• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Why are you blind to beauty?

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
From my experience, most people are completely and utterly blind to beauty. I do not mean the beauty in meaning (I'm talking to you, Feelers), or the beauty in a perfect mathematical theorem (I'm talking to you, Thinkers). I do not mean the beauty in subjective experiences like joy, happiness, ecstasy or "tranquillity". I mean aesthetic beauty, the stuff that you find ONLY in art.

Most people have no problem identifying and appreciating the meaning behind a piece of art. Most people have no problem experiencing what they would call a "beautiful moment" in their lives. Some people have no problem finding "beautiful" tranquillity or what ever the hell else you want to call it. But almost no one can identify aesthetic beauty. Its like a colourblindness that can not be illuminated to the person that is blind.

Why do you think that is? Why are so many people completely blind to aesthetic beauty?
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 5:51 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
10,593
-->
I think there's this weird disconnect between what people like and what's considered "real art", if something's commercially successful it's disqualified from being art because there's this insular elitism to the art scene that demands that real art can only be appreciated by those within the art scene.
 

kora

Omg wow imo
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
2,115
-->
Location
Armchair
I don't understand, I have not observed that people are particularly blind to beauty. Millions flock to Rome to see the Sistine Chapel or to Paris to see Notre Dame, etc. etc.

Am I missing something in your post?
 

Happy

sorry for english
Local time
Today 2:51 PM
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,336
-->
Location
Yes
Need example of the aesthetic beauty you’re referring to.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Yesterday 10:51 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,871
-->
Location
with mama
I do not know in what way you are distinguishing "aesthetic" beauty from just beauty.
 

Ex-User (14663)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,939
-->
Well, to see the beauty in a math theorem, you need to be up to speed on math. I guess it’s the same with art. I’ve been thinking about this in terms of music. Most people listen to music just for some simple titillation - they would have zero opinion on the aesthetics of it. In short, in order to see beauty, you need to know what to look for.
 

lightfire

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:51 PM
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
376
-->
Good art is hard to find. Every time something nice looking goes viral, then lots of copy cats flood the system with imitation pieces and knock offs. Happens every time in a competitive world.

What's the point of beauty if its not true to the core. There's lots of emptiness covered in layers of appealing lights or sugar or color.

Pretty subjective topic tbh

I'm probs a total feeler or smthng
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
I don't understand, I have not observed that people are particularly blind to beauty. Millions flock to Rome to see the Sistine Chapel or to Paris to see Notre Dame, etc. etc.

Am I missing something in your post?

Most, not everyone. And of those people that go there, how many will recognize its aesthetic beauty?
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
Well, to see the beauty in a math theorem, you need to be up to speed on math. I guess it’s the same with art. I’ve been thinking about this in terms of music. Most people listen to music just for some simple titillation - they would have zero opinion on the aesthetics of it. In short, in order to see beauty, you need to know what to look for.

I am talking about the beauty you find in art. That is all. You can say math is beautiful, but that is not what I am asking about.

Math can describe music, but it is not what "makes" music beautiful. Math is a descriptive language that we can use to explain reality. It is a set of abstract entities that can be used to extrapolate further abstract entities through entailment. It describes reality, but it is not reality itself. Although math can describe music, it is NOT music itself. And so is not what makes it beautiful.
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
Good art is hard to find. Every time something nice looking goes viral, then lots of copy cats flood the system with imitation pieces and knock offs. Happens every time in a competitive world.

What's the point of beauty if its not true to the core. There's lots of emptiness covered in layers of appealing lights or sugar or color.

Pretty subjective topic tbh

I'm probs a total feeler or smthng

You can impose meaning onto a piece of art, but is that meaning actually contained within it?
Look, the meaning in art is completely subjective, I will give you that. I mean it has to be, not everyone is going to take the same meaning away. But does this really mean that beauty in art is really subjective?

In his 1979 play Amadeus, Peter Shaffer describes Mozart’s music by saying ‘Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and the structure would fall apart’. Vary Mozart’s music, even just a little, and the whole piece falls apart. Every note, every phrase has a specific role to perform; each one is tightly integrated into the next. Beethoven is a classical composer that is known for being meticulous with his approach to music composition. “Composers like Ludwig van Beethoven agonised through change after change, apparently seeking something that he knew was there to be created, apparently meeting a standard that could be met only after much creative effort and much failure.” The more he failed, the more his waste paper pile would grow. In a fever of inspiration, artist seem to be reaching for something that is there to be found but is nevertheless difficult to obtain.

