Talk:Beauty/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Request for Articles on Russian Beauties, Mexican beauties, etc.

Last night, George Clooney was asked on CNN about failing to claim the title Sexiest man alive (apparently People magazine?) There is general consensus on what each culture or conutry views as ideals for beauty. France has its Marianne announcements, chosen as a real life woman. What about separate articles for each?

Flowers

Eventually, we'll have an article on beauty here. Apparently, flowers are beautiful.

Flowers, perhaps as a bridge to anti-beauty?

ummm. yeah. in all of the motley senses of "beauty", including the ones in which this page is notably deficient. An advocate of "heirloom roses" (old, less-genetically modified/cross-bred stocks) referred to the modern "tea rose" (shown) as "black spot on a stick." This refers, of course, to the difficulty of actually producing a beautiful tea rose due to its genetic forcing of "beauty above all" and its subsequent near-total susceptibility to common plant diseases and parasites.

It does seem that it is difficult to get a good jumping off place amidst all of the oxygen-deprivation of unadulterated "beauty of the whole world". The flower-thing might work (complete with Shakespeare "Rose is a rose" quote--much unwanted good (and evil) has been done behind the cultural shield of the play-right man).

That might not be a bad entre' to add balance and some depth to the page without simply raining on everyone's parade. We probably won't gain much by mounting a full-frontal assault on everything that is unreflexivly beautiful, and nice. It wouldn't be entirely accurate, either. (But perhaps a bit of fun!)

Someone could reference the "baby doll beauty pageants" backlash (ala' JonBenet), the "stage mother" phenomenon, and even the "slimmer until you die" ethic of the current epitome' of beauty in fashion, the size 0 runway super-anorexic.

The dark side of beauty (jealousy, possessiveness, envy, murder) has been a historic theme, extending at least as far back as the stories in the Torah and in Babylon. The Gilgamesh epic records the very bad behavior of the beautiful and unopposed god-man-king Gilgamesh (claiming the virginity of all the land's brides on their wedding night because no one could stop him), and the antidote to this destructive behavior in the creation of his anti-hero, Inkadu. When he hears of this creation of the goddess--perhaps a match or someone equal enough to be a friend--in a fit of good thinking Gilgamesh sends an irresistibly beautiful priestess/prostitute to seduce Inkadu, where he romps among the animals. His resulting loss of the beauty of the wild is replaced by the civilizing effects of sex--the substitution of constructed beauty for the wild variety.

Oh, and the death of Inkadu as a result of a fit of jealousy by a beautiful but not pleasant goddess who he refused to bed says much about the destructive power of beauty. We would believe that the Goddess would never be attracted to him if he weren't so, well, beautiful (Forgive me if I misspelled or misremembered, it's been awhile. . .).

Beauty and Ugly and Power

Disney even took the jealousy of the evil-but-beautiful Queen for Sleeping Beauty (my foggy and somewhat lazy recollection is that historically this wasn't always the entire story--or at least in the Disneyfication of the story the conflict of the evil-on-the-inside older woman and the "beautiful through-and-through young maiden" to a new high/low.) There is a dilemma here that might be instructive: How do you show an ugly-on-the-inside Queen who is beautiful? I mean, how ugly must the rest of the kingdom's women have been if the evil Queen-as-Disneyfied was never worse than the second most beautiful woman in the kingdom? (note for later tie: Dopey, Doc and crew as neotaneous, and thus as safe, figures)

(warning: even greater diversion ahead, leave now if you have better things to do!)

It might be interesting to contrast this approach with that of the recent "Narnia" Snow Queen/White witch. In this much the movie was faithful: In the Narnia series book "The Magician's Uncle" the Queen was actually the last survivor of Charn, a world destroyed in a battle centered on jealousy / refusal to share power with / weakness inherent in the goodness of her sister. The boy Digory (the professor of the movie) accidently resurrects her shortly before her world goes away. Even without her magic power (tied to her homeworld) she was still a commanding figure of terrible beauty in London, even wrenching a crosspiece off an iron lamppost with which to beat up the local constabulary before being yanked back (eventually) into Narnia. Interestingly, although she is beautiful and powerful in Charn, London and Narnia, in the "world between the worlds" she loses all her power and is no longer beautiful. All this is to point out that while C.S. Lewis could easily talk about a woman beautiful in her power in World War 2 (I never got the sense of her hiding her ugliness, but rather that she was beautiful-and-powerful-and-evil to Aslan's beautiful-and-powerful-and-good), it took Hollywood until the 21st century to cast a beautiful-in-a-disturbing-way actress in such a powerful role. I'm not sure the filmmakers have even quite found their way through the "terrible beauty/terrible goodness/beautiful evil questions with which C.S. Lewis wrestled.

