgsaintonge.blogspot.ca/2012/09/does-objective-beauty-exist.html

 

I posted my thoughts in another thread:

 

Read your post about objective beauty, you wrote "For instance, in Florence I saw this painting in person, and I was absolutely captivated by it." Certainly it's beautiful in its way, but I don't really like it, don't like the softness and overdone emotion. I tend not to believe in the idea of "objective beauty," or a universal beauty. I think beauty is inherently individual and communitarian. It's the kind of thing where "you had to be there," not necessarily literally, but you have to adopt the artist's worldview to really appreciate the beauty. I don't think beauty reflects the divine so much as the divine reflects what we see as beauty (i.e., we project ourselves onto the divine). I wouldn't say the Incarnation is the standard of beauty, but just the opposite, the Incarnation shows that beauty is not objective, but takes on any number of forms: Jew, Greek, Barbarian, Male, Female, etc. Beauty, if anything, is the Holy Spirit, rather than the Incarnation. It blows where it will.

 

So, discuss the questions Nihil raises in his post.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Beautiful blog post.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I agree with Nihil's analysis but its interesting that we naturally gravitate towards certain physical attributes in a person. 

"Numerous studies have found that when men and women are asked to compare versions of faces that are more versus less symmetrical, the symmetrical ones garner significantly higher ratings of attractiveness, dominance, sexiness, and health, and are perceived to be more desirable as potential mates (Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Shackelford & Larsen, 1997). So as with masculine/feminine features, the appeal of symmetry makes perfect sense to evolutionary psychologists. In a beautiful face, we are really seeing the artistry of good genes. People prefer symmetrical faces even when they can’t actually perceive the symmetry – that is, when only face halves are presented. It may be that symmetry covaries with other desirable characteristics that reflect the same genetic endowment and overall health (Penton-Voak et al., 2001)."

 

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/april-11/beauty-is-in-the-mind-of-the-beholder.html

 

Even if we are programmed to prefer certain features or shapes over others, I agree that beauty is ultimately subjective. 

[4588686]

False:

[4588686]

Selma Hayek is objectively smoking hot.  

[Era Might]

I agree with Nihil's analysis but its interesting that we naturally gravitate towards certain physical attributes in a person. 

"Numerous studies have found that when men and women are asked to compare versions of faces that are more versus less symmetrical, the symmetrical ones garner significantly higher ratings of attractiveness, dominance, sexiness, and health, and are perceived to be more desirable as potential mates (Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, & Sumich, 1998; Shackelford & Larsen, 1997). So as with masculine/feminine features, the appeal of symmetry makes perfect sense to evolutionary psychologists. In a beautiful face, we are really seeing the artistry of good genes. People prefer symmetrical faces even when they can’t actually perceive the symmetry – that is, when only face halves are presented. It may be that symmetry covaries with other desirable characteristics that reflect the same genetic endowment and overall health (Penton-Voak et al., 2001)."

 

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/april-11/beauty-is-in-the-mind-of-the-beholder.html

 

Even if we are programmed to prefer certain features or shapes over others, I agree that beauty is ultimately subjective. 

 

Yeah I think natural order and symmetry (not just visual but in music, etc.) is the best material for beauty because it is natural. We are most at home when we live and move in things that suit us, and order suits us, not for its own sake, but to the extent that each culture / artist channels it through its own particular expression. Discord and disorder can make beautiful art, but I think it's mainly beautiful for artists because they are trained or attuned to it...it is does not suit people in "natural" environments.

 

I have been kicking around a theory in my head that the idea of a creator, or at least the Christian idea of a creator, implies a sort of abandonment. It's hard to really explain humanity's ability to construct meaning in many different ways. Our impulse is to create a grand narrative, but I don't know how this can hold up. The only way I can see to make sense of humanity, and still believe in the Christian God, is to take as my starting point that God really is transcendent, that our attempts to create meaning are just experiments, but God is beyond anything we can imagine, and in the end, when we die, we give up everything we ever thought was true or real. If God abandoned us, in other words, death is our turn to abandon us. This theory is based largely on what St. Paul writes to the Corinthians:

 

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

[11] For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 
[12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- 
[13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

This passage has been the only way I could come to terms with an institutional church when the Gospel was so radically different. The foundation is Christ, and all these different institutions we build are merely building on the foundation, and will be burned up (because God transcends them all), and what will be left, in the end, is Christ. 

[jim111]

Anyone ever read "The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet" by Thomas Dubay, it discusses the theology of beauty and what is and is not.

 

Edited July 12, 2013 by jim111

[Seven77]

I believe that there must be an objective beauty. God is objectively beautiful. Everything that reasonable people consider to be beautiful has its origin in God, in some way or another. He is the source of beauty.

 

Man and woman are created in the image and likeness and are therefore objectively beautiful. A man walking past a crowd of people may think, subjectively, "that woman is beautiful, compared to that one," and yet everybody he has has passed by is objectively beautiful.

 

A piece of croutons on the ground is objectively ugly… but a mountain at sunrise is objectively beautiful.

