• Prometheus2
    4
    So I have been thinking about this recently. I'll start by sharing the experience that served as a catalyst for my current interest in this topic, so please bear with me for now.


    It was a while ago when I was riding the bus. I was sitting by a window, listening to music. That's when the bus took a halt at a stop, and I looked outside.
    That's when it hit me.
    The vibrant azure blue sky on that day rendered me awestruck. It was devoid of clouds, high up above, even more so complemented by strong, tall buildings in a clear tone of white or beige, some of them with their many windows reflecting the surroundings. Around them a few trees; reaching up towards this endless expanse of blue.
    Now looking down I saw ever so green patches of grass gradually beginning to be covered by the many orange, red and yellow leaves that come with fall.
    In combination with the song I had on, I was somehow deeply moved by this seemingly simple, urban view before me.

    "Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment.
    As I later on realised, this had marked the first time in quite a while that something made me think of the word 'beautiful' by just looking at it.


    Afterwards I started to wonder:
    What really is beauty? What does the word beautiful even mean?
    When was the last time you used the word 'beautiful' because you really thought it? Not just as a compliment for a nice bouquet of flowers, someone with good or hot looks, nor for a good-looking dress -
    When was the last time you truly were struck by something as 'beautiful'? (Emphasis on the keyphrase "be struck by something", as in not actively thinking about or looking for a word to describe what you are observing, but rather a word coming to your mind as more of a 'passive reaction' to what you experience).

    All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
    "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here. Considering that everyone has a (sometimes more or less) quite varying view on what they think of as 'beautiful' or not, what exactly connects all these 'different beautifuls' (forgive this play of words) together?
    What and how much exactly do these unique perceptions of beauty of individuals have in common and why?


    Thank you for reading (I apologise if it was hard to understand or ambiguous at times, feel free to ask if so). Perhaps I have overthought this and there are simple answers (or not) to this and I am merely lacking knowledge here. Perhaps there's some more interesting science or studies about this topic that I am not yet familiar with. If you know of any related, interesting sources, studies or research about this please do recommend, I'd greatly appreciate it.
    Whatever it may be, I am very interested in hearing any points or thoughts on this.
  • RussellA
    1.9k
    "Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment.Prometheus2

    Another word is "sublime"

    From Edmund Burke: Delineating the Sublime and the Beautiful
    Edmund Burke, an 18th-century philosopher, is best known for his exploration of aesthetics, particularly his distinction between the “sublime” and the “beautiful.” In his influential work A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757), Burke examines how these two concepts, though related to art and nature, invoke radically different emotional responses in the observer. While beauty tends to elicit feelings of love, calmness, and attraction, the sublime is linked with awe, terror, and a sense of the vastness that surpasses human understanding.
  • RussellA
    1.9k
    Thomas Moran. Sublime rather than beautiful.
    gggtnzh40mznrakd.png
  • Prometheus2
    4
    Thank you, I'll give that a read for sure!
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    What really is beauty? What does the word beautiful even mean?Prometheus2
    In the eye of the beholder.... Which I think contains depths of meaning beyond what it seems trivially to say.

    In the beautiful something is present that has been summoned - that the observer can appreciate. The characteristic of that something (imho) is completeness. What is there is fully there, in the sense that were there either more or less, the result would be less. And that of course will work in different ways for different observers.

    And this in a sense an objective attribution of the perfection of which the beautiful is structured. Durable art that is reckoned beautiful, in its enduring, can become familiar, even taken for granted, its "beauty" lost to appreciation. Which suggests that a part of the beautiful is the experience - the immediacy - of the beauty of the beautiful - sometimes the shock of it.

    There is a sense of "beauty" as "pleasing" - to various senses. And this is ancient usage. That which is pleasing, balanced, good, and so forth. But these are notions of the beautiful that are "built in." The creator (who can also be just and only the observer) of the beautiful in this sense providing his own pre-existing criteria of beauty, which summoning, he employs to create the beautiful thing.

    But also there is a darker, uncanny, eerie, not-in-Kansas-anymore sense of beauty. This inspires awe, a kind of uncomfort and unfamiliarity, and while thus in a way both violent and frightening, also an enlarging and awakening

    Let's finally try to corral beauty as that which both invokes and evokes an experience of a kind of completed perfection that at once summons and beckons to that which is only momentarily attainable, which in being unattainable is also a terrifying reminder of mortality - that which could be, but never, ever will be.
  • RussellA
    1.9k
    Pablo Picasso. Not beautiful, but an aesthetic art, even though ugly.
    jc6a3mk3eh5gasfa.png
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    I believe beauty is the impression of a being or place which is conducive to existence. Existence being a conglomeration of balanced differences, existence being conducive to healthy life, and existence being triggering healthy and deep thoughts.
  • Mww
    4.9k
    Another word is "sublime"RussellA

    Yep; good catch.

    In us, beauty is found; sublimity is excited.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    Welcome to TPF!

    Consider the following post from a (2022) thread On the beautiful and sublime

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722906

    also a (2019) post from a thread The Goal of Art

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/345235
  • Corvus
    3.5k
    All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
    "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here.
    Prometheus2

    Beauty is a property of the object perceived by mind, and has psychological nature. In that sense, beauty is more subjective judgement rather than objective value.

    If you find a scenery with the sunset or sunrise beautiful, that means your psychology is uniting with the image not just visually but also emotionally positive way because of the various psychological factors such as your past experiences connecting to the scenery, objects or person or personal aesthetic taste or deep religious faith, which reminds the deity or peace of mind from the images you see.

    Of course the visual effect would be a critical factor in the aesthetic judgement, but more importantly the subjective psychological or emotional state responding the the sensory perceptions in aesthetic way plays critical part in judging and feeling beauty on something.

