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.

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'?