Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?

[Pallas_Athene]

A work of art is great because it possesses in itself the requisite elements of greatness, not because we simply say this or that work of art is great because you say so and there’s an end to the discussion.

WHAT are those requisite elements of greatness? What are those requisite elements of “tastiness” for foods? What are those elements of “nearness” for the object?

One of these years you will have to answer these questions. Go ahead… make my day… as Clint Eastwood was wont to say.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I was going to ask the same question. Beauty changes with the times. Hundreds of years ago, a thin woman would not have been deemed attractive at all (think of all those heavy-set women painted by Rubens and Titian), and men had to be muscular (I guess not much has changed there). Today, an “Rubenesque woman” would be deemed “fat” by most males and some females. Although most men seem to find long hair most attractive, I have known men who prefer short hair and call long hair a “rat’s nest” even if it is perfectly groomed.

Human beings aside, I think objective beauty is possessing what should be there, and possessing what should be there in the most perfect form. A tree’s shape, a flower’s petals, a perfectly formed orange, etc. A misshapen tree, a wilted flower, a withered piece of fruit, will be perceived as “not beautiful” by almost everyone.

I think you’re using a different form of the word “beauty” than the OP is asking for. If you replace “beauty” with attractiveness in this post, the meaning does not change. This example is limited in scope to a set of specific physical characteristics in the people in question (i.e. heavy-set women in paintings). However, can one truly compare the degree of beauty between two actual, physical people? The heavier women in Renaissance paintings were considered to be the paragon of beauty at the time. Nowadays, thin women are considered to be the paragon. But that simply refers to the prevalent physical and visual preferences of the time for men and women. Surely there were some people who considered thinner women to be more beautiful than heavier ones, just as today there are those who consider heavier women more beautiful than thinner ones.

I don’t think that limited of a set of values can be used when speaking philosophically. While physical appearance is an important factor in how attracted one is to another person, what actually keeps you invested in a relationship are the mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the person. A physically ugly person can be considered more beautiful than a classically pretty person depending on who they are as a whole. I’m kind of burning out on this train of thought though, so I’ll address the actual reason I replied to this post in particular.

Human beings aside, I think objective beauty is possessing what should be there, and possessing what should be there in the most perfect form. A tree’s shape, a flower’s petals, a perfectly formed orange, etc. A misshapen tree, a wilted flower, a withered piece of fruit, will be perceived as “not beautiful” by almost everyone.

I’m speaking from my personal opinions here. I’m one of the happiest and most optimistic people I know, yet I prefer music set in a minor key over a major key every time. One of my favorite mysteries of the Rosary to meditate on is the Agony in the Garden. I don’t really have a conventional set of preferences from what I’ve observed. Most people prefer happy and uplifting songs, for example.

In a misshapen tree, for example, there lies a sense of resilience and strength. Despite facing challenges during its growth that caused it to grow abnormally, it is still alive. Essentially, the tree has scars that show both its challenges and its overcoming them. A wilted flower can illustrate the balance of life and death, the mortality all of us face, and the ideal that even harmless things can suffer in this life. That last one is one of the hardest truths we have to face in this life, but with the Catholic view on suffering and eternity, there is also the promise of eternal life, redemption, and peace in the Love of God through that suffering. A withered piece of fruit, to us, is a bad thing, as we naturally see fruit as a food source, and a withered fruit is inedible and wasted to us. But for the seeds within the fruit, the decaying flesh of the fruit serves as a source of nutrition that enables the seeds to take root and grow into a plant that can produce fruit of its own.

Specific examples aside, I think there is and objective beauty in all creation, barring of course demons. I can’t personally think of anything that can’t be seen as beautiful in at least some aspect. Sometimes it’s a stretch, but even Ebola has an objective intrigue and beauty in and of itself. Not in relation to the suffering it causes humans, but the virus itself is an fascinating topic. I can’t go into as much detail as my girlfriend could, but if the viral DNA were to be removed and replaced with, for example, a correct sequence in relation to cancerous DNA, theoretically speaking, the virus’s shape could be used to target and infiltrate cancerous cells, and then through replication, replace the cancerous DNA segments with correct ones.

