Objective Beauty

[Groo the Wanderer]

let us not forget left-handed redheads please.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1348609146' post='2486663']
A crooked smile is proportion, or a sort of symmetry?
[/quote]
Symmetry.

[Winchester]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1348671017' post='2486904']
Symmetry.
[/quote]
Makes sense.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1348603325' post='2486625']
Just a thought. Your examples seem to revolve around the human form, and I expect that some would argue that that appreciation stems from our evolution somehow. It might be easier to stick with sunsets or something?
[/quote]

Tangentially related: Right now scientists think that the reason why most people find big heads and eyes really adorable on cartoons or animals is because it resembles a human baby. So yeah, I think there's definitely something to what you said. And then as far as sunsets, I agree with MiKolbe.

[GeorgiiMichael]

And why do babies of African heritage look a million times cuter than any other babies?

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101015140806.htm"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101015140806.htm[/url]

[sixpence]

ok...so if you search google scholar there are a pile of articles on what our universal standards of human beauty are and why they might be that way. Most of this deals with fitness/fecundity/health on some level, which makes lots and lots of sense.

If you would like to argue against this being IT, I would argue that, for example, one could look at an exquisite painting/sculpture of a human form (ex. statue of David) and be able to appreciate how beautiful it is without any sexual context at all. However, some might argue that this would not occur if you met the person in real life and all the pheromones and stuff were present; then you might suddenly get sexually attracted.

Edited September 26, 2012 by sixpence

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1348699894' post='2487075']
ok...so if you search google scholar there are a pile of articles on what our universal standards of human beauty are and why they might be that way. Most of this deals with fitness/fecundity/health on some level, which makes lots and lots of sense.

If you would like to argue against this being IT, I would argue that, for example, one could look at an exquisite painting/sculpture of a human form (ex. statue of David) and be able to appreciate how beautiful it is without any sexual context at all. However, some might argue that this would not occur if you met the person in real life and all the pheromones and stuff were present; then you might suddenly get sexually attracted.
[/quote]


I guess where things really start to get fun is the border between physical and non-physical. Is beauty merely physical? I think most of us would say no. I do not think beauty is entirely non-physical, but like I alluded to, I think there is also that transcendent aspect. The reflection of the Divine.

Bringing the concept of sexuality into it is interesting. I am thinking about your example, if the artistic context removes the sexual aspect from the nude human form, as opposed to, say, nudity in person. What I am wondering instead is if perhaps the artistic context [i]purifies[/i] the sexual aspect that is natural to humans. Thinking along those lines, instead of removing the sexuality, rather it is removing the [i]lust[/i].

The reason I want to move in this direction is that sexuality is a natural part of humanity, and so it makes sense to me that the human body in its most fundamental form would reflect our nature, including our sexuality. What art is able to do, perhaps, is purify the expression such that we can come closer to actually seeing human nature in its perfect state. As closely as we can to looking beyond our fallen nature. Therefore, maybe, it might also be able to remove all the distorting factors that affect sexuality including lust, desire for control, unhealthy shame, etc..

[Slappo]

A naked spouse in person is far more beautiful then a sculpture of a naked spouse, and there is nothing lustful about looking upon a naked spouse. I don't think you can say that art purifies sexuality as that implies that it was impure to begin with. Sexuality is pure, but [b]can be [/b]tainted by lust.

If beauty is based at least someone on reflection of the divine, it would make sense that a living object is more beautiful than a non-living object that portrays the living. A living person would be more beautiful than an artistic portrayal of that living person. To be alive is more a reflection of the divine than to portray something alive through art.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348701823' post='2487081']
A naked spouse in person is far more beautiful then a sculpture of a naked spouse, and there is nothing lustful about looking upon a naked spouse. I don't think you can say that art purifies sexuality as that implies that it was impure to begin with. Sexuality is pure, but [b]can be [/b]tainted by lust.
[/quote]

Indeed. I do not mean to conflate the two. The argument definitely requires a lot of finesse.


[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348701823' post='2487081']
If beauty is based at least someone on reflection of the divine, it would make sense that a living object is more beautiful than a non-living object that portrays the living. A living person would be more beautiful than an artistic portrayal of that living person. To be alive is more a reflection of the divine than to portray something alive through art.
[/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]
I think this is valid in theory. Though I would speculate that the artistic medium allows, like I was talking about, a certain latitude in being able to fiddler out some effects of our fallen nature.

But your post implies to me, quite validly I think, that a person's spouse in a certain sense is the highest possible clarity of reflection of the Divine in another person, because of their ability to express their love in the purest possible sense

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/true-beauty-satisfies-the-human-heart?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-09-23"]http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/true-beauty-satisfies-the-human-heart?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-09-23[/url]

[Slappo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348703299' post='2487089']
I think this is valid in theory. Though I would speculate that the artistic medium allows, like I was talking about, a certain latitude in being able to fiddler out some effects of our fallen nature.
[/quote]

I don't know that I'd believe an artistic portrayal that fiddlers out the fallen nature of humanity to be more beautiful than an authentic living breathing human.

In a sense the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is true. Not from a "beauty is relative" standpoint, but from the standpoint that certain people see beauty where others do not. We look on a wretched beaten dirty smelly creature as ugly, but a saint or God would see beauty that we fail to see due to our faults.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1348863034' post='2487684']

I don't know that I'd believe an artistic portrayal that fiddlers out the fallen nature of humanity to be more beautiful than an authentic living breathing human.
[/quote]

I am not sure it is a question of more or less beautiful, perhaps more along the lines of more or less clarity. I believe our Catholic traditions of religious art and iconography testify to the concept.