 

When it comes to man-made beauty such as works of art, it gets a little tricky. I would argue that Michelangelo's Pieta is objectively beautiful compared to a piece of twisted metal in the Museum of Modern Art. But I would I would say that Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh and *some* works of Salvador Dali are also objectively beautiful. 

 

While I believe that there is objective beauty, I believe that there is also subjective beauty. I do believe that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," to a certain extent. I think that when it comes to man-made, created beauty, most of it is completely subjective.

 

In conclusion--there are some things that are only beautiful to some people, but at the same time, there are some things that really are beautiful in and of themselves--to varying degrees The only possible answer to this kind of debate is both/and.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Seven77

[arfink]

Anyone ever read "The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet" by Thomas Dubay, it discusses the theology of beauty and what is and is not.

 

I knew Thomas Dubay personally, he was a very good man and a holy priest. May God grant unto him eternal bliss.

 

For myself, I tend to take the Neo Thomistic approach as put forth by the likes of Josef Peiper, that beauty is a result of participation in the beauty of the Divine. This approach seems the most reasonable to me because it provides for an objective standard of beauty, that is, that something is beautiful because it reflects the beauty of God. But it also provides for the subjective quality of beauty, because our ability to recognize beauty differs as widely as our ability to recognize and communicate with God. So that just as some find much fulfillment in contemplation or meditation or saying their Rosary, so each person will have a unique experience of the beauty of God as it is reflected in nature and in the works of men.

 

Of course, this also allows for a hierarchy of beauty. Instead of making beauty boolean, we can see that some objects will participate in beauty more or less than others. Mere existence is in itself a participation in God, since He holds all things in existence, but we could easily move beyond that very basic level of beauty by seeing objects which participate in more of God's being.

Edited July 12, 2013 by arfink

[Seven77]

I knew Thomas Dubay personally, he was a very good man and a holy priest. May God grant unto him eternal bliss.

 

For myself, I tend to take the Neo Thomistic approach as put forth by the likes of Josef Peiper, that beauty is a result of participation in the beauty of the Divine. This approach seems the most reasonable to me because it provides for an objective standard of beauty, that is, that something is beautiful because it reflects the beauty of God. But it also provides for the subjective quality of beauty, because our ability to recognize beauty differs as widely as our ability to recognize and communicate with God. So that just as some find much fulfillment in contemplation or meditation or saying their Rosary, so each person will have a unique experience of the beauty of God as it is reflected in nature and in the works of men.

 

THIS!

[arfink]

So of course, when a man makes something which is beautiful we can think of all kinds of ways in which its beauty can be referenced back to participation in the divine.

 

Let's take the example of a statue.

 

It is beautiful merely by virtue of being a physical, material object which exists. It's chemistry and so on, can in a way reflect God's creation. Merely existing is a reflection of God's being, because by God allowing it to exist, it calls to mind the very "being" of God.

 

It is beautiful because it was crafted by a man. Someone has to use his eyes and hands to make it, and that in itself is beautiful because we are made in the image of God, and by making things, we participate in God's act of making. God made creation and said "It is good," and man makes things and he also says "it is good," so thus things made by man have beauty.

 

It is beautiful because, in this case, it is not merely made by man, but made in the image of a man. You can see where I am going with this. ;)

[Seven77]

Era, I would say that the Incarnation is the standard of objective beauty. And the Incarnation is a masterpiece of the Holy Spirit. Beauty can be found anywhere and everywhere the Holy Spirit hovers.

[Seven77]

So of course, when a man makes something which is beautiful we can think of all kinds of ways in which its beauty can be referenced back to participation in the divine.

 

Let's take the example of a statue.

 

It is beautiful merely by virtue of being a physical, material object which exists. It's chemistry and so on, can in a way reflect God's creation. Merely existing is a reflection of God's being, because by God allowing it to exist, it calls to mind the very "being" of God.

 

It is beautiful because it was crafted by a man. Someone has to use his eyes and hands to make it, and that in itself is beautiful because we are made in the image of God, and by making things, we participate in God's act of making. God made creation and said "It is good," and man makes things and he also says "it is good," so thus things made by man have beauty.

 

It is beautiful because, in this case, it is not merely made by man, but made in the image of a man. You can see where I am going with this. ;)

 

I agree as I've said something similar. All beauty can be referenced back to God.

 

 Creating beauty is a participation in the Divine Creativity of the Holy Spirit.

 

 I would disagree with you and say that not everything made by man is beautiful--- anything man-made is only beautiful when it is made in the image of a man.

[arfink]

I agree as I've said something similar. All beauty can be referenced back to God.

 

 Creating beauty is a participation in the Divine Creativity of the Holy Spirit.

 

 I would disagree with you and say that not everything made by man is beautiful--- anything man-made is only beautiful when it is made in the image of a man.

 

How do you figure? Because, this is not made in the image of a man, and it is unquestionably beautiful.

 

 

As is this.

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I think the popular idea of physical beauty in the human form is a trend which changes,lets say every century.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye