Thread: Random thoughts on aesthetics Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029557
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I was coming into work this morning looking at the autumn trees and thinking how beautiful they were, like tall feathery green paintbrushes dipped into pots of tawny colours, and then I thought:
Anyway, just some random thoughts. Your speculations are invited.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century. Was this due to the Industrial Revolution which started uglifying things and so threw beauty into sharp relief? Was it part of the rise of Deism which emphasised the Creation as God's order? Or was it part of the Romantic Movement (which itself may have been a reaction to encroaching industry)?
 
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
I think symmetry is a big factor in seeing humans as beautiful, regardless of ethnicity, geography or whatever.

I know I've seen some scientific study or other published somewhere, but can't remember where.

And considering that much Islamic, Celtic and Saxon Art has a great deal of symmetrical elements, maybe it applies elsewhere. Maybe?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century. Was this due to the Industrial Revolution which started uglifying things and so threw beauty into sharp relief? Was it part of the rise of Deism which emphasised the Creation as God's order? Or was it part of the Romantic Movement (which itself may have been a reaction to encroaching industry)?
I think it was the early precursors of the Romantic movement. The Romantic movement proper comes later on.
The English landscape gardeners developed a style of formal garden that was deliberately anti-symmetric, and made to look more natural than natural. At the same time, you get the rise of the idea that morality depends upon emotion rather than upon reason. Adam Smith (of free market fame) was one of the early proposers of the idea. He was taken up by Hume and Rousseau. But you can also see the idea in Sterne (an Anglican priest) and in Methodism.
Think Marianne from Sense and Sensibility, who spends lots of time wandering about crying about the trees she'll never see again. She's not quite a Romantic (no doubt she'd have loved Byron's poetry if she'd not been too old for him, but Byron actually hated Romantic poetry).
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The other sign of beauty in the human face is the golden ratio. There was a John Cleese series that looked at the human face - the programme linked is the one on beauty. Symmetry, yes, but not too much symmetry - totally symmetrical is rejected as weird.

Romanticism was very much tied into the move away from the countryside to the cities, so the rejection of industrialisation and the look back to the beauty of the rural scene. Lots of stuff out there on early romanticism and landscape.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century.
Um, "the heavens declare the glory of God" sounds to be similarly inspired, doesn't it??
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century. Was this due to the Industrial Revolution which started uglifying things and so threw beauty into sharp relief? Was it part of the rise of Deism which emphasised the Creation as God's order? Or was it part of the Romantic Movement (which itself may have been a reaction to encroaching industry)?
The notion of 'scenery' (i.e., a green hillside, flowers, sheep grazing) was recognised as beautiful. Longinus was already dealing with the differences between the 'beautiful' and the 'sublime' in the first centuries AD.

K.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
The idea of picturesque was also linked to the rise of romanticism. See Elizabeth Bennett's * pleasure in the prospect of a trip to the Lake District - all that wild, natural beauty


*Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century.
Um, "the heavens declare the glory of God" sounds to be similarly inspired, doesn't it??
Not to mention similes such as 'your hair is like a flock of goats descending Mount Gilead', which sounds even weirder if you don't think goats or mountains are attractive ...
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm no expert on this; but I don't think that people regarded scenery as "beautiful" until the late 18th/early 19th century. Was this due to the Industrial Revolution which started uglifying things and so threw beauty into sharp relief? ...
I've been wondering about this lately. I used to live in Oxford, which almost everyone thinks is beautiful. I fell in love with the city the first time I visited. By the end of my 20 years there I'd got so used to it that I didn't see it any more.

Equally, most people usually love a trip to the nicer parts of the countryside. If you live in it, you get used to the old cottages with thatched roofs, picture postcard gardens and idyllic views and take that as the norm. A few centuries ago these were working people's cottages; although the scenery hasn't changed that much in some parts, the gardens were planted for subsistence, not aesthetics. Scenery and the appreciation thereof on more than a passing scale was probably more for the idle rich than the ploughman who looked up to take some pleasure in a beautiful sunset before gazing glumly over a half-ploughed field and looking forward to another day of back-breaking work in the morning.

I think it is relative. You get used to your surroundings. And I think you have a point about the Industrial Revolution. But did that actually uglify the majority of things or just present them differently? Some people like the clean beauty and efficiency of machines, and their functional designs.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
There's a difference between the intrinsic beauty of nature (as in your OP) and the appeal of a familiar landscape (Oxford).

Bill Bryson somewhere makes the point that much of what is taken for the timeless English countryside is in fact a relatively recent product of land enclosure.

This and other human intervention on the land can be well done, badly done, or disputed - with, as a rule of thumb, age being synonymous with beauty. Wind farms are generally decried (I find them not bad, usually), windmills aren't - but, apparently, were when they were first erected.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'

K.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'
Much better than looking at some stupid 3D printed fractal rubbish, eh? [Biased] (Source)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I sit corrected - thank you, one and all!
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'
What do they say?

