Beauty

[The Jay]

What is it? For myself, beauty is awe. It is different from sexual appetite, amusement, or curiosity. I suppose that one could argue that it is some combination of those things but I think that it is more akin to that emotion known as 'awe'. Beauty is used in many different ways, as a synonym of 'cute' or 'pretty' but I think that it is much more than that. It is a feeling of rapture in a religious sense but is experienced in areligious as well as that of religion. It feels like a state of pure being and experience that can be felt due to other people, through phenomena, or through objects. I bring this up because I've been feeling it from bringing back ideas of science as well as admiration for discovery and curiosity. One may think that I am contradicting myself because I mentioned curiosity; however, it is the emotion that is brought about by curiosity and not from curiosity itself.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

[The Jay]

It should be noted that I have read nothing on Aesthetics.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i see it as largely subjective and the notion of "beauty" itself and beauty-standards are social constructs (created i.e. by the fashion industry, for example). what was beautiful now may not have appealed to the subjectivity of people in other social cultures etc. if you notice how aesthetics change, you also notice how the beauty-standards that certain objects are assessed by change also.

one of my favourite examples is the "bowl" haircut. at my school, a working class comprehensive where french-crops were the standard hair-style, anyone with a bowl cut would have been called "bowl job". however, when i went to university, this hair-style came back into fashion amongst certain hipster students. if you were to take one of those students and put them in my old school, the whole aesthetic assessment of their hair-style and as such their beauty would've been turned on its head.

there are different beauty-standards though and perhaps they aren't all social constructs, but i would say that there's no such thing as objective beauty. there are studies that suggest the opposite, but they don't explain why so many different people are attracted to so many different types of people. even other objects, i.e. architectural ones - one person may say a building is beautiful, another person may say its appalling. the beauty standard is subjective and perhaps culturally/socioeconomically so (i know a lot of middle-class people who like brutalist architecture, whereas the working class people i know that live in some such structures find them to be hellish).

not a great response but i hope u get the jist

[Lily Briscoe]

there are different beauty-standards though and perhaps they aren't all social constructs, but i would say that there's no such thing as objective beauty. there are studies that suggest the opposite, but they don't explain why so many different people are attracted to so many different types of people. even other objects I think talking about 'beauty' in terms of people and 'beauty' in terms of objects (e.g. art, architecture, etc.) are two pretty different things, but with regard to the latter, someone recently linked me to a study showing a correlation (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997001311) between having a 'sensation-seeking (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_seeking)' personality and preferring surreal art to representational forms, which I thought was pretty interesting and definitely jibes with my experience. While things like this are definitely culturally informed to some extent, I'd imagine a lot of people's preferences in this regard are rooted in aspects of their personality.

Anyway, with regard to the OP, I'm not sure I completely understand the question. 'Beauty' can be used in different ways to mean a lot of different things depending on the context..

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I think talking about 'beauty' in terms of people and 'beauty' in terms of objects (e.g. art, architecture, etc.) are two pretty different things, but with regard to the latter, someone recently linked me to a study showing a correlation (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886997001311) between having a 'sensation-seeking (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_seeking)' personality and preferring surreal art to representational forms, which I thought was pretty interesting and definitely jibes with my experience. While things like this are definitely culturally informed to some extent, I'd imagine a lot of people's preferences in this regard are rooted in aspects of their personality.

Anyway, with regard to the OP, I'm not sure I completely understand the question. 'Beauty' can be used in different ways to mean a lot of different things depending on the context..
interesting and would like to see the study if you have a link for it. however, my thinking tends to lean towards the idea that even personalities are largely (if not mostly or even completely) culturally and socioeconomically conditions. if this is the case, then even personal 'taste' is a product of environment to a variable extent.

can we really consider personalities and tastes outside of the environments in which they are cultivated? makes me think of "taste" in the most literal sense - some like the taste of mangoes, some hate it - is this biological or otherwise and is the same true, either way, for taste in other aesthetic senses?

[Lily Briscoe]

^the study is linked to in my post (click on the word 'correlation'). I will respond to the rest of your post later when I have the time.

[The Jay]

I think that beauty has much more in it than fashionable looks. When you look at something that is breathtakingly beautiful isn't there an emotional response? Is that emotion beauty or is the thing beauty? Where does this emotion come from?