Also somewhat played down in the movie version was the frequent references in the book to Aslan being good *and* terrible. The Beavers are frequently reminding Lucy "He's not a tame lion, you know!"

This juxtaposition of beauty/power/evil must have been a difficult concept to get around for the still war-weary countries who had made sense of WWI as a petty dispute that ended up a necessary evil, "the war to end all wars." How could the beautiful be "really bad" and how could the fierce be "really beautiful"?

Is it possible that this has something to do with the mixed-up sensibilities surrounding the Third Reich? Hitler and Mussolini were quite popular and respected in the US until shortly before the country entered the war (themes touched on in "Tea with Mussolini" and "Remains of the Day" among others). This was also the time frame in which Tolkien wrote much of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, with its range of beautiful-evil, ugly-evil, beautiful-good, ugly-good and powerful-but-ambivalent figures. You can't always tell the bad guys by looking (at least at first. . .come to think of it, you could make a case that one constant was that evil eventually made you look ugly even while he was saying in hundreds of different ways that long-time enemies who don't look ugly might really be mostly good inside, as with the dwarves and elves). Tolkien certainly had his share of powerful and beautiful women, and the cute, neotaneous Hobbits (more on neotany to come).

Point is, the Germans who surrounded themselves with great art, great music, wonderful polished oratory, excellent personal grooming, great heraldry and an obvious appreciation of "the good life" and who looked like the model sorts of people (however politically misguided) many in the Western world thought attractive at the time. How could the democratically elected leader of a modern European nation *lie* to the democratically elected prime minister of another modern European nation? Differences in policies and competition for resources was one thing, but real deception was hard to pin on such a well mannered modern leader.

Many have pointed out how differently the Americans treated the Germans and the Japanese. Was there a round up and mass imprisonment of German-Americans? For all the talk of "appeasement" of the Germans, there was apparently no hesitation to believe the worst of the Japanese. The editorial cartoons depicting the Japanese as monkeys are deeply disturbing now, and while there are clear and documented accounts of abuses on all sides of that terrible war (and probably all terrible wars) I believe it would be a difficult assignment to show the Japanese military establishment as substantially "more evil" than the Third Reich.

Could racism be anti-beauty? Just as beauty longs to be coupled with good, does some sort of cosmic balance require that non-beauty be linked with evil?

Come to think of it, this is the (somewhat turned around) theme of "Beauty and the Beast", and "Shrek may function as a corrective to "Cinderella" in that the twist of the story lies in the beautiful princess getting in touch with her inner ogress rather than the happy ending featuring the ever-after of restored beautiful people. Is beauty then in "being who you are, even if you are green" or is it rather that "beauty isn't everything?"

"Shrek 2" either interestingly blows open the comfortable ambiguities of the original or really messes things up, depending on your disposition. Unless I missed something critical amongst the fun of the closing wedding scenes of "Shrek" we were left with the ambiguity of Princess Fiona's pre-enchantment state. Perhaps the surprisingly sophisticated spell-curse was to make the Ogre Princess human half of the time?

In the sequel, however, we learn that Fiona's parents are quite respectable looking Caucasian European-Royalty types. Thus we get to relive the possibility that the likes will eventually find themselves together, "likes" being external beauty and not goodness per se. Yet Fiona's father the king seems to be of solid amphibian stock, which at least shares skin color with the ogres. This story seems to fall back on the stock "goodness will triumph in the end" theme while sacrificing the "beauty is the prize of the morally pure." So is this a question of beauty or not, or one of "inner/deep" beauty triumphing over "exterior/shallow" beauty? "Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone!"

Neotany

Hey, and this could lead to a connection to neotany, that semiotic/anthropological semantics concept that tries to account for why we all seem to love the baby forms of everything. Once in an unguarded moment I even caught myself thinking "even baby opossum are kinda cute." Right. But if we want adorable characters the first thing we do is round them out with baby fat, make their heads bigger, ditto for the eyes, and throw in a touch of helpless. There is comic value in the cigar-smoking baby toon in the opening scenes of "Roger Rabbit." Yosemite Sam, Elmer Fudd. . .tools of destruction are safest when safely in the hands of babes. Is it the same for all beauty? or is this a special case dealing more with safety than beauty?

Maybe someone from Japan can shed some light on this entire "Pokemon" (and many iterations)? I just can't get how we mix up cute and gladiatorial. . .

