Beauty: universal or not universal?

benq

Badges: 17

Rep:

#1

Report Thread starter 4 years ago

#1

To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why? Can you justify it? Some say so only because of everybody else. In reality, if people weren't socially pressured, many would say that Shakira > Mozart. Would they necessarily be wrong?

Is it about the skill of the artist? Or the meaning hidden in the art? Or the reality that this art exemplifies? Or, rather, the person who is consuming the art is what matters in the judgement of its beauty? The person's culture, intelligence, values, views?

So, in your opinion, are we justified to claim that some art is superior? Or is it that different people are able to appreciate different things, and hence at the end of the day no universal judgement about beauty should nor can be made?

0

reply

cambio wechsel

Badges: 19

Rep:

#2

Report 4 years ago

#2

(Original post by benq)
To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why?

Ah, the difference between man and man. I'd bang the granny out of Shakira but see Mozart as an "8-pinter".

1

reply

imtelling

Badges: 4

Rep:

#3

Report 4 years ago

#3

(Original post by benq)
To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why? Can you justify it? Some say so only because of everybody else. In reality, if people weren't socially pressured, many would say that Shakira > Mozart. Would they necessarily be wrong?

Is it about the skill of the artist? Or the meaning hidden in the art? Or the reality that this art exemplifies? Or, rather, the person who is consuming the art is what matters in the judgement of its beauty? The person's culture, intelligence, values, views?

So, in your opinion, are we justified to claim that some art is superior? Or is it that different people are able to appreciate different things, and hence at the end of the day no universal judgement about beauty should nor can be made?

I think there is high art and low art -- if you make a cheese sandwich in your kitchen for example, technically speaking, you are doing the same thing as what a michelin star chef does in his kitchen, But, obviously, there are differences between the two. You wouldn't call the cheese sandwich maker a chef in the sense that the michelin star chef, is a chef.

Mozart would be an example of high art; something rare and unique.

Pop music would be an example of low art; something not rare and extremely throw away.

Technically speaking, both are art, but one is a higher form of art.

The same applies to all form of art.

0

reply

neeson.storls

Badges: 0

Rep:

#4

Report 4 years ago

#4

I don't think absolute attractiveness/beauty has been proven.

I generally reckon most people jump on the bandwagon, out of fear of being seen weird...

But then if some people are objectively more beautiful than others, we have no real way to prove it, yet.

1

reply

RayApparently

Badges: 21

Rep:

#5

Report 4 years ago

#5

Would many say Shakira > Mozart? I don't think it's social pressure that stops people saying that, I think its reality.

In answer to the titular question: No. Culture, era, individual - many things effect how beauty is measured.

1

reply

DErasmus

Badges: 0

Rep:

#6

Report 4 years ago

#6

Objectively you could come up with a list of parameters by which to measure 'beauty' (i.e skinny over fat surely? no muscle over muscle surely? long over short hair etc) otherwise it's all semantic white noise.

0

reply

Axiomasher

Badges: 16

Rep:

#7

Report 4 years ago

#7

(Original post by benq)
To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why? Can you justify it? Some say so only because of everybody else. In reality, if people weren't socially pressured, many would say that Shakira > Mozart. Would they necessarily be wrong?

Is it about the skill of the artist? Or the meaning hidden in the art? Or the reality that this art exemplifies? Or, rather, the person who is consuming the art is what matters in the judgement of its beauty? The person's culture, intelligence, values, views?

So, in your opinion, are we justified to claim that some art is superior? Or is it that different people are able to appreciate different things, and hence at the end of the day no universal judgement about beauty should nor can be made?

It's all subjective save that, setting aside our not insignificant culturally learned values, we are all likely to have a degree of parallel 'hard-wiring' which renders our subjectivities to cluster around a 'normal' interpretation. By way of example we might just be 'programmed' to find spiders 'creepy' because such an instinct has been evolutionarily useful (some spiders are poisonous) - even though we can (or at least some of us can) overcome that programming. Dunno though, maybe even finding spiders 'creepy' is a culturally learned value, it's probably hard to identify distinctions because we never grow up in the absence of culture.

0

reply

Axiomasher

Badges: 16

Rep:

#8

Report 4 years ago

#8

(Original post by DErasmus)
Objectively you could come up with a list of parameters by which to measure 'beauty' (i.e skinny over fat surely? no muscle over muscle surely? long over short hair etc) otherwise it's all semantic white noise.

But some people find 'skinny' unappealing and 'fat' beautiful. Even if you could show that a majority of people preferred X over Y (and in many instances you probably could) that doesn't render such majority-preference 'objective'. All you would be demonstrating would be some kind of general uniformity (or clustering) of subjectivities.

0

reply

DErasmus

Badges: 0

Rep:

#9

Report 4 years ago

#9

(Original post by Axiomasher)
But some people find 'skinny' unappealing and 'fat' beautiful. Even if you could show that a majority of people preferred X over Y (and in many instances you probably could) that doesn't render such majority-preference 'objective'. All you would be demonstrating would be some kind of general uniformity (or clustering) of subjectivities.