 

[oldcelt]

So your saying there are principles of beauty then? If nails on a chalkboard isn’t simply an alternate preference to Mozart then there must be a standard of beauty. There should be no difference between nails and mozart’s piano. I may not like Bach, but there is a profound difference between that and nails on a chalkboard.

Whether someone dislikes Mozart is irrelevant. All it says is that everyone has a perspective. It could be simply that they haven’t really heard Mozart, even though they have ‘listened’. Others don’t have the ear to listen to what is actually being played because they have never really payed that much attention to what is being played. They don’t hear all that is going on. So what sounds like garbage to a musician may sound perfectly fine to a layman.

Or it could be simply that they have a preference for the music of Beethoven, but preference really doesn’t say anything about beauty.

Does not preference equal subjectivity? I would say yes. In fact…all that you have written seems to back my contention that beauty is subjective and always has and will be. No deity needed.

John

 

[oldcelt]

Pity them.

I agree.

John

 

[Kurisu35712]

Yes, in researching it I found that taste and touch use the same kinds of encoding. Weird to learn that we’re basically digital.

In general I think the singing voice degrades with aging, whereas some wines improve. If I had to choose the voice of an aging English rock star from that era then it would be Lemmy, who turns out to have been born within a few months of your guy, from Motörhead Ace of Spades acoustic. Only know of it due to it being in a beer commercial.

But there you go, that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that beauty is in the ear of the beholder .

I’m slowly working my way through the pages to the most recent post, but I wanted to comment on this sentiment in particular.

Your position seems to be that beauty is subjective, as one aging British rock star’s voice is comparably better than another’s, hence the beauty of each particular voice being a subjective quality.

I disagree. I prefer the voice of Okinawan folk singer Ikue Asazaki to the Rolling Stones (any era). That’s my preference. I find her voice more pleasing to listen to, by comparison. But that does not mean her voice is more beautiful than those of the Rolling Stones, as they are fundamentally different. Both voices are, in my opinion, objectively beautiful, in and of themselves. Whether one is more preferable than the other is subjective and based on the person’s own tastes in music, tonal quality, timbre, harmony, etc. But I personally do not extrapolate that one is more beautiful than the other. Their individual beauty is different, and thus don’t really work as a comparison. Whether one considers one more beautiful than the other is determined by a predefined standard, which is, in itself based on the subject in question. Objectively speaking, both are beautiful as both are unique.

 

[Kurisu35712]

You are probably, again, thinking of the easy examples. A van Gogh or a piece by Bach. And you are putting forward arguments without any thought to where they lead. A corollary to the above statement would be a person who thought something to be ugly, yet accepted the fact that it was beautiful:

‘Look what I just bought. It’s a quite beautiful painting’.
‘But I thought you didn’t like it…’
‘I don’t. I think it’s awful’.

That’s where your argument leads.

Though I doubt this comment will add anything substantial to the argument at hand, I don’t think that’s an unrealistic scenario in the slightest.

An example. I have a huge aversion to the architectural work of le Corbusier. I would go so far as to say that, of all his projects that I know of (and as an architecture student, I’ve had to learn quite a few), I only like one of his buildings, that being Notre Dame du Haut. I pretty much hate every one of his other projects.

Despite that, I do not think his projects have no value, nor do I find them devoid of beauty. I think they’re unattractive, and I’m glad there aren’t any of his buildings where I live, because that would make me sad as an architecture student and critic. But I don’t think they are ugly. They served a greater purpose in the context of architectural development and are useful, productive objects that function as the buildings they were designed to be. There are also a lot of people who truly like the aesthetics of his designs.

“Villa Savoye is a beautiful architectural work.”
“But I thought you said you hated it.”
“I do. I think it’s boring and ugly.”

I consider Villa Savoye to have an intrinsic beauty that is independent of my opinion of the building. I also consider Villa Savoye to be an ugly building and I like to think I, or at least Mies Van Der Rohe, could have done a better job with the same guidelines.