Extra points for a reasonable explanation of why even adults in Japan get mushy over "Hello Kitty". . . bonus if you don't use "culturally monolithic".

Nature, art and beauty

It does seem that the broad panoramas of nature in bloom, especially with some combination of water and against a backdrop of a majestic mountain or two, strikes a chord across many cultures. I'm thinking not only of the Rockies/Andes/Alps, obvious candidates, but also the almost reverential awe afforded mountains in Africa, Australia, and especially Central Asia. This of course touches on the basic questions of Aesthetics as philosophy.

From "Song of Solomon/Song of Songs" to the "Poetics" of the Hellenistic Greeks, to the praises of Cleopatra and Helen of Troy there do seem to be recurring themes of beauty although the specifics differ. Most contemporary North American/European women would probably not take kindly to having their breasts compared to a couple of wild deer. . . and (to swipe a technique of the great categorizer) is beauty in bright blooms of Spring, in the sudden spring of the wild hart, in the vibrant colors of Autumn, in the ideal human form, in a majestic musical composition, in the mother's cooing, and in the young lovers' eyes one thing, two things or many things?

I'm enough of an anthropologist to know there are many anthropologies of beauty in different societies, but not enough of one to be able to think of any right now. I suppose we should mention the frequently reappearing claims of universal mathematical formula for what constitutes beauty in women. We owe it to our readers to point out, however, that it is not an easy task to get good information about the measurements of women thought beautiful even in Medieval times. I also am suspicious that some cultures (e.g., most of the Polynesian families) are given a miss because their emphasis on bigger-is-healthy-and-wealthy-and-therefore-better" don't 'a priori' fit the premise).

This should be enough of a case-in-point warning for us, however, to watch carefully how tightly we couple "beauty" with "sexual desirability." Not all cultures link them as tightly as do many cultures from the Hellenist/Roman traditions. Beyond the too-frequently cited examples of body disfiguring practiced on both sexes in some cultures (perhaps our anorexia isn't so "special" after all?) we just might discover that "beautiful" is relative--what is desirable in a young person is odious in an older person. If beauty is not linked to desirability, then what is it? Is it likely that we would see something as beautiful that we would not want?

In its crudest form this is "beauty in the eye of the beholder." Yet the challenging issues of aesthetics ask "is beauty inherent in the thing thought beautiful, the eye of the one thinking it beautiful, or in some combination involving other factors?" Plato believed that the closer you got to the "reality" of the pure forms, the more beautiful the things. To some extent he begged the question by also asserting that people came in different degrees of separation from the ideal. Thus the poet who is closer to the ideal than is the soldier will better recognize the beauty of poetry (which is created, conveniently, by the poet).

Is this so different, though, than some who proclaim modern (or postmodern) art, beautiful? Isn't the contemporary parallel to Plato's tautology is that the true lovers of art decide what *is* art, and what is merely decoration? Isn't this partly why each incident of a child's scrawlings, or an elephant's "finger painting" being anonymously submitted to some modern art contest and winning the prize so lovingly repeated and recycled among those who don't see the beauty or the value in apparently random colors and shapes?

So there is much more to art than beauty. Yet isn't this to shortchange "beauty" by reducing it to the merely decorative, to "eye candy?" Is the question, then, truly one of "what is art?" rather than "what is beauty?" Or rather, could we not just as easily reframe the art question as one of different kinds of beauty rather than dismissing the aesthetic as primitive? If we can say "that is a beautiful person" even with Cyrano's nose, and if you can't see the beauty that is there you don't really know beauty," can we not also say "all art is beautiful. If you take the time and invest the effort to understand what lies below the skin you too can see the beauty instead of the unusually proportioned feature?"

Is it possible that we are using "beauty" in very different ways when looking at people (or neotanous caricatures of people) and when looking at other things? Do "beauty words" even mean the same in these different situations? If not, "beauty" just became even more complex, and perhaps a lot more interesting.

"Lovers" Graffiti space?

Perhaps it might also be a good place to place a 'Graffiti' space so all those starry-eyed pre-teen nerds can try to impress their crushes with their "hacking" ability. Anyone else tired of the frequent vandalism of the "eternal love" variety?

I don't know if this has ever been done in a Wiki page, but it does seem to make some sense--in the "put more trashcans around and you'll get less garbage on the street" sort of way. We could even give it a veneer of respectability by introducing it with a reference to the collision of "in the eye of the beholder," "everyone is beautiful to someone" and "the chase is much better than the catch" paradoxes.