    I am not sure if rationality or reasoning could be also basis for judging something as beautiful. I would guess Kant would say Yes, but Nietzsche or Schopenhauer might say No.
  • Prometheus2
    4
    True, I agree with that.
    Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought.

    Perhaps it's usually a mix of rationaliy and emotion.
    Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder..
  • Vera Mont
    4.4k
    "Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment.Prometheus2
    Beautiful describes the scene itself. If a very good artist painted it, everyone who saw it would probably think 'beautiful'. But the more profound part is what the beholder adds, in that moment, in his present frame of mind. Why the same scene affects each beholder differently is the subjective component.

    Humans invented a large number of words for pleasing sensory input, because the appreciation of it is something we generally share - and want to share. Beauty is one word that describes an exceptionally pleasing visual or auditory input. There is quite a broad consensus among people of various times and cultures about what is considered beautiful, and an even more consistent one within each culture.

    Very broadly, beauty as understood by most humans is harmony, proportion, balance, 'rightness' - that is, a sense of things fitting together into a coherent whole. Things that make us feel at peace within ourselves and our environment.

    There are different extensions of beauty - into passion, lust, awe, reverence, yearning - but these are of the dimension we individually bring to the contemplation of something beautiful.
  • Corvus
    3.5k
    Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder..Prometheus2

    The art critiques would use rationality and reasoning in analysing the art objects such as paintings and sculptures. In this case analysis based on the fine observation on the colours, shapes and themes of the art would be the objects for their analysis for writing their artistic praise or critiques.

    If you are to compare art works of different artists such as Picasso and Dali, or Van Gogh and Gogang, then you would heavily depend on your rationality and reasoning for making the critical analysis to come to the comparative commentaries on their works too.

    But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.

    The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life.
  • Barkon
    187
    I have a more core view of the term beauty, it is not subjective at all. It is, accurately, the appearance of all. It's not necessarily to be associated with a high standard and can be poor.
  • Corvus
    3.5k
    True, I agree with that.
    Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought.
    Prometheus2

    The reasoned beauty tends to be objective and universal in its quality and value, because that is the prime property of rationality and reason.

    The emotional side of beauty would be subjective and personal. If you are feeling stressed out in your mind due to some daily life problems, then you might not feel the same from the objects which you used to feel beautiful.
  • Barkon
    187
    Can something be considered beautiful beyond whether some people think it's not because of prevalent high standard? Can good art be reduced to skill-input to declare itself beautiful above what is thought by anyone? Can good appearance be beautiful based on things like good genetics, and good parts, beyond whether it is deemed so by someone?

    Can a child who paints a painting of value to many but takes little skill be considered by it's true beauty of having that child-like quality, less a property of an artist and more a nature?
  • MrLiminal
    40


    "That would fall under the perview of your conundrum of philosophy."

    -The Engineer

    Sorry, couldn't resist. To answer the question though, I think beauty, despite ultimately being largely subjective, boils down to "a thing that you like looking at because it makes you feel something." A lot of that is built on visual symmetry, cultural patterns, biological preferences and what have you, but I think beauty if more about the individual's reaction to it than an objective force/thing in and of itself.
  • LuckyR
    539
    "Can a..."? Sure. That's the thing with subjective descriptors, they can mean whatever an observer chooses them to mean. Someone, somewhere I'm sure believes beauty to mean any conceivable definition you could possibly come up with.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    In combination with the song I had on, I was somehow deeply moved by this seemingly simple, urban view before me.

    "Beautiful.", was the first word that came to my mind then. However, what I had felt and seen seemed much more profound than just one word, which I would say only captured/described but a fraction of this moment.
    Prometheus2

    Sounds like you had an emotional reaction. I have felt that way about peeling paint on a mental fence when lit by a setting sun. Does it mean anything more than the experience you had?

    The significant question about beauty is whether it is a transcendental or not - does it reflect fundamental properties of being, e.g., truth, goodness and beauty? Do they reflect in some way a divine reality? Do you think beauty is something that transcends contingent human experience and says something deeper about reality?



    I prefer that Picasso to many more sentimental paintings others might readily call beautiful. I struggle with the notion of art as beauty. I generally think the best art has vitality and a visceral impact. Beauty (as I see it) generally seems soft and cloying.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    Deep question. Or is it? I suppose one may find an answer by asking: what is "ugly?" That which does not conform. So, if this is correct, beauty would have to be, that which conforms; that which is expected. Yet not quite. A blank sheet of paper conforms perfectly. To itself. So perhaps, beauty might be "that which affirms one's expectations." Does that seem about right? I'm sure by now we've all heard the old saying in regards to beauty.
  • Questioner
    95
    What really is beauty?Prometheus2

    In your title, you ask what is the (true) meaning of beauty. That requires we know what is true! But we have to settle for a subjective truth, because what is beautiful for one may not be beautiful for another. And I think this is because what we call beautiful is what arouses pleasurable feelings in us, and of course this varies from person to person.
  • RussellA
    1.9k
    Beauty (as I see it) generally seems soft and cloying.Tom Storm

    I agree. I think that the distinguishing feature of art is that it has an aesthetic.

    Such an aesthetic can either be beautiful, when non-threatening, such as paintings of roses and sunsets or ugly, when threatening, such as paintings of scorpions and war.

    When a good aesthetic becomes a great aesthetic then it becomes sublime.

    The aesthetic, being a certain combination of balance within variety of form can apply to all disciplines, whether painting, dance, music, architecture, as well as the design of cars.
  • Gmak
    11


    What is good and what is bad in the universe. Is the root. But, excuse me, my vocabulary is not that good at my age and it's other word and good and bad.
  • Prometheus2
    4
    Wow, yeah, I feel like you summed it up pretty well there. These two sides, or perhaps components, of beauty.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.