Within various domains of art and science, there are extraordinary creators like Beethoven who are widely known to have contributed greatly to their respective disciplines. But is art really subjective? "Was Beethoven fooling himself when he thought that the sheets in his waste-paper basket contained mistakes: that they were worse than the sheets he would eventually publish?". Was he merely meeting some arbitrary cultural standard like buying the right sort of coffee to satisfy the latest lifestyle fad? Or is there substance in saying that Beethoven's music really is far better than pre-schoolers banging wooden spoons against metal pots? "Is there only 'I know what I like,' or what tradition or authority designates as good? Quite generally, cultural relativism (about art or morality) has a very hard time explaining what people are doing when they think they are improving a tradition.

If beauty is not subjective, the meaning anyone one person extracts from a work of art really has no bearing on how beautiful it is. Meaning is subjective, beauty is objective. Therefore meaning and beauty are completely unrelated.
 

lightfire

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:51 PM
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
376
-->
I guess you are trying to separate meaning from beauty. Honestly the only way I can relate to this is that I find nature to be beautiful and objective.

I dont really trust motives behind humans or their art anymore, beautiful or not. I find the majority of it to be insincere. Motives really make it or break it for me. Authenticity is more beautiful to me than aesthetic.
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
I guess you are trying to separate meaning from beauty. Honestly the only way I can relate to this is that I find nature to be beautiful and objective.

I dont really trust motives behind humans or their art anymore, beautiful or not. I find the majority of it to be insincere. Motives really make it or break it for me. Authenticity is more beautiful to me than aesthetic.

Im not trying to separate them. I just can't see how they could ever be the same thing. Yes you are definitely a feeler. I care about authenticity as well though. But with people, not with art.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 1:51 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
-->
We're in a postmodern age. We don't believe in art.
 

Kakariki

Redshirt
Local time
Today 6:51 AM
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
16
-->
It’s actually a great question, because most people don’t find it weird that we don’t enjoy Mozart and Beethoven. If we would, we would listen to it a lot.

A wall of text will follow.

The notion of ‘art’ as independent entity has developed in Western societies. The upper classes of Western societies went to the operas of Mozart, read the works of Goethe, and this was considered ‘art’, not the folk music of the people and their songs. So by its very conception, the notion of art was already elitist.

This, I think, already partially answers why comparatively few people appreciate the artworks of ‘high culture’. It has always been something which never rooted in the masses.

There are two different developments which I will discuss. First:

Despite these elitist roots of (Western) art, already at the beginning of the 20th century a lot of other currents had been absorbed (tribal art, peasant songs), acknowledged (waltzes of Strauss) as forms of art. After the world wars, the influence of popular culture grew, the realm of high art and popular culture remained independent but mutually influenced each other. Attempts were made, under the influence of social democracy, to make high culture accessible and affordable to all of the people, but they were not as effective as the politically left-leaning advocates of high culture had hoped.

In my country, the Netherlands, the lines between modern classical music and popular music are increasingly blurred out. The most celebrated Dutch composer of today, Michel van der Aa, works as closely together with the musicians from his own isle, as with pop musicians such as the Australian representative during Eurovision 2019 and our beloved singer-songwriter Wende. Wende and Van der Aa (though he belongs to the same side of that musical spectrum which I mentioned in the appendix of this earlier comment, as that famous German composer) both proclaim how musical genres are increasingly unimportant for musicians.

The second development specifically answers: “Why are you blind to beauty?”

Why are people more and more desensitized to art? Is this the case at all? A characteristic opinion is a recent remark by the Dutch soprano Elly Ameling: “I believe that it’s unmistakable that civilization is going through a significant dip” (followed by the optimistic remark that the Middle Ages were followed by the Renaissance). I also believe that this is the case. The state of literature proves this sufficiently: despite analphabetism being wiped out in most countries, the works of the greatest authors aren’t widely read anymore. Has the quality of the ‘timeless’ works changed? Or have they been superseded by far superior works? I think not. Clearly, the cause lies in society.

So why is reading a centuries-old work, which perhaps takes some effort to get into, so unusual today’s society? We have here, I think, already encountered two hurdles for the modern citizen. First, in modern society every individual is surrounded by low-effort entertainment which immediately causes effect on the spectator, it may be spectacular, it may be funny, and in any case, it quite immediately gives some pleasure, limited and superficial as it may be. After a long day of work, it is only natural to choose the low-effort entertainment, though it gives no energy like the music of Beethoven. The long-term effect is that the capability of opening oneself up to works, which require but a small effort to enter it, decreases.