Why should an array of bright colours induce a feeling of pleasure, though?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I would have thought that it indicates fertility in the land or something like that - if flora is doing well, fauna usually is too. For ancient humans this would mean plenty of food.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think beauty is very personal. I personally love the rugged beauty of wild landscapes, whereas I know other people prefer the more traditional landscapes. I might enjoy them, but prefer something different. I might appreciate that they are "beautiful", while still preferring something else.

I also think there can be beauty in machinery, in industrial (or maybe just urban) landscapes. I still think my university (UEA in Norwich) is a stunningly beautiful campus, even though it is concrete built (you are free to differ in this, but you are wrong).

I think, for me, it is a place or sight that helps me touch the numinous, the other. I think places that do this for a range of people become considered "beautiful". It is then a collective agreement.
 
Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I think symmetry is a big factor in seeing humans as beautiful, regardless of ethnicity, geography or whatever.

I know I've seen some scientific study or other published somewhere, but can't remember where.

And considering that much Islamic, Celtic and Saxon Art has a great deal of symmetrical elements, maybe it applies elsewhere. Maybe?
I once heard art 'explained' as a fascination with symmetry which evolved because, in nature, anything symmetrical was either something we could eat, or something which might eat us.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
There are fashions in aesthetics as in everything else. In Pope a beautiful landscape is a cultivated, fertile one. Desolate mountains and blasted heaths are merely Horrid. Ah, but then a taste arises for the delicious thrill of the wild and it's heigh-ho for the picturesque. And then there's the appeal of the exotic, the Oriental, the voluptuously refined. But indusrial man-made stuff is also awesome - steel! Speed! Futurism!

But clearly it all goes back much further than the 18th C:

That time of year thou mayst in me behold
When yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hang
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang. -

Which is surely another aspect of appreciating the beautiful - its transient nature. Fair pledges of a fruitful tree why do ye fall so fast? Mono no aware* as the cherry blossoms so is life. And, while we're in Japan what about wabi sabi - the beauty of imperfection?

In every culture, from Neolithic beads onward, there is evidence that people spent time and effort fashioning objects that were decorative or expressive rather than functional. And in things designed for use - pots, swords - there is both an aesthetic of decoration and of form. Once humanity gets to drawing pictures and writing things down, you get even more statements about the beautiful - and ones which transcend their time. The goats on Mt Gilead is a good example - if you've ever seen a close-packed herd of fairly shaggy-coated animals streaming down a hillside, that tumbling, gleaming cascade is like a girl letting down beautiful long, thick hair.

One of the most piercing things about looking at ancient things or reading old texts is this connection to beauty.

the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;

*the pathos of things
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
Some of our appreciation of the beautiful is likely intrinsic. Some is definitely learnt.

Impressionist paintings were considered ugly and "unfinished" when they first appeared and now they are stunningly popular.

Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was considered awful. There was a riot at its first performance. Today it is considered a masterpiece.

Women's fashions change dramatically over time, from super-wide skirts to pencil thin ones, from hair piled high to hair cut short.

The popular conception of what makes a beautiful women drifts alarmingly and unhelpfully for anyone who buys into it. At one time a beautiful woman was one who looked as if she would be able to survive a minor famine. Today a beautiful woman is supposedly one who looks as if she's been in a minor famine.

There is also a tension between regularity and randomness. A row of poplar trees in Tuscany is beautiful because the trees exhibit both: each tree is the same yet each is different from all the others.

[edited for grammar and sense]

[ 29. October 2015, 09:48: Message edited by: Dal Segno ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Asymmetry is also important in art. A painting that mirrors itself, or where the "subject" is right in the middle, tends to be a lot less interesting.

I think ideas of beauty in visual art begin with nature, but rarely stay there. Even if an artist decides to paint, say, a fairly representational landscape, they'll adjust shapes, colours and proportions to make the painting artistically "right". "Rightness" is difficult to explain, except to say it's the point at which - hopefully - you stop painting.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'
Why do we tend to love butterflies but hate moths?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do we tend to love butterflies but hate moths?
Because moths gnaw asymmetrical holes in clothes, which butterflies don't.

Also possibly because moths are less brightly coloured = interesting. I suppose that early childhood fascination with those coloured building blocks in bright primary colours has only become a little more refined ultimately throughout life, with the intensity of the colours diminished and more shades, hues and tints involved.

Colour is a fascinating topic in itself with each colour having so many different associations for people: apart from the universal concepts (almost everyone will agree that grass is usually green) there are the personal ones as well, the dislike of a colour that reminds you of that horrible person who used to wear it a lot, the love of another that reminds you of the fun of a particular summer holiday and so on.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
... (almost everyone will agree that grass is usually green) ...
You might be interested in this. (If you haven't 8 minutes to spare, watch from 3 minutes in.)
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do we tend to love butterflies but hate moths?
Butterflies don't come indoors much. They are mostly wing, and the wings are frequently pretty colours. They flit gracefully.

