Beauty

Beauty is not the physical appearance; it is about tantalizing eyes or sexy body. Beauty is something that not only eyes can see, it is found within.

Err. I think you've just told us more about yourself than about the nature of beauty!

Beauty is difficult subject though I concerned with it very greatly

I want to say that the beauty is not in finding anything which is soothing to our eyes, It may also be something which could soothing to our heart, our conscience, to our very inner soul.

BEAUTY, generally people may try to find it on faces and body, actually not limited to this extent. The beauty is what we think beautiful in respect of everything we could imagine, As i could imagine till the extent to the words,voices, expression, eyes, lips, cheeks, pussies, butts, beards, hairs, styles, flowers, nature, hills, falls, smiles, landscapes, machines, factories, gardens, technologies,Enthusiasm, Adventure. Even Penis, It could also be considered as beautiful(with respect to girls) seriously. It is true. Really.

Please do not think anything else other than the beauty. It is really a very beautiful world that gives us chance to enjoy the beauty in every aspects whether facial, bodily or materialistic or what we find interesting. It is beauty what we find interesting. It is lovable. it should be respected and worshiped because we are humans, we could not be concerned without beauty in what we interested, Initially what we interested in is because of the beauty. Whatever you may do. I do worship beauty.

I will express my views in this regard in future. However how long it may takes? I don't know.

Thanking you......... Okisites

The American mathematician George David Birkhoff suggested that the measure of beauty is “the density of order relations in the aesthetic object” or M = O/C, where O is the measure of order or symmetry and C the measure of complexity. His 1933 book Aesthetic Measure is devoted to explaining and illustrating this idea. Unfortunately the book is now out of print and quite rare, although not especially valuable.

While the formula has no practical value since order and complexity are too hard to define and measure in concrete terms, it does have a certain appeal. It says that in any work where random disorderly effects predominate, aesthetic value would be low. For example a novel or a play where things happen without rhyme or reason would be less aesthetically appealing than a tight-knit story. On the other hand even a well-organized novel or play with too great complexity (such as too many characters, too many events, too many connections) would not be considered beautiful.

This point of view makes the paintings of Jackson Pollack fall low on the aesthetic scale—they are enormously complex visually with little apparent order. Similarly aleatoric music can't score very high. (How do you know if you've heard it before?) On the other hand serialism in music had definite rules, but they seemed to be unhearable—who can recognize a tone row easily and hum it afterwards?—and except for a few compositions it was an aesthetic disaster.

Computer scientists/psychologists have done experiments with averaging faces and found a result that is consistent across cultures and races: the more symmetric a face is the more beautiful it appears. Since averaging a large number of faces increases symmetry, it seems that in facial beauty average = beautiful. Some have hypothesized that there is an evolutionary reason for this—the average looking person is more likely to be healthy and able to procreate while unusual or asymmetric features might indicate disease or weakness.

I think that human perception of "beauty" is directly related with colours and shapes. In short - an object or landscape is perceived as beautiful in most cases when it is bright and round rather than when it's dark and sharp-edged. Just like flowers turn to sun our biology prompts us to seek for bright objects (sun etc.) and round objects (pregnant women etc.) which usually represent something vital, while sharp or dark objects are connected with danger, death or nothingness (predators' claws or teeth, state of lifelessness etc.). Of course there are art genres like turpism whose admiration can be probably linked with people with various disorders, but in general humans seek for, I repeat this, round and bright objects.

A general definition to apply to all will never be accomplished, I don't believe. While I loathe the cop out and overuse that is 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', I think it is - likely - the closest to a definition as we'll find. Beauty is something to which most gravitate and wish to be near. It is also the thing that people can resent and despise.

Ugly and oddity attracts attention. Beauty is said to be attractive. Ugly, oddity, beauty is attractive in one form or another to all of us. When one gets to know beauty it can sometimes become ugly, or more beautiful. When one gets to know ugly or oddity it can become beautiful or more ugly or odd. So beauty isn't about attraction per se. All the descriptions of beauty is the same for ugly and odd. So the question is what separates beauty from ugly or odd that cannot be a shared attribute? What is the distinction of beauty? Is it really preferred or cherished?

What is the distinction of beauty?

I really hope you read posts of other people.

Hint: check my post above.

Pied Beauty by Gerard Manley Hopkins


GLORY be to God for dappled things—





For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;





For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;





Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;





Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;

5



And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.









All things counter, original, spare, strange;





Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)





With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;





He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:

10



Praise him.

He was a Christian. obviously, but this is irrelevant to his almost-definition of beauty, for our purposes which is not to consider whether or not there is a Godhead who planned it from his perfect symmetry ("past change") Beauty is the asymmetry of creation in which we can make order or pattern.The thing about the most symmetric face being considered the most beautiful is concerned with practicality of reproduction and other economic values, and not with pure beauty , which is concerned with truths that transcend practicalities.The truths expressed by an aesthetically apt artefact , an artefact which people can recognise as beautiful,a work of art, are complex and general truths about man's experience of living.

What is beauty?

Beauty is within balance.

The Essence:

- Sensing beauty is perceiving balance

Practical:

- Sensing beauty is perceiving balance personally.

We have our own standardization of balance that already exist since we were born. Scientifically speaking, our typical balance already inserted into DNA.

While we are experiencing something, may be we accept such proportional of something, but it's not a trigger for us to sense it as a beauty.

