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'?