 

[Kurisu35712]

There is none on that importance or relevance when it comes to beauty, nor any basis for a standard. Sure, we’re all human and maybe all human beings find the golden section beautiful. But quite often painters and photographers put the subject dead center or somewhere else rather than at the golden section, because humans also like a mix of novelty with certainty. I think you might as well argue that there is an objective way to discern art from not-art. There isn’t.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...amp_Fountaine.jpg/220px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg
“Fountain”, Marcel Duchamp, 1917.

In December 2004, Duchamp’s Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals. …] Jerry Saltz wrote in The Village Voice in 2006: "Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to “de-deify” the artist. The readymades provide a way around inflexible either-or aesthetic propositions. …] It is a manifestation of the Kantian sublime: A work of art that transcends a form but that is also intelligible, an object that strikes down an idea while allowing it to spring up stronger. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

That’s the problem with asking what is beauty, what is art, it isn’t static, old ideas keep reemerging in new forms. Are you sure you want to go there?

As an architecture and art student, I do actually think there’s a way to discern art from non-art, and that is context and intent. Is a urinal art? It has a form, it has a visual presence, it has existence, color, texture, etc. Those are all things that art needs to have.

But it also needs to be “an artwork.” Someone needs to have created it with the intention of making art. The question is, why is the toilet in my bathroom not art, while Duchamp’s Fountain is? The manufacturer of my toilet did not intend to create an art piece or an installation. They intended to create a functioning and mass-producible plumbing fixture. There is design in my toilet. But it is not art.

Duchamp’s Fountain is a urinal. But it is not just a urinal. It is a sculpture. It was created to be an art piece. It was made with the intention of illustrating the design and creativity and exploration of form that went into creating something as simple and mundane as a receptacle for the disposal of urine. It is art because it was intended to be art. Whether it is good art is dependent both on one’s opinion as well as one’s education as to the meaning of the piece. But it is art.

Likewise, the forks in my kitchen right now are not art. They’re just forks. The silverware in this image - Hernan Diaz Alonso)Alessi Silverware are both forks and art, because they were intended to be art and were designed as such. I’d post the image but it’s pretty high res and I don’t want to stretch the page. It makes it such a pain to read when you have to scroll horizontally…

 

[Kurisu35712]

No, look down! You should go. Start at the South Rim visitor center, where (from memory) the Canyon is four miles across and one mile deep. Walk away from everyone else and sit with your legs dangling over the edge. Once you’re over the visual overload, you hear the sounds coming up from below, like nothing else you’re every experienced.

Personally, I wouldn’t call it beautiful, because beautiful only means “pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically”, which doesn’t do it justice. May as well call it cute, classy and delightful. In reality, life-changing, an epiphany, transcendental. Beautiful doesn’t get close.

You wouldn’t call it beautiful because to you beautiful means only “pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.”

I call something beautiful when I recognize its reality, complexity, inherent value in existence, and its transcendental nature distinct from my own experiences. Beautiful and awe-inspiring are the only words that convey all of those meanings.

But then, I guess my definition of beautiful is subjective?

If my previous posts haven’t made it clear by now, I obviously consider “beautiful” to be an objective quality, whereas my understanding of the beauty in an object is subjective to my knowledge and experiences and insight into the object in question. I consider God to possess the fullness and objective whole of “beauty.” Thus, if I consider something to be “beautiful,” I have recognized its inherent reflection of the God who created it. Something aesthetically displeasing to me can still be beautiful, as beauty does not describe an subjective aesthetic quality. And thus, it’s the same impasse these threads always hit. Everyone’s using a different word in truth, and no one will agree that anyone else has it right. And with that, I’m heading to bed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

WHAT are those requisite elements of greatness? What are those requisite elements of “tastiness” for foods? What are those elements of “nearness” for the object?

One of these years you will have to answer these questions. Go ahead… make my day… as Clint Eastwood was wont to say.

This cannot be answered in one paragraph or two. I’ll offer brief comments.