Sort of "Wiki performance art." sort of. It could be a living, ongoing (and if done well) persuasive exploration of the real diversity of what we take to be beautiful, at least in potential romantic connections. Is it really the case that everyone really *wants* the same small group of potential mates, and that most of us just put up with the best we think we can get? Is romantic love the handmaiden of beauty? Do we see as beautiful that which we grow to love?

Worth thinking about? Maybe worth pursuing in the "love" and "eternity" and any other categories oft-taken with this sort of thing. It won't, of course, stop the "insert inane profanity here" vandals, but it might deter much of the "I do it to show you how much I care" types.

This rant has really rambled on way longer than it had any right to. Once I started, I just couldn't put it down, and once I finished, the Wiki pillar of "be bold" stayed my finger from the delete key. (Blame someone else, huh, and if no one is near, blame the policy!) I am truly sorry if I've abused anyone in this "essay." I suppose if there is any good to it it might be in inspiring someone else to really run with the "beauty isn't always what it appears" theme.

Yet something like this is really needed in this article.

Perhaps I might be capable of instigating someone more skilled than I (whether be through inspiration of idea or revulsion of how I have botched it, over and over and over) to take the beauty topic far beyond where it is now. . .it should be apparent that I am not schooled in aesthetics (and never confused for one of the "beautiful people". . .) I have done what I could do, at least, beautiful or not.

Roy 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub

I put the word stub in the article so that it will turn up during a search engine query on "stub". It doesn't hurt the (empty and worthless anyway) article, and it makes them easier to find later.

Ah, that makes sense. Well, "stub" is here now. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert

You know, Stephen, this is the 7th change on this article so far, and we still haven't managed to put any actual content in. Sad, really. MB

Moved here from main article. Replaced with a stub.

Definition

A definition for someone to use as inspiration for an article

1. the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). 2. a beautiful person, esp. a woman. 3. a beautiful thing, as a work of art or a building. 4. Often, beauties. something that is beautiful in nature or in some natural or artificial environment. 5. an individually pleasing or beautiful quality; grace; charm: a vivid blue area that is the one real beauty of the painting.

Also beauty and love, the philosophy of beauty... hmmmm... what else?
Possibly a useful link: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/love.htm

Some research has pointed out that symmetry and golden ratio are major factors in the average person's perception of what beauty is. For example, persons with facial features that are symmetric and follow the golden ratio are more likely to be viewed as beautiful.

I think the part about the "millihelen" really belongs in the jokes file. Besides, Terry Pratchett might object. -- April

--- An alternative version built on the original ( for concideration)...

Beauty is a sensual perception of the real world concerning all sensorial organs and by all means absolutely subjective to the mentality of each culture, region, and era or even individual. However many attempts have been taken place for the understanding of the nature and meaning of beauty since it is one of the key themes in the philosophical discipline known as aesthetics.

philosophy, aesthetics

The earliest theory of beauty can be found in the works of Greek philosophers from the pre-Socratic period, like Pythagoras. The extant writings attributed to Pythagoras reveal that the Pythagorean School, if not Pythagoras himself, saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. In particular, they noted that objects proportioned according to the golden ratio seemed more attractive. Some modern researches seem to confirm this, insofar as persons with facial features that are symmetric and proportioned according to the golden ratio are consistently ranked as more attractive than those whose faces are not. Moreover these same theories have confirmed that this symmetry of the facial structure is arousing the ?mating instincts? of women towards men. The organism is succeeding this by evoking the production of pertinent to mating female hormones, such as estrogens, when a female is in the presence of a ?beautiful? male.

Another connection between mathematics and beauty which played a prominent role in Pythagoras's philosophy was the way in which musical tones can be arranged in mathematical sequences, which repeat at regular intervals called octaves. This ?model? has been used everywhere throughout the past millennia and continues finding field of application nowadays and it will, most probably, carry on for unlimited time to come. It is what is known as Harmony and Melody, two terms derived from the regularity in which the universe is constructed, and being representing in the reproduction of the natural rhythm, with other words in music.

Beauty contests claim to be able to judge beauty. The ?millihelen? is sometimes jokingly defined as the scientific unit of human beauty. This derives from the legend of Helen of Troy as presented in Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, in which her beauty was said to have launched a thousand ships. The ?millihelen? is therefore the amount of beauty that could launch one ship!

pain of redundant work?