So? If I ask you what carbon is you could tell me a completely wrong answer and say it was subjective, some people are more informed and better at justifying their views than others. 'I think fat people are attractive because I can' is a sucky argument.

0

reply

Axiomasher

Badges: 16

Rep:

#10

Report 4 years ago

#10

(Original post by DErasmus)
So? If I ask you what carbon is you could tell me a completely wrong answer and say it was subjective, some people are more informed and better at justifying their views than others. 'I think fat people are attractive because I can' is a sucky argument.

But surely there is a universally agreed, and scientifically measurable, way to determine what constitutes a carbon atom. The same thing cannot convincingly be said for how 'sexy' Beyonce is or how good a rapper Jay-Z is. Stating that you think 'fat people are attractive' is no more or less 'sucky' an argument than stating that you think 'skinny people are attractive', indeed in neither case is there an actual 'argument'.

0

reply

DErasmus

Badges: 0

Rep:

#11

Report 4 years ago

#11

(Original post by Axiomasher)
But surely there is a universally agreed, and scientifically measurable, way to determine what constitutes a carbon atom. The same thing cannot convincingly be said for how 'sexy' Beyonce is or how good a rapper Jay-Z is. Stating that you think 'fat people are attractive' is no more or less 'sucky' an argument than stating that you think 'skinny people are attractive', indeed in neither case is there an actual 'argument'.

Yes because scientists subscribe to an empirical method based on extensive observation, you've already said this wouldn't work but why not? Why don't we define beauty as X, Y, Z and then measure it empirically.

0

reply

Axiomasher

Badges: 16

Rep:

#12

Report 4 years ago

#12

(Original post by DErasmus)
Yes because scientists subscribe to an empirical method based on extensive observation, you've already said this wouldn't work but why not? Why don't we define beauty as X, Y, Z and then measure it empirically.

I suppose if you could persuade the scientific community to accept whatever you present as the X, Y and Z that determines 'beauty' after offering a scientifically rigorous definition of what 'beauty' is, then you stand a chance. Kudos if you pull it off.

0

reply

imtelling

Badges: 4

Rep:

#13

Report 4 years ago

#13

Let's begin at extremes:

Dog turds are ugly.

New born babies, according to their parents, are beautiful.

So, with these two examples we have objective proof that beauty exists. The question is, how do you replicate this beauty in art?

What makes a dog turd ugly and a new born baby beautiful? It's the human spirit which determines ugly from beauty.

Beauty is life and Harmony.

Ugly is death and chaos.

0

reply

neeson.storls

Badges: 0

Rep:

#14

Report 4 years ago

#14

(Original post by DErasmus)
Objectively you could come up with a list of parameters by which to measure 'beauty' (i.e skinny over fat surely? no muscle over muscle surely? long over short hair etc) otherwise it's all semantic white noise.

but even still, why? if humans like anything, there must be some biological reason for it...otherwise it's moot.

0

reply

lerjj

Badges: 12

Rep:

#15

Report 4 years ago

#15

(Original post by benq)
To what extent is beauty universal in your opinion? It seems obvious on the first sight that Mozart > Shakira. Yet, why? Can you justify it? Some say so only because of everybody else. In reality, if people weren't socially pressured, many would say that Shakira > Mozart. Would they necessarily be wrong?

Is it about the skill of the artist? Or the meaning hidden in the art? Or the reality that this art exemplifies? Or, rather, the person who is consuming the art is what matters in the judgement of its beauty? The person's culture, intelligence, values, views?

So, in your opinion, are we justified to claim that some art is superior? Or is it that different people are able to appreciate different things, and hence at the end of the day no universal judgement about beauty should nor can be made?

Are there more Mozarts and Shakiras that I don't know about?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sh...ozart&tbm=isch

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sh...OoiR7AbLqICoCQ

(Sorry, tried Copy/pasting pictures in but they wouldn't load)

0

reply

L0L!

Badges: 0

Rep:

#16

Report 4 years ago

#16

Beauty is natural. No makeup. No photo edit. No weave. Just you after a shower. A radiating beauty from within that lights up your face and broadens the smile and purifies the mind, body, soul and skin :yep:

0

reply

Beauty: universal or not universal? Watch

Quick Reply

Today on TSR

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

Poll

Do you give blood?

Watched Threads

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

TSR Support Team

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR

Beauty: universal or not universal? Watch

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Today on TSR

Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Oops, nobody is replying to posts.

See more of what you like onThe Student Room

Poll

Do you give blood?

Watched Threads

Spotlight

Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Oops, nobody is replying to posts.

See more of what you like onThe Student Room

TSR Support Team

Get Started

Using TSR

Info

TSR Group

Connect with TSR

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

See more of what you like on
The Student Room