Secondly, modern cultures are focused on anything ‘new’: when a new movie appears, a new song is created, they immediately have the spotlight – and lose the spotlight when even newer products appear. Anyone who comes in contact with something from another age, culture, experiences a bridge which he must overcome. In our societies, this capability of openness towards older, different things, is not stimulated, but crippled through focus on the never-ending masquerade of new productions.

More important in the desensitization for anything subtle is the constant bombardment of the most effectful advertisements, movies and music. It is almost charming, that Tolstoy wrote in the 19th century that he fears that the public becomes desensitized, if they sometimes hear bad music when they go to a concert. What a difference with today! No one can escape (bad) music today: it’s everywhere, in nearly all restaurants, public places, metro stations, shops. It is forced upon all members of society. “Every time we hear sound we are changed” says Stockhausen, and the result of this bombardment can’t be positive. “Even before birth many millions of babies are already conditioned from day to day by the musical poverty that is poured out non-stop by a comparable number of loudspeakers.” (Ton de Leeuw)

I summarize:

  • The sense for beauty is atrophied, merely by living in a society with a lot of external inputs;
  • People become insensitive for things that are not immediately effectful to them, works that require some small effort.
 

lightfire

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:51 PM
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
376
-->
I guess you are trying to separate meaning from beauty. Honestly the only way I can relate to this is that I find nature to be beautiful and objective.

I dont really trust motives behind humans or their art anymore, beautiful or not. I find the majority of it to be insincere. Motives really make it or break it for me. Authenticity is more beautiful to me than aesthetic.

Im not trying to separate them. I just can't see how they could ever be the same thing. Yes you are definitely a feeler. I care about authenticity as well though. But with people, not with art.

I also care about authentic humans.

My usual comment about art is "art is dead". It was nice to explain myself in this thread anyway.
 

Ex-User (14663)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,939
-->
Well, to see the beauty in a math theorem, you need to be up to speed on math. I guess it’s the same with art. I’ve been thinking about this in terms of music. Most people listen to music just for some simple titillation - they would have zero opinion on the aesthetics of it. In short, in order to see beauty, you need to know what to look for.

I am talking about the beauty you find in art. That is all. You can say math is beautiful, but that is not what I am asking about.

Math can describe music, but it is not what "makes" music beautiful. Math is a descriptive language that we can use to explain reality. It is a set of abstract entities that can be used to extrapolate further abstract entities through entailment. It describes reality, but it is not reality itself. Although math can describe music, it is NOT music itself. And so is not what makes it beautiful.
“Math is a descriptive language”... ok at least we have determined you haven’t done math beyond high school at best. Other than that I have no clue what you’re talking about.
 

Niclmaki

Disturber of the Peace
Local time
Today 12:51 AM
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
550
-->
Location
Canada
If I am understanding you correctly... It is possible to see everything as beautiful, looking carefully enough. For example, look at expert photographers. They can make a simple pile of rocks or a puddle of water beautiful.

It is my belief that anyone else COULD see it too, if they simply looked. I can only suppose that the reason is a lack of attention.
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
Well, to see the beauty in a math theorem, you need to be up to speed on math. I guess it’s the same with art. I’ve been thinking about this in terms of music. Most people listen to music just for some simple titillation - they would have zero opinion on the aesthetics of it. In short, in order to see beauty, you need to know what to look for.

I am talking about the beauty you find in art. That is all. You can say math is beautiful, but that is not what I am asking about.

Math can describe music, but it is not what "makes" music beautiful. Math is a descriptive language that we can use to explain reality. It is a set of abstract entities that can be used to extrapolate further abstract entities through entailment. It describes reality, but it is not reality itself. Although math can describe music, it is NOT music itself. And so is not what makes it beautiful.
“Math is a descriptive language”... ok at least we have determined you haven’t done math beyond high school at best. Other than that I have no clue what you’re talking about.

I have a masters in mathematics actually. I studies pure mathematics in postgrad. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I'm stupid. Your comment just makes you look like an idiot. If you're confused just ask instead of being a dick.

Anyway yes, math is a language. Well strictly speaking its a bunch of different languages that were designed to solve specialised problems. For example, Computability theory was designed to solve different problems than Topology or Group Theory. What is confusing about that?
 

Ex-User (14663)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,939
-->
People who describe math as a language don’t understand the difference between 1) empirical statements expressed mathematically 2) math itself 3) the symbols that describe mathematical expressions.

