Log in

View Full Version : Why are some things ugly and others beautiful?



coberst
07-30-2009, 03:33 PM
Why are some things ugly and others beautiful?

The distinguishing characteristic between organic and inorganic motif is movement. Movement can manifest itself simply through growth or volitional locomotion. The basic characteristic of inorganic crystallinity is not, however, entirely missing in organic bodies. Trees have their annual rings, leaves display systematic structure, these characteristics are however often veiled and hidden from the observers eye or partially obscured by principles such as the law of motion.

The basic characteristics of inorganic crystallinity are “(a) delimitation by regular surfaces conjoined at angles and (b) absolute stereometric and planimetric symmetry.” Art deals with inorganic substances; primitive wo/man unavoidably, and most likely unconsciously, asked the question how would nature do it?

What prevents the formal law of inorganic things, i.e. crystallization, from dominating all attempts to depict organic things? The laws of motion characteristic of inorganic things “compel the continuous rearrangement of molecules, which permits them to coalesce into a symmetrical structure only during pauses in the process of motion”.

In addition to motion a second characteristic of organic matter is curvature. Inorganic matter often appears in a shapeless state while organic matter generally appears in a state of curvature.

“Thus man found himself faced with the task of reproducing an organic natural being in dead matter. We must keep firmly in mind that this called not for imitation or lateral portrayal but for competition. If conceptual requirements demanded a depiction of a four-legged creature, the primitive artist was not compelled to portray a specific individual or, even less, an accidental attitude of that individual. He needed instead to depict a representative of the given species with no intent to individualize.”

In the attempt to adopt the principles of inorganic matter while simultaneously attempting to place the human species as being above that of nature required that the artist “depict a representative of a given species with no intent to individualize.” When portraying organic matter the artist must record it paused in mid motion.

Once it was deemed acceptable to depict organic matter in motion, stopped motion but nevertheless motion, “transitory and accidental qualities entered art”. This was a moment of great consequence for art; perhaps even more important than was the introduction of organic motifs.

An object in motion is an object that tends to lose its symmetry and proportionality, vital characteristics of crystalline structure. “Even this limited movement meant the loss of absolute symmetry; thus asymmetry came to accompany curvature.”

The artist must attempt to make this absence of absolute symmetry minimally apparent. Symmetry determines the relationship between the left and right sides of a figure. Proportion determines the relationship between the upper and lower parts of the figure.

When a thing of nature fails to conform to instinctive views of minimal acceptability of symmetry and/or proportionality “we describe it as ugly. A person’s face might exhibit the most punctilious symmetry, but if the forehead is too low, the cheeks too broad, or the nose too long, we call the whole thing unattractive without there being the slightest possibility of disagreement.”

Quotes from Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts by Alois Riegl

RichardHresko
07-31-2009, 03:34 PM
Your question implies that beauty is a property akin to color or mass. I see no justification for this. An apt rejoinder is the Roman proverb: de gustibus non disputandum est -- in matters of taste there is no dispute.

Further the idea that inorganic material displays no curvature is silly. Look at the shape of the Earth, rainbows, droplets of water, the orbits of the planets, and so on.

Your description of art really does not work either, even and especially, early art. Look at Altimira and Lascaux.

I think you should reformulate your question and reconsider your statements.

mayneverhave
07-31-2009, 10:49 PM
It was Edmund Burke's theory that the beautiful were things that evoked love and the sublime were things that evoked feelings of terror. I would agree with this to the degree that it designates these two aesthetic qualities to the realm of the subjective - as, for example, one line of poetry can simultaneously evoke feelings of love and terror from two different individuals.

He followed this claim with a more dubious one. Things that are beautiful are small things, acute objects, and that are comprehensible - we make sense of them. Sublime things are large, and evoke feelings of terror because they lie out of our realm of understanding. This objectifies the two aesthetic qualities in a way that is gross to my sense of logic.

Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this explains how, when one is in love, the object of that love can appear beautiful, but in heartbreak, ugly, despite the fact that objectively, nothing has changed about the object.

What we can do, however, is take things that are commonly agreed upon to be examples of beauty, e.g. the Venus de Milo, and thereby take the qualities of the statue to stand for qualities of beauty in general, but in reality all we are doing is applying our own standards of beauty on the object.

JWHooper
08-04-2009, 12:07 AM
This post is like, why are some guys are such hotties and others are such notties?

stlukesguild
08-05-2009, 10:31 PM
It was Edmund Burke's theory that the beautiful were things that evoked love and the sublime were things that evoked feelings of terror. I would agree with this to the degree that it designates these two aesthetic qualities to the realm of the subjective - as, for example, one line of poetry can simultaneously evoke feelings of love and terror from two different individuals.

This would seemingly reinforce the argument that all art is about sex or death... or to broaden this that which we find beautiful/attractive is that which speaks to our feelings of love/lust/sex/etc... while that which Burke spoke of as "sublime" speaks to our fear of pain/death/mortality.

Beautifull
08-05-2009, 10:41 PM
well, how would we know what was beautifull if all we had were beautifull?

Maximilianus
08-05-2009, 11:16 PM
As it was suggested some posts above, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Though there are some general guides already made up around beauty, what is beautiful to some people may not be to others, so we can't have a fixed set of rules for defining the concept of "beauty". It also depends on how people perceive what they see and how and why they assign it the label of beautiful, like one who loves a rock because of its shape and another who dislikes the same rock because it lacks colours.