Ouch! Some days ago I have been redirected here looking for a military decoration. The page has already been created, but I think some disambiguation is needed to separate beauty, personal decoration (not always related with beauty, especially in some cultures), interior decoration, civil decoration, military decoration, and others. Thanks.-- The Warlock 11:05 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"...people whose facial features are symmetric and proportioned according the golden ratio are consistently ranked as more attractive..."

I believe this needs clarification. I remember reading a long time ago about experiements that seemed to show that perfect symmetry in facial features was inferior to a slight asymmetry. --Jose Ramos 06:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Venus is the Roman goddess of love, not beauty. Any idea which is the Roman god/goddess of beauty ? Jay 11:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Waist to hip ratio?

Reading One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all [!!!] cultures is a waist-to-hip ratio of about 75%. The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) theory was discovered by psychologist Dr. Devendra Singh of the University of Texas at Austin. Physiologists have shown that this ratio accurately indicates most women's fertility. Traditionally, in premodern ages when food was more scarce, fat people were judged more attractive than slender. my eyebrowes jumped over my glasses. I live in China and know a bit about this "third of the world", that apparently this Dr. Singh never heard about. Women here certainly don't share the same "WHR"... Invisible waist and breast, white and "half-sick looking" skin has been and still is the Chinese beauty standard, with only few historical exceptions. And fertility doesn't seem to have ever been a problem here, as everybody knows... I'll move this pseudo-scientific "aesthetic" studies to a dedicated page, or simply remove.

I'm not found of relativism and I'm sure that beauty is also universal, but "beauty standards" are awfully cultural. gbog 03:26, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

According to The Evolution of Human Sociality by Stephen K. Sanderson, studies have confirmed male preferences for women with low WHRs "in at least seven different cultures or ethnic populations," including the United States, England, Germany, India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Guinea-Bissau. He repeatedly mentions a WHR of 0.70. He gives many reasons for this. He says, "Girls with lower WHRs show earlier pubertal endocrine activity, and married women with higher WHRs have more difficulty getting pregnant and give birth to their first child at a later age." If anyone would like me to do so, I could post the relevant two pages. ShadowDragon 05:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Please do post these links, so I can see the degree of accuracy of those studies. (But any statistical studies will not change facts, and the fact here is that Chinese women don't have the same "hourglass" shapes as Westerners, nor do they share the same beauty standards.) gbog 08:07, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
This page contains much but not all of the info contained in the book. Do a search for Devendra Singh and you'll find the relevant info. ShadowDragon 06:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, this article looks like a pamphlet against a very few "queer theorists", that's my first impression. I didn't see (I have to read it in detail) any solid argument in favour of our topic here-- which is : is this "Waist to hip ratio" something that should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article, and should it be mentioned this way, forgetting a third of the world (what is sadly not uncommon) ?

Hm. I do not live in China, but in a part of the world where that waist-hip-ratio thing clearly is considered a beauty standard. And results in eating disorders being a major problem among young women. However, I never have thought it something else than a matter of culture. You learn it by pictures, by tv, by barbie dolls, and even by soft drink bottles. There may be some "universal" shape of beautiful beneath, but if so you sure couldn't find out about it because of the dominating cultural influence.

Maybe we can keep something meaningful if we substitute

"One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all cultures..."

with

"One peculiar feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women at least in Hollywood-style movies and TV commercials..."

Besides, i think it a bit odd to link food scarcity only to "premodern ages", even for Austin, Texas, standards. --Stupid girl 11:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed
I've suggested a brief discussion of the consideration of fashion culture, including historical factors, in the view of beauty a couple of sections down. I consider it a valid point.LessHeard vanU 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

gorgeous

Well done everyone that had a hand in this page

I expected it to be a real mess - but it is one of the most elegant wiki pages ive seen for ages. it takes a lot of effort to keep a definition so clear and simple without falling into the trap of only discussing the obvious. in this case i thought it would be all about women, or rather a particular adolescent american view of women - it isnt. Its quite beautiful.

Ok so now the criticism...

in this section

Symmetry may be important because it is evidence that the person grew up in a healthy way, from without visible genetic defects. One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all cultures is a waist-to-hip ratio of about 70% (waist circumference that is 70% of the hips circumference). The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) theory was discovered by psychologist Dr. Devendra Singh of the University of Texas at Austin. Physiologists have shown that this ratio accurately indicates most women's fertility. Traditionally, in premodern ages when food was more scarce, plump people were judged more attractive than thin ones.

I was about to alter this reference by removing the sentence about plumpness as it seems to have nothing to do with symmetry, then realised that the research on symmetry is itself an american perspective.