Go back to school.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
4,581
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
I was just thinking to my self why people chose the color of the car. I mean why red or white or black or grey or green or organe or yellow???? I mean there are many reasons for many things. Some people cry when they see beautiful things and other people cant be bothered.
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
People who describe math as a language don’t understand the difference between 1) empirical statements expressed mathematically 2) math itself 3) the symbols that describe mathematical expressions.

Go back to school.

'But I do know the difference fool. Crawl back under your rock.
 

washti

yo vengo para lo mío
Local time
Today 6:51 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
862
-->
What is math itself? I mean stripped from its expressions in equations? Since Godel's incompleteness theorems proved that u can't reduce math to logic?
Also combination of mathematical notation can be compared to language? It express logical train of thought?
 

JansenDowel

Active Member
Local time
Today 4:51 PM
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
240
-->
Location
New Zealand
What is math itself? I mean stripped from its expressions in equations? Since Godel's incompleteness theorems proved that u can't reduce math to logic?
Also combination of mathematical notation can be compared to language? It express logical train of thought?

Well math isn't about physical reality. From what I can tell, it is a language that describes abstract entities and their relations. And yes, I do believe that abstract entities actually exist.

Actually, now that I think about it, a computer is nothing more than the instantiation of abstract entities and their relations into physical object and their motions. You have a system an initial condition, that changes according the laws of physics, until it reaches an output condition. OMG and maybe that's what a scientific experiment is?
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today 6:51 AM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,142
-->
How you perceive is a matter of many complex factors. What is beauty in art? Is it being able to express a certain feel and perspective in what you create, and have your audience being able to recreate this mind state, or experiencing an altered mind state because they perceive the art in a certain way?

Or are you referring only to what is physically beautiful/ appealing? Like those who sketch perfect images of a person, object, animal? Or maybe those who sketch beautiful people, objects, animals? Is art beauty if it sketches the ugly perfectly?

Perceiving beauty this way, is it even something we should strive to feel? How does it enrich people, make their life more true or valid, contribute to something useful, make them feel better? (Did I include every type there, or did I miss some?)

What prompted you to ask this question? A difference of opinion with someone?
 

The Grey Man

τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει
Local time
Yesterday 11:51 PM
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
859
-->
Location
Canada
I guess you are trying to separate meaning from beauty. Honestly the only way I can relate to this is that I find nature to be beautiful and objective.

I dont really trust motives behind humans or their art anymore, beautiful or not. I find the majority of it to be insincere. Motives really make it or break it for me. Authenticity is more beautiful to me than aesthetic.

Im not trying to separate them. I just can't see how they could ever be the same thing. Yes you are definitely a feeler. I care about authenticity as well though. But with people, not with art.

I think that a great many Westerners overlook beauty because they are preoccupied with words.

Words, by definition, have meaning, which is to say that they "point" to something besides themselves; and because they point, they are a means of navigating nature, the world of multiplicity. The West is very adept at making maps of nature out of words, but this adeptness is one-sided because it ignores the experiential unity of nature, in which all words and all meanings are contained. Since words are essentially things which point to other things, they are immanent to the kingdom of things plural.

Beauty is no plurality, but a unity. Like religious experience, it is incapable of rational explanation because explanation is always in words, words must needs point, and the twoness of pointer and pointed-to stands in opposition to the oneness of the experience. I think that because we trust so much in words to provide us with knowledge of the diversity of nature, we often neglect to pursue integrative spiritual knowledge.

For my part, I recently realized that those of whom I had previously conceived as "theoretical philosophers" were nothing of the sort because "theoretical philosopher" is a contradictio in adjecto—there are no theoretical lovers of wisdom because love is something one is, not something one says. Theoreticians are, without exception, word-slingers, and they always speak of the immanent (Newton) or, at best, of the transcendent-al (Kant), which stands to the transcendent as does a horizon to the Unknown itself.
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Yesterday 10:51 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,871
-->
Location
with mama
Beauty is no plurality, but a unity. Like religious experience, it is incapable of rational explanation because explanation is always in words, words must needs point, and the twoness of pointer and pointed-to stands in opposition to the oneness of the experience. I think that because we trust so much in words to provide us with knowledge of the diversity of nature, we often neglect to pursue integrative spiritual knowledge.

It all makes sense to me now.
I was highly confused about what was going on here until reading this.
 

Ex-User (14663)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 5:51 AM
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,939
-->
People who describe math as a language don’t understand the difference between 1) empirical statements expressed mathematically 2) math itself 3) the symbols that describe mathematical expressions.

Go back to school.

'But I do know the difference fool. Crawl back under your rock.
Btw what sort of math did you do for your masters?
 
Top Bottom