Every art form has its own separate requirements for greatness. The critics who comment on each art genre (painting, music, poetry, etc.) have their own standard for greatness, and they often disagree with each other, while at other times they agree with a certainty approaching unanimity. The reason they might disagree is not that they are disputing the elements of the work of art so much as how those elements impact their own emotions. Some people and certain critics lack the ability to appreciate what the artist is seeking to convey. This does not mean that greatness does not abide in the work of art, but only that the critic cannot find it.

On the other hand, there are patterns of objectivity that can be detected among the critics. For example, **Citizen Kane **was for several decades consistently rated by an international poll of critics as the best movie ever made. This means that it was inconceivable, whatever other differences the critics had, that they could have found this one of the worst movies ever made.

So what are “those requisite elements of greatness” in Citizen Kane?

A profoundly interesting screenplay by Herman Mankiewitz and Orson Welles
Superb acting by Orson Welles
Phenomenal photography by Gregg Toland
Tremendous directing by Orson Welles

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So what are “those requisite elements of greatness” in Citizen Kane?

A profoundly interesting screenplay by Herman Mankiewitz and Orson Welles
Superb acting by Orson Welles
Phenomenal photography by Gregg Toland
Tremendous directing by Orson Welles

As I indicated above, these are objective elements of a work of art. They were not imagined by the person who sees the movie, but by the persons who created the movie.

Now some people (perhaps many) would oppose the notion that *Citizen Kane *was a great movie compared to Dumb and Dumber. They are comparable to those people who would find “Home on the Range” to be more moving than “Ave Verum Corpus.” This brings us full circle to the question that has been dominating this thread.

Can there not be objective greatness in art without everyone perceiving it because of subjectively different preferences?

Anyone interested in pursuing this matter in more depth might want to check out Chapter 8 in G.E. Moore’s Philosophical Studies. It is titled “The Conception of Intrinsic Value.”

Also Chapter 11, “Beauty,” in David Elton Trueblood’s General Philosophy.

 

[Mongo]

Does not preference equal subjectivity? I would say yes. In fact…all that you have written seems to back my contention that beauty is subjective and always has and will be. No deity needed.

John

it contradicts your whole assertion. you have asserted that beauty Is just a matter of preference. The logical conclusion is that nails on a chalkboard are identical to mozarts piano. They are interchangeable. The only thing that matters is the preference of those who listen. So we can conclude that there is nothing special about Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. Any two year old can bang on the keys of a piano. The parent of that two year old might actually enjoy the banging of his child over Mozart, especially if it is one of those parents that think their child is awesome at everything. The principles of music mean nothing.

You also seem to think all perspectives are equal. A person who doesn’t actually listen to the music and hear what is played is an equal critic as the person who listens and hears the different aspects of the music. The layman is an equal critic as the professional. The unexamined life is just as valuable as the examined life.

By the same logic I can assume that science and math are all subjective as well. If two people don’t come to the same conclusion then the answer must be subjective; there is no right answer. i dispute the uncertainty principle because it doesn’t make sense to me, therefore it is only a matter of opinion.

All perspectives aren’t equal though. Steven Hawking’s opinion is more valid that mine when it comes to physics, and julian bream’s perspective is greater than mine. Study and knowledge mean something. The perspective of a man who takes the time and effort to listen and hear what is happening is more valuable.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . An example. I have a huge aversion to the architectural work of le Corbusier. I would go so far as to say that, of all his projects that I know of (and as an architecture student, I’ve had to learn quite a few), I only like one of his buildings, that being Notre Dame du Haut. I pretty much hate every one of his other projects. . .

Thank you for the education.
I looked the fellow up and checked out some of his work.
I don’t like it, including Notre Dame du Haut.
His five points of architecture appear to have nothing to do with aesthetics.
Since you say his work is beautiful, I will read further to see if I can find it.
I am expecting that their beauty will be intellectual - functionality, materials, novelty, simplicity and such.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Thank you for the education.
I looked the fellow up and checked out some of his work.
I don’t like it, including Notre Dame du Haut.
His five points of architecture appear to have nothing to do with aesthetics.
Since you say his work is beautiful, I will read further to see if I can find it.
I am expecting that their beauty will be intellectual - functionality, materials, novelty, simplicity and such.