Well, in the Austin area at least - so to give the entry a cross cultural ballance i will add the "In the US it has been found that". and remove the slightly condescending "Traditionally, in premodern ages..." Plumpness isnt just for premodern ages, I have personal experience of plumpness being highly desirable, in preference to thin-ness. especially of the stomach, in both Egypt and India.


DavidP 22:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Beuys?

Why on earth has someone added a link to an interview with Joseph Beuys? I cannot recall any specific mention of beauty as an issue in the sculptors extensive works, it doesnt even really merit a link here under the basis of being a theory of aesthetics, which would be stretching the point anyway. It is well known that J.B. was very metaphorical in the language that he used for interviews, and most other documentation, but I think that an interview where neither the word 'Beauty' or the word 'shoenheit' is mentioned really is a usefull link here. I will remove it

DavidP 20:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beauty and intelligence

I just added a reference to this study. Personally, I consider the study logically flawed and methodologically suspect. It does, however, appear to have been peer reviewed and published. That makes it verifiable even if I don't like the content. I could not find a published rebuttal or critique. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"(the reason for which is probably that most well-known mythologies were conceived of and standardised by heterosexual men)" ... was removed. It is opinion, speculation, however you want to parse it. What it is not is established fact or a well-attested theory.

Coordination of content

The content here and in Sexual attraction and Physical attractiveness is very similar. Hopefully some coordination can be achieved, in line with Wikipedia's no duplicate content rule. Thanks! --Dpr 07:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Beauty

BEAUTY is function. Its intensity is proportional to the increase in PERPETUATION caused.

Yesselman 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge this with aesthetics

Merge this with aesthetics and redirect ugly, uglyness, and beauty there. And why isn't there a table of contents in this discussion area...oh, it's down there... -Barry- 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't beauty and aesthetics 2 different things (the latter being more specific)? Nonprof. Frinkus 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Giggle

Ok, so why does Fugly redirect here? :-) Bastie 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Plotinus on Beauty

In the section "Theories of Beauty" I believe it would be very helpful, if not necessary, to add something of Plotinus. Plotinus's section on "Beauty" in the Ennead is one of the classic literatures on the topic of beauty (as a matter of fact it is one of the classic writings in philosophy).

Helpful to defining beauty would be the sensation that one feels when beholding beauty, in Plotinus's words: "when the soul beholds beauty it thrills with an immediate delight" (Plotinus).

Remembering that this should go under the section of theories, I believe it would be helpful to include the concept which Plotinus (and many other philosophers) held that "there are loftier beauties than these [beauties of the realm of sense]" (Plotinus). According to many philosophers if one focuses only on the sensual he or she is missing out on much of what beauty really is. Also an explenation on the source of beauty would be helpful.

--Frederick0511 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)



Beauty in Change

I found the artice overall very interesting and informative, but in one respect I disagree.

Stated: "According to an ancient Indian definition, the beautiful is that which from moment to moment is always new. That is to say, it removes the mind from the world in which things grow old. But considering that the visual system allows us to see by extracting the stable, rather than changing, features of the environment on a momentary basis, this ancient definition seems hard to support."

The truth is, although we live in the moment, our perception is often based on relation to past and future. When we are used to a routine, it is given less focus. This can be easily observed in Food, where a favorite food will not taste as good to us if we eat it all the time. The difference, the surprise, this has a profound effect on our perception of the world. In a personal example, I used to think that the ocean was so beautiful until I moved to Florida. Then I found myself so used to the area, that I went a whole year without once going to the beach. When I moved back into the Mountains of the North, they suddenly had a fresh new appeal which also in time became less attractive. When I moved to Canada, even though it was in the dead of winter and very cold, there was just something about the change of scenery that made me appreciate the world more.

If you saw a Rose for the first time in a while, you might stop to admire it. But if roses were everywhere, would you pay each one the same attention? Or would you be more attracted to the flower beside it that you normally wouldn't see? (some people would like to see many Roses, such as in a Rose Garden, but the attraction here is still that they otherwise may not be as exposed to this. If they saw it every day it would certainly loose value) Why else would, say, the sight of a rare bird excite a bird watcher so much more than a common? Would the same appreciation be felt if they were everywhere?

This might even hold true in Human Beauty. If you saw the same kind of face every day, regardless of how well proportion it is, and then a new face of a different "type" just as Beautiful in every perceptive sense (that is, according to how the viewer sees beauty) But has features unusual, be it as simple as a stray frekle, an eye color, a hair style, or a nationality, one might find this face much more attractive simply because it is different to the viewer. This may even be a basic cause of dying relationships, affairs, and why in afairs one may do things less inclined to do with dedicated partner, and why acts that stimulate difference or the exotic can rekindle the spark that has died.Because we see Beauty less in the Norm, and more in the face of change.