But in general, we share minimum requirement that has the sameness in between us about how something can be considered as balance.

Sensing a beauty can't be forced to us. Our heart can't be intimidated to feel a beauty. It's personal. But it can be conditioned.

When we are getting used to something, then something will be our part, and we tend to have it as a new requirement to balance our new form. And further, it will change our previous perception to the current perception as we are perceiving beauty.

I think that human perception of "beauty" is directly related with colours and shapes. In short - an object or landscape is perceived as beautiful in most cases when it is bright and round rather than when it's dark and sharp-edged. Just like flowers turn to sun our biology prompts us to seek for bright objects (sun etc.) and round objects (pregnant women etc.) which usually represent something vital, while sharp or dark objects are connected with danger, death or nothingness (predators' claws or teeth, state of lifelessness etc.). Of course there are art genres like turpism whose admiration can be probably linked with people with various disorders, but in general humans seek for, I repeat this, round and bright objects.

Hello EMTe,

Yes, I do read other people's posts. I agree with you about shapes and colors. I remember getting a lot of attention when I was pregnant. From men especially. It was like they were thinking ' she does it' !!! Anyway doors were opened for me and always had help and smiles. I loved being pregnant. Getting back to colors and shapes, I guess that is why most people love big, round, red balloons.

-- Updated Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:10 am to add the following --

It would be interesting to know what beauty is to a blind person.

Interesting, because indeed, we seem to talk about visual beauty. blind people can't see and some cannot ven imagine colours and shapes, because they were born blind, so it leads to the conclusion that beauty in general (if you're blind let's assume that it is some kind of phonic beauty which we healthy people also experience) is somehow related with pleasure. So what is pleasurable for somebody (not only painting or building, but also Beethoven's symphony or The Pixies record) is also beautiful.

Question.

If, as I said, perception of beauty is somehow related with the dualism sun/darkness, life/nothingness etc. is it possible that when you're born in an imaginary hostile and ugly environment (some kind of Mexico suburb or something) and for the whole life receive only such stimuli, being completely unaware of the existence of peaceful colourful world you won't perceive as beautiful death, violence, blood and clash of steel, but feel nostalgia for inexplicable "something"?

---

Btw, to know how blind person feels beauty it is probably best to ask the blind person or simply google - I bet there are answers to such questions and maybe even a multitude of studies. Another interesting issue is how deafblind people define "beauty". Touching the teddy bear? It would mean that beauty is simply a pleasurable feeling involving the senses currently available for a person.

Like most people, I don't think that there is a sovereign definition of beauty, since tastes inevitably vary. However, I think that humans are sufficiently similar so that we can talk about a concept of beauty even if we can't count on the term being applied uniformly to specific cases.

In my view, beauty is that which provokes pleasurable intrinsic fascination. Many things fascinate us. The fascination can be said to be intrinsic when it is not related to the satisfaction of some practical imperative. For example, if a little boy picks up a leaf and gazes at its form, we say that he is fascinated by the leaf. In this scenario, he's too old to eat the leaf and isn't using it as a toy, so we can say that this fascination is intrinsic. If he is smiling at the leaf or saying "wow!" or "pretty!" or "cool!", we say that the fascination he's experiencing is pleasurable. So it makes sense to say that he finds the leaf to be pretty, i.e. beautiful.

This is not to say that beauty is necessarily the object of creating a work of art. In my view, making a work of art means making something whose chief or sole function is to fascinate one or more people. However, the fascination that a work of art is designed to provoke need not be pleasurable. For example, a work of art may provoke morbid rather than pleasurable fascination. Thus, Goya's painting of Saturn devouring one of his sons is not beautiful, but it is a work of art just the same.

You may wish to read Aaron Copeland's book, "What to Listen for in Music." In one passage, he points out that beauty is not the only criterion by which musicologists evaluate the merit of a musical piece. Copeland claims that if beauty were the only object of music, then we would have to esteem Ravel as a greater composer than Beethoven.

Like most people, I don't think that there is a sovereign definition of beauty, since tastes inevitably vary.

On a slightly unrelated note, because you triggered a topic which really interests me and which will probably become one of the most important issues in future with globalisation (widely understood) becoming more widespread. I feel that people don't vary that much in terms of feelings, goals they pursue, certain aspects of biology which make them act like this or that and say this or that etc. So if you say that definition of beauty is impossible to establish I say "probably you're right", but I also feel obliged to ask: "if we're all humans why we don't perceive things alike"?

Sidetopic, sorry.

Interesting side-topic! It's related to the competing claims of postmodernists and evolutionary psychologists re: human nature. Stephen Pinker wrote and excellent book about this, namely "The Blank Slate." Hope to see the thread!

Like most people, I don't think that there is a sovereign definition of beauty, since tastes inevitably vary.

On a slightly unrelated note, because you triggered a topic which really interests me and which will probably become one of the most important issues in future with globalisation (widely understood) becoming more widespread. I feel that people don't vary that much in terms of feelings, goals they pursue, certain aspects of biology which make them act like this or that and say this or that etc. So if you say that definition of beauty is impossible to establish I say "probably you're right", but I also feel obliged to ask: "if we're all humans why we don't perceive things alike"?

Sidetopic, sorry.

I would ask this important question slightly differently. I'd rather ask 'cross culturally is there something in common about all individuals' feelings regarding what is beautiful?'