This probably shows my view better than I can:


hIZhgLKSBaY

[tallguy]

i see it as largely subjective and the notion of "beauty" itself and beauty-standards are social constructs (created i.e. by the fashion industry, for example). what was beautiful now may not have appealed to the subjectivity of people in other social cultures etc. if you notice how aesthetics change, you also notice how the beauty-standards that certain objects are assessed by change also.

one of my favourite examples is the "bowl" haircut. at my school, a working class comprehensive where french-crops were the standard hair-style, anyone with a bowl cut would have been called "bowl job". however, when i went to university, this hair-style came back into fashion amongst certain hipster students. if you were to take one of those students and put them in my old school, the whole aesthetic assessment of their hair-style and as such their beauty would've been turned on its head.

there are different beauty-standards though and perhaps they aren't all social constructs, but i would say that there's no such thing as objective beauty. there are studies that suggest the opposite, but they don't explain why so many different people are attracted to so many different types of people. even other objects, i.e. architectural ones - one person may say a building is beautiful, another person may say its appalling. the beauty standard is subjective and perhaps culturally/socioeconomically so (i know a lot of middle-class people who like brutalist architecture, whereas the working class people i know that live in some such structures find them to be hellish).

not a great response but i hope u get the jistThe golden ratio

[Petrol Bomb]

I find that for myself, feelings of beauty towards a being or object are quickly followed by feelings of repulsiveness, and more specifically disgust, upon examining these feelings from a distanced position.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Agree with OP, like I've never called simple sexual partners beautiful because the adjective is so much more powerful. I've only ever used it to describe someone I loved, and it wasn't referring to simply physical beauty, more like the beauty of their soul.

Or nature, nature is beautiful too. But I fucking hate how people cheapen the word like if they see someone at a club and are like "hey beautiful", like no, fuck off. You don't even know who they are as a person.

[Thirsty Crow]

It should be noted that I have read nothing on Aesthetics.
And yet you managed to summarize the Romanticist notion of the sublime pretty well; not that this was your aim of course.

Answering some of these questions is a matter of whole books; of course, this will only be a brief outline of some of my thoughts on it.

When we say that something is beautiful, we actually stand in some kind of a relation to it; that of perception most obviously, and we attribute that specific sense reaction to some of the characteristics of the object, but not necessarily in a clear way - we may make this assessment, with the underlying sense reaction present, without actually isolating any specific attribute at all.

I do believe that some kind of a sense reaction is going on; but not in a simple, straightforward way as there exist social standards of what is considered beautiful which we are subject to from the earliest age. It may very well be the case that there is a sort of a immutable, supposedly biological core to this, but the sheer variance in historical and synchronous aspects of these standards tells us that there is a wide playing field so to speak.

What about the scope of objects that usually fall under such an assessment of being beautiful?

It seems to be very broad; from natural objects (incidentally, I mentioned the Romanticist tradition with its notion of the sublime, and that tradition most often referred to that emotion of being awestruck especially in relation to natural objects, like glorious mountain passes), to other human beings and works of art.

What seems to me to be the common thread here is that all of these do not have an immediate practical purpose, or rather that one's relation to them doesn't constitute that of practical utility. The immediate purpose of works of art, on the other hand, can be said to be precisely aesthetic apprehension; the pleasure of relating to them as beautiful works.

And as far as people go, I'd agree with you that sexual appetite is something different than this sense of a person's beauty, although they both probably work together to produce a particular combination of sensations, emotions, and thoughts.
Mentioning thoughts, I often found myself not being able to distinguish between what I thought about a person as a person and a more narrow physical appeal ("being pretty"); it all kinda got cobbled together producing a "unified" emotion-thought complex, up to the point that I didn't even find a person attractive anymore once shit hit the fan and they turned out to be dicks (that's a simplification of course), or when I stopped harboring specific emotion towards them (for example, one of my closest friends now had been in a relationship with me; after that ended, and after a period of my forming a new kind of relation towards here, it just so happened that I really stopped considering here attractive).

So, to try and summarize, yes when works of art are concerned especially I'd say that something being beautiful correlates with a kind of an awe-like feeling; the same for natural objects, though, not so with people at least when I'm concerned.



Or nature, nature is beautiful too. But I fucking hate how people cheapen the word like if they see someone at a club and are like "hey beautiful", like no, fuck off. You don't even know who they are as a person.
I don't think there's any cheapening going on here; it's just that some people have different conceptions of what's legitimately called beautiful, and sure one can say that for physical appearance.

EDIT: to publicly self-flagellate, twice I wrote "here" when meaning "her". I won't edit that out, let it stand as a testament to the degradation of my English skills (:D)

[Thanatos]

When I think of beauty, I think of something like this.

http://images.beautyriot.com/photos/galleries/best-updo-face-shape-ovalbest.jpg

I admit I am superficial. I am a typical guy, shallow to the core. I know there are other kinds of beauty (sunset, rainbow etc.), but sexual beauty is...hmm....

[Kill all the fetuses!]

When I think of beauty, I think of something like this.

I admit I am superficial. I am a typical guy, shallow to the core. I know there are other kinds of beauty (sunset, rainbow etc.), but sexual beauty is...hmm....

Pfff, she isn't even that beautiful anyway. To an extent that I ascribe beauty to people, here's my take. ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Marina_Ginesta.jpg

[BIXX]

Ok so I haven't read the thread much but I'm just gonna throw my shit out here:

I do, unfortunately, find a lot of the classic standards for attractiveness attractive. Thinking that, I feel disgusted with myself because I want to move beyond that, but it is the truth.

Beauty, I feel, is cultivated in your surroundings and environment, however that does not change the validity of what you consider beautiful. Meaning, whether what you're attracted to fits conventional standards or not it is equally valid.

However, beauty standards (in many/all cases) are oppressive, and used to shame all people who don't fit into the perfect stereotypical "attractive person mold". I know I don't fit very well into that mold and despite not wanting to care, it hurts me deeply.

There are some things, however, that do seem to be universally beautiful. Particularly, the golden ratio. It seems that somehow, nature favours that ratio more than any other. It appears all over the place, from a snails she'll to an "ideal woman's" (I don't know if the "ideal man's" body fits into the golden ratio) body to the tail of a seahorse. The golden ratio appears so much that most likely in a day you will (my guess) run across 10 noticeable examples, and many many unnoticeable examples. So, what that means, I don't know. But it might mean that some beauty standard are here to stay, whether we like it or not. In that case the goal should be to make sure people don't feel like shit about not being the "ideal".

The golden ratio makes me wonder if the letter "e" is ever involved in beauty standards or if it is only reoccurring in nature as a descriptor of physical events/things (for example, the way a power line hangs).

[ArisVelouxiotis]

If we are talking about human beauty for me it's sexual.

[cyu]

I thought it a bit humorous that what looked like an attempt at eugenics led to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness

In 1883, Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, devised a technique called composite photography, which he believed could be used to identify 'types' by appearance, which he hoped would aid medical diagnosis, and even criminology through the identification of typical criminal faces. he wondered if certain groups of people had certain facial characteristics. he created photographic composite images of the faces of vegetarians and criminals to see if there was a typical facial appearance for each. While the resultant “averaged” faces did little to allow the identification of either criminals or vegetarians, Galton observed that the composite image was more attractive than the component faces.

[The Jay]

And yet you managed to summarize the Romanticist notion of the sublime pretty well; not that this was your aim of course.

Answering some of these questions is a matter of whole books; of course, this will only be a brief outline of some of my thoughts on it.

When we say that something is beautiful, we actually stand in some kind of a relation to it; that of perception most obviously, and we attribute that specific sense reaction to some of the characteristics of the object, but not necessarily in a clear way - we may make this assessment, with the underlying sense reaction present, without actually isolating any specific attribute at all.

I do believe that some kind of a sense reaction is going on; but not in a simple, straightforward way as there exist social standards of what is considered beautiful which we are subject to from the earliest age. It may very well be the case that there is a sort of a immutable, supposedly biological core to this, but the sheer variance in historical and synchronous aspects of these standards tells us that there is a wide playing field so to speak.

What about the scope of objects that usually fall under such an assessment of being beautiful?

It seems to be very broad; from natural objects (incidentally, I mentioned the Romanticist tradition with its notion of the sublime, and that tradition most often referred to that emotion of being awestruck especially in relation to natural objects, like glorious mountain passes), to other human beings and works of art.

What seems to me to be the common thread here is that all of these do not have an immediate practical purpose, or rather that one's relation to them doesn't constitute that of practical utility. The immediate purpose of works of art, on the other hand, can be said to be precisely aesthetic apprehension; the pleasure of relating to them as beautiful works.

And as far as people go, I'd agree with you that sexual appetite is something different than this sense of a person's beauty, although they both probably work together to produce a particular combination of sensations, emotions, and thoughts.
Mentioning thoughts, I often found myself not being able to distinguish between what I thought about a person as a person and a more narrow physical appeal ("being pretty"); it all kinda got cobbled together producing a "unified" emotion-thought complex, up to the point that I didn't even find a person attractive anymore once shit hit the fan and they turned out to be dicks (that's a simplification of course), or when I stopped harboring specific emotion towards them (for example, one of my closest friends now had been in a relationship with me; after that ended, and after a period of my forming a new kind of relation towards here, it just so happened that I really stopped considering here attractive).

So, to try and summarize, yes when works of art are concerned especially I'd say that something being beautiful correlates with a kind of an awe-like feeling; the same for natural objects, though, not so with people at least when I'm concerned.


I don't think there's any cheapening going on here; it's just that some people have different conceptions of what's legitimately called beautiful, and sure one can say that for physical appearance.

EDIT: to publicly self-flagellate, twice I wrote "here" when meaning "her". I won't edit that out, let it stand as a testament to the degradation of my English skills (:D)

This post makes me want to read Aesthetics. I've given this some thought and I completely agree with your analyses and want to continue this line of study. You knew exactly where I was coming from and gave me hints of which directions I could go. Thank you.

[The Jay]

I thought it a bit humorous that what looked like an attempt at eugenics led to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness

In 1883, Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, devised a technique called composite photography, which he believed could be used to identify 'types' by appearance, which he hoped would aid medical diagnosis, and even criminology through the identification of typical criminal faces. he wondered if certain groups of people had certain facial characteristics. he created photographic composite images of the faces of vegetarians and criminals to see if there was a typical facial appearance for each. While the resultant “averaged” faces did little to allow the identification of either criminals or vegetarians, Galton observed that the composite image was more attractive than the component faces.

This may be due to the fact that symmetrical - or nearly so - faces are generally considered more attractive than not. I'm not sure why this is but there have been documentaries on National Geographic or the Discovery Channel about it that I remember watching. It is worth more investigation in my opinion.

[The Jay]

Ok so I haven't read the thread much but I'm just gonna throw my shit out here:

I do, unfortunately, find a lot of the classic standards for attractiveness attractive. Thinking that, I feel disgusted with myself because I want to move beyond that, but it is the truth.

Beauty, I feel, is cultivated in your surroundings and environment, however that does not change the validity of what you consider beautiful. Meaning, whether what you're attracted to fits conventional standards or not it is equally valid.

However, beauty standards (in many/all cases) are oppressive, and used to shame all people who don't fit into the perfect stereotypical "attractive person mold". I know I don't fit very well into that mold and despite not wanting to care, it hurts me deeply.

There are some things, however, that do seem to be universally beautiful. Particularly, the golden ratio. It seems that somehow, nature favours that ratio more than any other. It appears all over the place, from a snails she'll to an "ideal woman's" (I don't know if the "ideal man's" body fits into the golden ratio) body to the tail of a seahorse. The golden ratio appears so much that most likely in a day you will (my guess) run across 10 noticeable examples, and many many unnoticeable examples. So, what that means, I don't know. But it might mean that some beauty standard are here to stay, whether we like it or not. In that case the goal should be to make sure people don't feel like shit about not being the "ideal".

The golden ratio makes me wonder if the letter "e" is ever involved in beauty standards or if it is only reoccurring in nature as a descriptor of physical events/things (for example, the way a power line hangs).

This doesn't perfectly apply to my OP but I'll bite. I suppose that some beauty standards work off of pleasing patterns such as the golden ratio as well as symmetry which I just mentioned in a previous post. The thing is that when I'm talking about beauty, which LinksRadical pointed out, I'm referring to those patterns and their ilk in nature in causing a feeling in relation to the sublime. It is true that this occurs in myself when looking at certain people, like this one ecuadorian girl that I met last week holy hell, but it is not limited to people. What do you think drives beauty more: social pressures or natural wonder?

[Loony Le Fist]

...
I do, unfortunately, find a lot of the classic standards for attractiveness attractive. Thinking that, I feel disgusted with myself because I want to move beyond that, but it is the truth.


I think you can take solace in the understanding that you are aware of the problem and can work towards changing it. There are many others that have not taken the proverbial red pill. At least you don't buy into the social conditioning and that is a start.



Beauty, I feel, is cultivated in your surroundings and environment, however that does not change the validity of what you consider beautiful. Meaning, whether what you're attracted to fits conventional standards or not it is equally valid.