Part of the reason I like the Notre Dame is due to the interior articulation of space, the method he used to bring light into the church, and just the fact that it reminds me of a giant mushroom.

His five points are very much related to the prevailing Modernist ideal of form follows function. They were also a new set of guidelines that had previously not been explored in architectural theory. He was also very influential in the introduction of modular systems in designing architecture.

Yes, I would agree that the beauty in his work is intellectual. The function and materials of the buildings are generally paramount, and ornamentation is generally a huge no-no for his style of Modernism. Though there is a beauty to be found in simplicity and utilitarian design. But my approach to beauty is the other end of the spectrum. I think the form of the building should be what shapes the function, and that the function should be what guides the form’s creation. I prefer that the two are more intertwined, generally focusing on form since that’s the more interpretive part of the building. If I’m hired as an architect, I’m being hired, I hope, for my personal philosophy towards design, and not just because they needed someone certified to make them a building.

Essentially, when people try to claim that the work of le Corbusier has no beauty compared to… say Steven Ma with his “Xuberance” architecture, they are comparing two things that are fundamentally different in their approach. It’s like saying a cube of pyrite has no beauty compared to an orchid blossom, or that something “boring” like a pine tree has no beauty compared to a cherry blossom tree. They have their own intrinsic beauty independent of comparisons with other things.

 

[Kurisu35712]

For those arguing that things can only be subjectively determined to be beautiful… Do these things exist independent of their observation by humans? Does an object exist independent of any interpretation by human beings?

Michelangelo’s Pieta captures an emotional state that human beings experience in a block of marble. There is an entire dimension of grief and loss represented by a rock that someone named Michelangelo hit with a hammer and a sharp metal stick. As a result, the sculpture exists. Humans who see it are able to relate to the sense of grief expressed by this shiny white stone. Even if no human beings had ever looked at the sculpture, it would still have the same forms and curves. The rock would still illustrate a physical representation of grief. The transcendental beauty present in the permanent snapshot of a Mother holding her dead Son is still there independent of human observation. The grief is still represented. The artistic craftsmanship is still extant. Thus, the statue still holds an intrinsic beauty and value without being observed and having that quality assigned to it. How beautiful the piece is compared to others as considered by an observer is subjective. The fact that the piece can be considered beautiful in the first place is intrinsic to the object itself.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Every art form has its own separate requirements for greatness.

Every dish has a separate requirement for “tastiness”. Every chef (or cook) has her own recipe for creating “tasty” dishes. There is no “objective” tastiness.

On the other hand, there are patterns of objectivity that can be detected among the critics. For example, **Citizen Kane **was for several decades consistently rated by an international poll of critics as the best movie ever made.

By some other “august” body of critics the movie by Sergei Eisenstein “Броненосец Потемкин (The Battleship Potemkin)” was the greatest movie ever made… go figure.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps unknowingly, the OP offers a variation of Euthyphro’s Dilemma:

Is something Good/Beautiful simply because God says it is? Or is it Good/Beautiful because God recognizes it as such?

These are the two horns of the dilemma.

But the answer is that the Good/Beautiful is not so simply because God declares it to be (making it purely subjective rather than objective) nor is the Good/Beautiful outside of God (making Him a lesser god that He should find Goodness and Beauty somewhere outside of Himself).

No, Good/Beauty comes from the nature of God Himself; God is good and God is beauty.

More here.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the prevailing Modernist ideal of form follows function . . . If I’m hired as an architect, I’m being hired, I hope, for my personal philosophy towards design . . . .

I was wondering why I wasn’t seeing gargoyles.

And, all the best in your endeavours.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hi,
All animals, mammals at least, have all five senses, but only humans have enhanced sight and sound.