Therefore, I have to conclude, that it is very easy to support the concept of Beauty - Natural, Poetic, or Human - being that which is new.


Signed, Gwaeraurond@yahoo.com


--Gwaeraurond 4:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese proverb

Why do we need a chinese proverb in the opening paragraph? I say remove it. Shandolad 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • At least it wasn't the usual Shakespear one - although that one appears later in the body of the article. I say keep it, since beauty is a cross cultural consideration and it reflects the scope of the article. Also, a quote is as relevant as a photograph or chart, both of which appear in opening paragraphs of other articles.LessHeard vanU 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I also see it as out of place and that it should be removed. Philosophy is not a realm for political correctness such as aiming at representing all cultures regardless of the content. Of course, chinese materialism and practical wisdom may be as rightful as any other approach to life but that particular proverb seems dull and especially simplistic in the implications that women therefore would lack wisdom or at least that if you weren't beautiful as a woman you may not be wise (btw, I'm a man). --Lucian 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I read it as "why do we need a chinese proverb...?" If it had been asked, "why do we need a proverb...?" then only the latter part of my response would have sufficed. I'm not over enthusiastic about it myself but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!. If there is another proverb which is more apt, rather than from a particular culture or age, then substitute that.LessHeard vanU 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And I wrote it the way I did to clarify beyond all doubt what I was referring to. "Why do we need a chinese proverb?". This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias do not start articles with poetry. I prefer a chinese proverb over an old Shakespearian one (no criticism of Shakespeare) any day.Shandolad 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Beauty is the wisdom of women. Wisdom is the beauty of men." - Ancient Chinese proverb

Keeping code on this page for further discussion. A reader coming to Wikipedia's Beauty-page is probably not looking for poetry. It does not belong in the opening, only (maybe) to exemplify something. Shandolad 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe poetry certainly belongs in an article dealing with the term Beauty. It is such a poetic word. Poetry can be found in any text - in your previous posts even. I percieve a well structured sentance to be poetry, no matter what the context. --Tapsell 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural considerations of beauty

Without creating contraversies on racial features and the such, I think it may be worthwhile to consider how culture, both indigenous and "fashion", can determine considerations of beauty. With indigenous there might be a brief discussion of scarrification, tattooing, neck rings, lip and ear plates and other body modification. Within "fashion" I am particulary thinking of matters such as voluptuousness against the current ultraslim preferences. Historically cultures (including Western early/mid 20th Century) put a premium on the display of wealth/success by means of the fuller figure. In the latter half of the century, as food consumption (if not nutrition values) rose, the preference for the "skinny" and/or "gaunt" ideal became apparent. Whilst source material for the former type of cultural ideals may be abundent I think there may be difficulty in obtaining any good data on the latter. If I find any compelling material then I will start on it.LessHeard vanU 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

= I see the latter consideration to have been discussed at length here. I will stick to researching material for the cultural/body modification aspect.LessHeard vanU 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image discrepancy

I'm not sure I quite understand why one of the featured images is the cover of Nabokov's Lolita. Are we meant to understand that the legs of a 12-year old girl are generally accepted as beautiful? The image bears no explanatory caption and no mention is made of the novel in the body of the article. So, I think that some other image might be more germain to the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.226 (talk • contribs)

NPOV?

The first paragraph on what beauty is seems to be beholden to a specific school of beauty.

It's a word that's difficult to define, and you'll find a great many who will disagree with that definition.

Some philosophers have suggested that we quit using the word alltogether in intellectual discussion, because of the utter lack of an effective definition. The current wiki definition has some problems, and I've no idea where it came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie Garkey (talk • contribs)

Hinduism = mythology?

I just noticed this in the article and I think it should be corrected:

'* Lakshmi - Hindu mythology'

Considering that Hinduism is still very much a practised relgion, is it right to describe it as 'mythology'?

Merging from Ugliness

Please go to the Ugliness Talk page to view what has been previously said. Lsjzl 16:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirection problem

Why does 'hideous' redirect here? It's all small thing but shouldn't hideous at least redirect to 'ugly'?