Yep. Whatever you want to find beautiful and awesome is cool and totally up to you. The fact that you aren't afraid to look outside conventional definitions is a great thing.



However, beauty standards (in many/all cases) are oppressive, and used to shame all people who don't fit into the perfect stereotypical "attractive person mold". I know I don't fit very well into that mold and despite not wanting to care, it hurts me deeply.


Well always keep in mind that there is subjectivity too. Just as you are willing to look outside conventional ideas there are others out there that share in that view. Just don't fight yourself too hard on it, and accept it for the social conditioning that it is.



There are some things, however, that do seem to be universally beautiful. Particularly, the golden ratio. It seems that somehow, nature favours that ratio more than any other. It appears all over the place, from a snails she'll to an "ideal woman's" (I don't know if the "ideal man's" body fits into the golden ratio) body to the tail of a seahorse. The golden ratio appears so much that most likely in a day you will (my guess) run across 10 noticeable examples, and many many unnoticeable examples. So, what that means, I don't know. But it might mean that some beauty standard are here to stay, whether we like it or not. In that case the goal should be to make sure people don't feel like shit about not being the "ideal".


Have you read Steven Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science? He's a bit over the top, but I think his analysis of cellular automata and it's relationship to nature is something you might want to check out that would bring this full circle. :)



The golden ratio makes me wonder if the letter "e" is ever involved in beauty standards or if it is only reoccurring in nature as a descriptor of physical events/things (for example, the way a power line hangs).

Yes that is a catenary curve. Very interesting indeed. The equation is based on the hyperbolic cosine, which itself can be expressed via a simple equation involving the constant e.

However, e, as a mathematical constant is not really possible to derive from the golden ratio (φ) by any finite expression. The golden ratio is algebraic, so you can write it as a root of a polynomial equation.

However e is related to π, 0, 1 and the imaginary unit i through the famous expression called Euler's identity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/8/9/f897005615c391e14cd50112cda44665.png

I find it to be a rather beautiful expression, since it relates 5 basic fundamental constants in a single expression. The idea that two transcendentals can be so cleanly derived from 0, 1 and the imaginary constant is a rather stunning symmetry.

The golden ratio itself shows up in fractals, like the Sierpinski Pyramid that I brought up in this thread. Also the ratio between any two Fibonacci numbers approaches φ as you move upwards through the sequence.

It is also interesting to express the constant e in the irrational (but algebraic) base φ.

100.00001000010010000

It almost feels like there's a pattern there. But I suppose that's just my brain projecting something onto it.

You need to stop bringing up numbers. I get too carried away. :grin:

EDIT: Just a note, the Sierpinski Pyramid itself doesn't have a golden ratio symmetry. It just an example of a fractal.

[The Jay]

LoonyLeftist, you may like this video then:

h-DV26x6n_Q

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Beauty is when someone who has been underfoot stands up to the boot that has been on their throat. Looking back, I feel the most beautiful thing in my life was when I left my abusive ex. Why? Because it was me taking back my life.

[Loony Le Fist]

Beauty is when someone who has been underfoot stands up to the boot that has been on their throat. Looking back, I feel the most beautiful thing in my life was when I left my abusive ex. Why? Because it was me taking back my life.

Ain't that the truth? I was in an emotionally abusive relationship with a right-winger. I didn't even know how much of my life was being robbed from me until I left.

[The Jay]

I can see how that would be beautiful, but what do you think beauty is in the general or abstract?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ain't that the truth? I was in an emotionally abusive relationship with a right-winger. I didn't even know how much of my life was being robbed from me until I left.

There was this time during the long disappeared time that I was gone from rev left for so long, when I was on the road and the rails. I had a road dawg (a term for a traveling partner) who was a white supremacist who kept his control over me through sexual abuse.
It was beautiful, that moment when I had enough of his bullshit and mistreatment and face planted that motherfucker into the concrete. That is what beauty is.

[Loony Le Fist]

I can see how that would be beautiful, but what do you think beauty is in the general or abstract?

That is an extremely difficult question really. But I'll give it a try.

There is a difference between random noise and music. And music contains a certain mathematical quality. Since our brains are essentially statistical inference machines, beauty is the right blend of order and chaos that stirs our senses. I suppose that would explain why there is such a thing as the uncanny valley encountered in CGI modeling of human faces and sculpting. Or how we can often tell the difference between really good 3D renders and photographs. Too perfect and we know something is off. Too chaotic, and it is meaningless.