Hello dear yppop. I beg to differ as I noted on the previous topic I was on. (1) My coonhound is most definately beautiful and can see (spot) a jack rabbit in high grass that is hundreds of yards away before I can, and she can hear better than a human. She is a natural hunter. You might be interested in reading about Gregory S. Berns, PhD. (2) He has done MRI’s on dogs.(3)

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13169672#post13169672
2. ccnl.emory.edu/greg/
3. neuropolicy.emory.edu/
   Why The Brains Of Dogs & Humans Are More Similar Than You Think
   collective-evolution.com/2014/04/10/why-the-brains-of-dogs-humans-are-more-similar-than-you-think/

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hello dear yppop. I beg to differ as I noted on the previous topic I was on. (1) My coonhound is most definately beautiful and can see (spot) a jack rabbit in high grass that is hundreds of yards away before I can, and she can hear better than a human. She is a natural hunter. You might be interested in reading about Gregory S. Berns, PhD. (2) He has done MRI’s on dogs.(3)

1. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13169672#post13169672
2. ccnl.emory.edu/greg/
3. neuropolicy.emory.edu/
   Why The Brains Of Dogs & Humans Are More Similar Than You Think
   collective-evolution.com/2014/04/10/why-the-brains-of-dogs-humans-are-more-similar-than-you-think/

I don’t think this is the meaning of “enhanced” that Yppop had in mind. He did not, as far as I can tell, mean “with greater acuity,” rather he meant something like “see into the reality of things that which a physical sense, unaided, cannot grasp.” More like “see into it” rather than “see it more clearly.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Every dish has a separate requirement for “tastiness”. Every chef (or cook) has her own recipe for creating “tasty” dishes. There is no “objective” tastiness.

This only follows if we grant the premise that the principle for discerning beauty is entirely in the subject. Only then would variances of opinions regarding beauty show no “objective” tastiness. That, however, begs the question, since it assumes - not shows - that the grounds for determinations of beauty are entirely in subjects and not in objective reality.

Mere subjective disagreement could just as well indicate that the differences among subjects boil down to subjects not being calibrated similarly or properly to detect beauty.

There are two other possibilities:

1. Beauty is an objective quality or set of qualities that are somehow present in or represented by the beautiful object. Discerning beauty is, then, a kind of intellectual pursuit where recognizing or defining those qualities makes possible recognition of beauty. Beauty isn’t, in other words, a matter of taste at all.
2. Beauty is an objective quality or set of qualities present in the beautiful object, but our senses, emotional makeup and psyche including the intellect (in some combination,) are “set up” or attuned to recognizing beauty. Variances in sensory equipment, emotional stability and psychological/intellectual capacities account for individual differences in determinations about beauty. In other words, properly attuned sensory equipment, emotions and psyche/intellects make detection of objective beauty more reliable/consistent.

This is why, for example, training in music or art appreciation makes most people more aware of and reliably consistent in making assessments of beauty. This is not to deny that modern art hasn’t gone off the rails in terms of real determinations of beauty - sometimes the process of training gets highjacked by special interest groups or corrupting forces.

Neither of the two possibilities, by the way, commit a person to holding a view that every object - subject to the taste or preference choices of some subject - is a candidate for determinations of beauty. Just because some subject somewhere thinks something is beautiful or applies the word as if it means “what I like” does not automatically make the claim a fitting one.

It is perfectly legitimate to claim persons may have preferences regarding sensory or emotional experiences which have nothing whatsoever to do with beauty. These would be mere preferences of sense, emotion or grounded in some other psychological feature about the subject.
These may or may not have anything to do with the quality of beauty present in or represented by objects, which may or may not correspond to the capacity of any or, even, all subjects of a kind to experience or grasp beauty.

Philosophy has been said to be the art of making distinctions. I don’t suppose anything is gained, philosophically speaking, by allowing Philistines to collapse categories merely to simplify and make them “easier” to dispose of, intellectually speaking. This is how an amoeba mind would function - that is, if amoebas had minds - by “chewing through” and mashing together and disposing of ideas like yesterday’s breakfast.

Reductionism ought to be seen for what it is - a disease of the mind or, at least, a holdover from the reptilian brain (if common descent turns out to be true.) Claims that can be expressed as “X is ONLY Y” ought to be subjected to severe and rigorous scrutiny, as a matter of principle.