Experience Has Made Me Rich

"Later, Plotinus, who more radically defined matter as evil and an error, was to identify ugliness clearly with the material world." (from On Ugliness, Eco, p. 25)

This quote, which fell at the beginning of this week's reading, immediately struck me. It might not be wise to admit that throughout the other chapters from On Ugliness, The History of Beauty, and Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality, all I could think about was this quote. But it's true. As Umberto Eco took us on a journey through the Classical World, the Renaissance, Antiquity, the Baroque period, and the modern world, we saw the definition of ugliness change from Plato's idea of ugliness as "an aspect of the imperfection of the physical universe compared to the ideal world" to the modern ideas of excess, kitsch, and camp (24). He states this idea, point-blank: "Ugliness is a social phenomenon [...This] is a highly volatile subject" (394). Many of the ideas explored in earlier chapters of On Ugliness have been reevaluated in the modern world, and concepts of beauty have become more and more subjective. And this disbelief in earlier definitions of ugliness is certainly true of Plotinus' alignment of materialism and ugliness.

The video below, Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance," won Video of the Year at MTV's 2010 Music Video Awards. Clearly, Gaga's music is extremely popular, and despite some of her extreme fashion choices and bizarre choreography, she is someone that many people strive to be like. This could be in any capacity, ranging from the desire to have her body, get tattoos similar to hers, or wear outrageous clothing to something as general as wanting to step outside of the box and pursue a passion.

However, if you watch the video closely, it's nothing but a long, stylized commercial for sunglasses, computers, speakers, Vitamin Water, headphones, and vodka. It can even be taken as a commercial for Gaga herself: she portrays her character as a high-class prostitute taking revenge on her client by setting their bed on fire, therefore turning herself into a commodity that cannot be had. However, the materialism in this video doesn't take away from the aesthetic and conceptual beauty, leading us to the conclusion that materialism doesn't even come close to equating with ugliness.

Throwback to My Presentation

"The babies gauged beauty in diverse faces: they looked longer at the most attractive men, women, babies, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Caucasians. This suggests not only that babies have beauty detectors but that human faces may share universal features of beauty across their varied features." -Etcoff, p. 31-32

You Poor, Unfortunate Soul

"[Beauty] is a sacred thing...only rarely does an evil soul dwell in a beautiful body, and so outward beauty is a true sign of inner goodness....it can be said that in some manner the good and the beautiful are identical, especially in the human body. And the proximate cause of physical beauty is, in my opinion, beauty of the soul." -Baldassare Castiglione, as quoted by Nancy Etcoff, p. 41

For some reason, this quote brought my mind directly to the use of beauty in Disney movies--particularly The Little Mermaid. This might have to do with the fact that my hair hasn't been cut in 2 years and people are constantly referring to me as a mermaid, but I digress. In The Little Mermaid, Ariel is both extremely beautiful and extremely kind. All of her aquatic friends (especially Sebastian and Flounder) find her to be completely irresistible--they're even willing to back her in singalongs. She fits every aspect of Castiglione's definition of inner and outer beauty; and while we may never know which form of beauty developed first, we can say with much certainty that Ariel is both kind and attractive. Her glowing personality and looks also help to support Etcoff's ideas regarding beauty and favoritism--despite her slightly rebellious tendencies, Ariel is treated very well by her father, her siblings, and her community.

On the other hand, the villain, Ursula, confuses these ideas. In her natural form, she does nothing but support "Beauty as Bait": she is ugly from every angle. While she is admired by her eel minions, no one else wants anything to do with her. In fact, King Triton had her banned from the mermaid community and she was forced to live in a cave away from everyone else. She is evil and conniving and will do anything to gain for herself. However, once Ursula carries out her evil plot, stealing Ariel's voice and changing herself into a human, she instantly gains likability. Even though her human form reveals her snootiness, she could absolutely be considered beautiful and Prince Eric decides to marry her immediately. [Side note--the blog where I found the image of Ursula in human form: "First of all, I don't understand why Ursula doesn't always look like this. It would be a lot easier to dupe "poor unfortunate souls" into surrendering their freewill if you had beauty on your side. People are sideswiped by pretty-faced snakes."] She uses a bit of a spell to seal the deal, but her beauty absolutely played a role in her "getting the guy." This also supports Etcoff's idea that beautiful people are much more likely to get away with bad behavior--Prince Eric's dog notices that something is off, but Prince Eric is too entranced to pick up on it.