Moths are dun coloured and way too bulky and powdery. They blunder about the room so you have to get up and put the light on - whereupon they fly round inside the lampshade.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You might be interested in this.
Thanks for that. I'd heard about the tribe recently - the video reminded me that there are other languages that don't have words for some colours, or lump others together as "dark". The Irish word "glas" can translate as either "grey" or "green".

The human eye is apparently able to distinguish more shades of green than shades of any other colour. Perhaps that might be part of why we get more out of views of the countryside, plants, etc.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'
Why do we tend to love butterflies but hate moths?
I love moths!
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The human eye is apparently able to distinguish more shades of green than shades of any other colour. Perhaps that might be part of why we get more out of views of the countryside, plants, etc.
And green is also a calming colour apparently. We feel calm and relaxed (and safe) where there is a lot of green. Maybe that translated to finding it "beautiful".

Whereas reds tend to indicate danger (blood as a prime example). So maybe with more vivid and strong colours we have an innate sense of danger, and so find them less appealing?

I think a similar approach works for shape - natural shapes are often considered appealing (I know I am a lover of Art Nouveau, which was driven by natural shapes). Unnatural shapes signal danger (as a hunter). Even in an urban environment, I think we respond better to more fluid contours.

The core problem with so much 1960s design is that the style as a whole was arrogant and unnatural. Tower blocks were lumps dropped in our landscape, and they signalled danger (maybe subconsciously, but still there), so we found them ugly.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I'm a fan of Art Nouveau myself, and as such sometimes struggle to see the beauty in modern architecture. To me it much of it comes across as functional, streamlined, repetitive, uninspiring, unfinished, ugly. Why did we stop decorating buildings and adding flourishes? Yet some people are really impressed by modern style, and the word "modern" has connotations of automatically being a good thing.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I'm a big fan of Bauhaus design. To me it is sleek, elegant, functional yet fun. I still love arts and crafts/art nouveau/art deco though - it's still relatively unfussy. Hate shabby chic though.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I don't like Art Deco, because for me, this is where the move into functionlist styles started.

Personally, I hate the walkie talkie building in London. To me it demonstrates its oppressiveness by its design. Whereas some of the other London buildings are OK.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The Walkie-Talkie with the curves is so much better than the Cheesegrater, which sadly hides the Gherkin from most views now.

There are some stunning moths - the cinnabar or the tiger moth are beautiful and very colourful. The cinnabar and six spot burnet moth are both day flying.
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
Much as I love London, all these new architectural 'horrors' would make me think at least twice about another visit. Architecture just seems to be something that Brits got completely wrong (or didn't get at all) in the 20th century. It's the 'anything you can do I can do wronger' attitude, coupled with too much cash in corporate hands, I would suppose.
Just my opinion, but I'll stick to Paris for now, where most of the eyesores seem to be around La Defense. (Berlin seems to have more of a knack for integrating the aggressively ultra-new into the old.

YMMV, of course
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
When I introduce aesthetics to students, I often ask them: 'why do people look at flowers?'
What do they say?

Why should an array of bright colours induce a feeling of pleasure, though?
"Because they're beautiful", and then they look at each other with a worried expression. Then we start talking.

K.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
green is also a calming colour apparently. We feel calm and relaxed (and safe) where there is a lot of green. Maybe that translated to finding it "beautiful".

Whereas reds tend to indicate danger (blood as a prime example). So maybe with more vivid and strong colours we have an innate sense of danger, and so find them less appealing?
I agree. When I was in a little group informally studying post-modern texts, we were told that the little language of traffic lights (green=go, red=stop) was completely arbitrary. It could just as well be the other way around.

I couldn't believe it and still can't; although I accept the larger point that much language and symbolism is arbitrary and culturally relative. Perhaps traffic lights were a poor example.

We often find something we don't and can't have to be especially beautiful. In the late middle ages, paintings were full of birds because they represented freedom-- which their viewers didn't have but were beginning to crave. Didn't C.S. Lewis also make this point in various contexts? This longing certainly comes out in the music of Hebert Howells, which is one reason I love it so much.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
This is interesting to me because I found nature/scenery beautiful as a child, without anyone telling me I should find it beautiful, and without putting into words that I found it beautiful. I would love to be out in the woods or pulling apart flowers and plants to see how they were made, and enjoying the interesting shapes in them. And I would love to be by a river or the sea, and watch the water moving.

It is also interesting to me because I love to draw, but I don't like drawing landscapes. For some reason they aren't interesting for me to draw, even though I find them beautiful. I like to draw portraits - I love trying to capture people's personalities and get a likeness, and I have often wondered why I like to do this. I don't know what the appeal is of reproducing something, but for me it has to be a person, a living being with a personality that shows in their face. It's sort of a way of engaging with humanity as a whole. And perhaps because I don't look into people's faces much in real life, because they move a lot so are hard to process, so it's nice to have them still on paper. But landscape is often still so I can look at it as it is.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0