Much of the focus of 3D rendering in recent times has been more about modeling imperfection. Software that uses physical based lighting, for instance.

It's even harder with music. So far I have been able to tell the difference between music composed by software and that composed by humans. But I suppose that gap is closing, just as the CGI one is.

[The Jay]

That is true. I suppose that we are coming at the problem from two different directions: you from scientific, myself from philosophy. The two will likely meet at some point.

[Dialectical Wizard]

I always saw a lot of beauty in nature, I know that sounds so cliche. But still it's so breathtaking and calming at the same time. Taking a walk through a natural area personally relieves a lot of stress and anxiety, it makes me calm and lets my mind run free while I stand in awe for such immense beauty. It’s almost a spiritual experience for me, having said that I think beauty only exists in the eye of the beholder it’s subjective .

[Rosa Partizan]

I've never dealt with Aesthetics or stuff and due to lack of time, I won't write a very elaborate post now, but the older I've turned, the more I became able to discover other types of beauty in human beings, apart from this super model-beauty standard-thing. One time, it was Saturday 8 a.m., I hadn't slept, and I went to the grocery store. Some old lady made me hold on and asked me when store xy will be opening. I was like, at 9 a.m. and wanted to go on, but she kept me somehow in place and started telling me how everyone she loved died from diseases, even 2 children of hers. She described to me all those visits at the doctor, diagnosing her husband with cancer, all his struggle, how he passed away and stuff and I felt my tears coming and I looked in her veiny, tired, yet so gracious eyes and somehow, I found her so deeply beautiful. This encounter left me totally speechless and I still remember it very closely, although it must've been some years from now.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think a molotov to a cop car is beautiful. Bullets putting holes in cops are beautiful. A brick through the front of a Walmart is beautiful.

"There are so many things of beauty in this world to see, a wild running river or an old rose redwood tree. But in an ugly situation, so sinister and dire, there is nothing quite so lovely as a Walmart on fire."

~David Rovics

[Slavic]

Eh its entirely subjective. Since it is subjective there is no absolutes or determining qualities that constitutes what is beautify and what is not.

Sure you can conduct studies and find trend by which certain parts of the population find "X and X" beautify and "Y and Y" not, but this is still a subjective observation and subject to change on a whim.

That being said. I think hills and mountains are beautiful. I think narrow faces and wide hips on a woman is beautiful, I think situations of extreme and usually comedic/retribution-ish irony to be beautiful.

[PhoenixAsh]

Beauty is strategic imperfections.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That is an extremely difficult question really. But I'll give it a try.

There is a difference between random noise and music.

Then how come random noise is still music to some? The beating of hammers, the hum of engines, a shrill factory whistle. The sound of a roaring steel works. And how come that certain music is enjoyable by some but not by others? Because those things are not merely judged on a purely abstract mathematical basis, they are viewed and judged through a lens of institutions, of cultural expressions encountered, of internal views, and stereotypes of all sort, which compound with the variations of the brains structure to manufacture the whole range of human tastes.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Then how come random noise is still music to some? The beating of hammers, the hum of engines, a shrill factory whistle. The sound of a roaring steel works. And how come that certain music is enjoyable by some but not by others? Because those things are not merely judged on a purely abstract mathematical basis, they are viewed and judged through a lens of institutions, of cultural expressions encountered, of internal views, and stereotypes of all sort, which compound with the variations of the brains structure to manufacture the whole range of human tastes.

I've been told the music I like is noise.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I've been told the music I like is noise.

Okay, I know you are probably unable to make posts that aren't about yourself in their entirety, but please try to sometimes.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Okay, I know you are probably unable to make posts that aren't about yourself in their entirety, but please try to sometimes.

Naw, there was a bigger point. It seems every previous generation looks at the younger generation's music and seems to think it's noise. There are exceptions but that is soooo insanely common.

[Vogelfrei]

'The Absolute shining through a sensuous form.' Read Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics (preferably Knox translation or Paolucci's Hegel on the Arts). For a decent exposition in the form of power point slides, see vvv.socanth.sfu.ca/documents/doc/Sociology_of_Art_Forms_Introduction

[Црвена]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...except I say that about everything.

[GimmieFire]

I usually think of nature and other non-human subjects as beautiful; I'm more inclined to say that people look good or are handsome or pretty. I'm not sure why I don't refer to them as beautiful, to be honest.