The Little Mermaid isn't the only Disney film that doesn't play into the "beautiful=good, ugly=bad" concept, but it certainly is an obvious demonstration. The Little Mermaid gives us a little something to think about. And in the animated underwater world, looks certainly do matter.

Is Art Beautiful?

Something that we briefly touched on in class is whether or not all art is beautiful. As a Studio Art minor, I've encountered this question before, and even gone a bit deeper to question what actually constitutes art. It's difficult to look at a canvas painted dark blue and assign it great artistic value. However, during our conversation on Wednesday, I began to think about the process that goes into making a piece of art. The first two steps can go in any order: you have to have some idea of what you want to create or you have to make the decision that you want to create something. This could be based on aesthetics, an abstract idea, a current event, etc. Inspiration is everywhere. Then you have to work out the details--materials, equipment, space, time--with careful measurements and consideration of how you're going to follow out your plan. After that, it's time to create. And that process has hundreds of preparations and steps and trial and error that finally comes to produce a piece.

What all this comes down to is that the beauty of art may not always be in the piece itself--the piece might be grotesque or uncomfortable or just too simple to be seen as "beautiful"--but in the process.

Week 2: Beauty

This week's readings, "History of Beauty" and "Naked Boys, Desiring Women: Male Beauty in Modern Art and Photography," began to delve into the topic of beauty. What does it mean for an object, artwork, or person to be beautiful? How did we come up with these ideas? How do we relate beauty to other values that are important in our world? If beauty is suggested to be both objective ("Beauty [is] harmony and proportion between the parts" [Eco, 48]) and subjective ("Beauty does not correspond to what we see" [Eco, 50]), then can we truly define it? While some of these questions were sought to be answered in the texts, some (along with many others) were brought up for the sake of causing us to think about the way that we see the world.

One concept that stood out to me was brought up by Umberto Eco in "History of Beauty"--he continuously discussed the connection that the Greeks drew between what was beautiful and what was good. Eco quotes Sappho, a Greek poet, as saying: "He who is beautiful is so for as long as he stands before us, he who is also good is good now and will always be so" (Eco, 47). Beauty and goodness share the feature of being somewhat 'eternal,' and therefore have a link and an association. It almost appears that being 'good' elevates a person's level of beauty, as someone who is beautiful is beautiful as long as "he stands before us," but someone who is good "will always be so," regardless of position, gaze, or power. In addition, Sapho says that he who is also good is good now and forever, demonstrating that one must first be beautiful (and then also good) to then receive this 'eternal' goodness. Baker also makes this connection when she quotes Saul Ostrow, an artist and curator, as saying: "Beauty [...] had once been considered the supreme good" (Baker, 13).

Eco tells us that "[even] in the golden age of Greek art, Beauty was always associated with other values, like 'moderation,' 'harmony,' and 'symmetry'" (Eco, 37). To me, moderation goes hand in hand with humbleness, harmony with peacefulness, and symmetry with discipline. All of these qualities, when combined together, create an ideal state of being. If I could achieve moderation, harmony, and symmetry in my life, it would certainly be beautiful! Creating such a line between these exemplary qualities and the attribute of beauty demonstrates the idea that beauty is something that is good and right. In addition, Baker creates an association between "candor and sensitivity" and beauty and likability (Baker, 21). The honesty that she discusses as being found in women's portrayal of male nudes is something that can definitely be called beautiful. While society did not perceive the works to be beautiful--they were more thought of as controversial, progressive, shocking, etc.--Baker parallels many of the male forms with the idea of honest beauty.

However, in our modern world of fashion runways, fad diets, and plastic surgery, have we perverted this association? Personally, I don't find jutting bones, scary-low BMIs, and nose jobs to be beautiful or good, but many people do. I asked a few of my friends to name the most beautiful person they could think of--some said Kate Moss, others Penelope Cruz. All of them were celebrities (and female...what's up with that, Susan Baker?); all of them have "perfect" or "ideal" figures and hair cuts and make-up application. These words may hold an association with Eco's "symmetry," but are models and celebrities practicing moderation (or are they humble)? Are they harmonious or peaceful? While we don't know these celebrities personally, the scandals that surround people such as Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian make it pretty clear that they don't lead very 'good' or 'just' lives. Yet they are frequently referred to as 'beautiful,' 'pretty,' or 'hot.' Is this dissociation a perversion of the Greek's classical definition of beauty? Or does subjectivity allow for us to make these adjustments as society changes? Or is there simply a difference between beauty and 'hotness'?