Is beauty real?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Is beauty real?

This topic contains 36 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29028

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Try not to confuse biological sexual response based on probability of healthy offspring with the concept of aesthetic beauty. An extra colorful sunset doesn’t cause an erection.

    #29029

    Unseen
    Participant

    Try not to confuse biological sexual response based on probability of healthy offspring with the concept of aesthetic beauty. An extra colorful sunset doesn’t cause an erection.

    I don’t think I’ve ever calculated the probability of healthy offspring in any situation that gave me a boner.

    #29030

    _Robert_
    Participant

    You did, but you didn’t know it. Hip to waist ratio, apparent breasts, etc. for those attracted to women and strong shoulders, tall, etc. for those attracted to men. The science of sexual attraction is pretty far along. You can ask my buddy who is only 5′ 4″ tall all about it.

    #29031

    Jody Lee
    Participant

    I don’t think I’ve ever calculated the probability of healthy offspring in any situation that gave me a boner.

    😂😂

    #29032

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Robert, there is no confusion. You have simply identified the biological basis for universality in humans perceiving  beauty in humans.  I have made the conjecture that beauty in nature and man-made is based on our innate sense of patterns and mathematical arrangements which are reflected in designs and colors.

    #29033

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i simply made the assertion that other animals perceive beauty. A general comment or refrain..be wary of conceiving of homo sapiens as special creation. It is incongruous to on one hand see us as having evolved and having common ancestors with all other species and on the other to make the assumption that we are unique in a myriad of ways and have characteristics that are unique.

    As for your comments about art i do not know what you are getting at. I never like Venus on the half shell or Mona.

    #29035

    I consider the Medusa by Caravaggio to be a beautiful work of art. I suspect most people would disagree with me. Of course it is still my subjective opinion and I don’t care if everyone were to disagree with me. I am even trying to work some of it into an idea for my next tattoo.

     

    More info here.

    #29036

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I have made the conjecture that beauty in nature and man-made is based on our innate sense of patterns and mathematical arrangements which are reflected in designs and colors.

    I agree with that. We find the very statistically improbable either beautiful or ugly. People still believe the universe revolves around them. You just need to imagine no human beings ever existed.

    #29037

    Unseen
    Participant

    I don’t think I’ve ever calculated the probability of healthy offspring in any situation that gave me a boner. 😂😂

    In fact, if I was calculating anything, I was calculating how to avoid having offspring.

    #29038

    Unseen
    Participant

    You did, but you didn’t know it. Hip to waist ratio, apparent breasts, etc. for those attracted to women and strong shoulders, tall, etc. for those attracted to men. The science of sexual attraction is pretty far along. You can ask my buddy who is only 5′ 4″ tall all about it.

    You’re still talking about tendencies, averages, statistics. Lots of people fall outside the averages so we’re a far distance from establishing beauty as any sort of cosmic fact applying everywhere under all circumstances.

    Here is some evidence I ran across about 30 years ago. I think it was in Psychology Magazine (back before it got turned into a women’a publication). I’m forced to kind of paraphrase it because it somehow has not turned up on the Internet where Google might find it, unless I’m just using the wrong search terms.

    It goes like this: A researcher wanted to prove that aesthetic attitudes are culture-based (a psychologist uses the term “attitudes” instead of “judgments,” which is more a philosophical term).

    The structure of the experiment was clever and hard to argue with though one can quibble with its small scale.

    He contacted leading artists until he had a few willing to participate. They were all acclaimed artists in their field.

    He had each one offer what he felt was a great example of work in their field and another one that was more pedestrian. He had artists from a variety of fields, like Western painting, Japanese swordsmithing, African maskmaking, and several other fields. Then he had each artist look at the other artists work and decide which one of each pair was the better example.

    He was floored. He actually proved the opposite of his theory. The artists consistently agreed with the artist submitting the examples.

    Based on the result, one has to consider that there is a real objective basis for aesthetic judgments, just as the ancient Greeks maintained.

    #29039

    gerardwood
    Participant

    I believe that we are all programmed chaotically by our language and our society. Our society defines what is beautiful and we all respond in a bell curve. What one considers beautiful is entirely dependent on what one has been exposed to.

    #29040

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, i simply made the assertion that other animals perceive beauty. A general comment or refrain..be wary of conceiving of homo sapiens as special creation. It is incongruous to on one hand see us as having evolved and having common ancestors with all other species and on the other to make the assumption that we are unique in a myriad of ways and have characteristics that are unique. As for your comments about art i do not know what you are getting at. I never like Venus on the half shell or Mona.

    Animals perceive beauty? So they are critics? Knowing which painting is more beautiful than another? Nonsense.

    Beauty isn’t about “liking.” I may see a painting as beautiful but then admit that it’s still not my cuppa tea.

    #29041

    Unseen
    Participant

    I believe that we are all programmed chaotically by our language and our society. Our society defines what is beautiful and we all respond in a bell curve. What one considers beautiful is entirely dependent on what one has been exposed to.

    Well, then what about the experiment I described. The result would seem to imply anything but chaos. It seems to imply something universal, built-in, ‘”real” behind aesthetic judgments.

    #29042

    Unseen
    Participant

    Of course, the whole notion that art must be beautiful is not a very sophisticated notion. The painting Guernica by Picasso is not pretty in any way. The same might be said about most of his work. Many would name Rembrandt and Vermeer as perhaps the two greatest painters of the Renaissance. Rembrandt’s style was somewhat impressionistic while Vermeer’s was virtually photographic realism. Neither painter painted many pretty pictures. Van Gogh painted some gorgeous paintings, but few were that beautiful.

    Many would argue that great paintings seem to have more to do with truth than beauty. Otherwise Maxfield Parrish would be a great painter and not just a talented illustrator.

    #29043

    gerardwood
    Participant

    I think we have a different understanding of chaos. Your last post indicates chaos as what you considered to be beautiful is not the same for everyone.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.