Nomination for image of Sharbat Gula to be reincluded

Image:Sharbat Gula.png
Photograph of an Afghan girl (Sharbat Gula) is regarded as among the world's most iconic and compelling images for its plain and vivid reflection of human beauty within a context of conflict and suffering. It remains a well-recognized symbol for the cause of human rights.]] The image "Sharbat Gula" is hidden. I feel that image is notable enough within the context of beauty to be included. It is consider the most compelling cover photo on National Geographic and is also, as stated in the caption: "regarded as among the world's most iconic and compelling images. Its plain and vivid reflection of human beauty within a context of conflict and suffering remains a well-recognized symbol for the cause of human rights". Therefore it it is fair use, WP:FUC. Valoem talk 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that that category makes it qualify, alas. WP guidelines only allow free-use images where there's no alternatives that'd give the same effect. It might just about be OK to illustrate an article on the artist or the subject, though. Pseudomonas 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
As the guy who included the Sharbat photo and wrote the caption, Im a bit partial to it, and would naturally argue that its inclusion is not violating or at least can be overlooked in special cases. However I'm not closed to the idea of listing a gallery of candidate photos, and picking the best of these to use. More than one can be rotated once a week or so. -Ste|vertigo 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From a Lover of Beauty

What is perfect beauty? --That is, what is that "beauty bare" that Edna St. Vincent Millay could only write in a glance of Euler's eye?

Can there be a perfect beauty?

On my user page, one can read the following quotation of Sir Francis Bacon:

"There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."

One can also read my own reformulation of Bacon's work there:

"Beauty is only possible in imperfection."

What is perfection other than that which no beauty can ever be?

And why, ignoring my own best reason, do I long for a perfect beauty? I don't really spend much time doing anything else.

Tastyummy 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New photo

Image:Ilyssa4.jpg
200px

While I think it's a nice photo, I don't think it's necessary for this page. I'm firmly against censorship (and will readily defend the illustrative photos on pages such as Penis and Vagina. However, there's already an image representing the female as a symbol of beauty here. There's already a bevy of misguided Romeo's trying to get their girlfriend's name in this article; I could imagine the same thing happening with photos. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of the high volume of vandalism on this page (re: There's already a bevy of misguided Romeo's trying to get their girlfriend's name in this article), I wonder if it should be blocked.
Just my silly opinion on the use of the photo here … because it is a photo it can capture the inherent part of nature (realism) that is profoundly a part of beauty … so I thought a tactful use of this photograph could have been a good thing. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

beauty respond from shanece.

beauty is a emotinal feeling within someone's mine and within the way they tihnk and feel and their physical beauty.

semi-protect?

Of late there's been an apparent increase in the number of anon edits to this page doing nothing but adding the name of their inamorata. Might it be appropriate to semi-protect? Has this been tried before, and with what result? Pseudomonas 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Toward a better definition

Here is the current definition of beauty:

Beauty is an innate and emotional perception of life's affirmative and meaningful aspects within objects in the perceived world – e.g. vitality, fertility, health, happiness, and love.

Stating that beauty is part of the perceived world is redundant because it's already been described as a perception. Also, what exactly is an innate perception? Perception is the mind's interpretation of experience. How is that innate? If we mean to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, surely there is a clearer way of saying it. Finally, the definition is a bit narrow, emphasizing affirmation and meaning, as opposed to the usual, sensory way that many people think about beauty. How about something like this instead:

Beauty is the perception of a person, object, place, or idea that provides an experience of pleasure, affirmation, meaning or goodness.

That seems a bit clearer, but I'm not sure it's significantly better. There is a philosophical issue here. Is beauty merely a perception? Isn't there something about the object itself that brings us to the conclusion that it is beautiful? If not, then we really can't say that a work of art, for example, is beautiful. We can only say that we feel beauty looking at it. In an attempt to save the practical usage of the word in language, how about this:

Beauty is an attribute of a person, object, place, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, affirmation, meaning, or goodness.

Jcbutler 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"This leads to a psychological state of attraction and positive emotions." -Seems like it needs work. We can deal neutrally with the concept of perception, but we cant state that perception is solely in the domain of psychology. Its late, so no more for now. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a horrible article. I can't think of much that can save it except

Maybe turn Beauty into a redirect into the Aesthetics article, and salvage whatever (little) good material we have on this article and add it to one of the articles on human attractiveness. Seriously, so much in this article is subjective and made up by editors, and belongs in an essay, not an informative encyclopedia article that's supposed to be about facts. Blueaster 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though simply calling it horrible is unlikely to help much. I've been doing a series of edits, replacing information that was deleted at some point in the history of the article, and reducing information that is more POV. --Jcbutler 07:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.