Measuring beauty

[Gale]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

[Sikz]

If we can DEFINE beauty, then we must have somehow measured it, or we could not differentiate between it and it's opposite... But whether or not we can measure different LEVELS of beauty, hmmm... I'll have to think on that a bit more.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Which kind of beauty? Outward appearance? Personality? Artistic quality? Mysteriousness, inspiring further inspection? What exactly are you referring to?

[Adam]

I think there are probably some basic physical factors which evolution decided are beautiful. Clear, healthy skin; good teeth; the ability to reproduce; possibly material wealth, as it shows the ability to feed offspring.

However, a girl can be built like a supermodel and have a billion dollars, and if she is a complete moron, very rude, or a diseased hooker, I won't want anything to do with her.

In other words, looks can generate some physical chemistry, but it doesn't matter if their is no mental or emotional connection.

Physical attraction is not necessarily the first attraction. I know people who have been attracted to each other's personalities first, from chatting on the net. Two are now married.

Of course beauty doesn't have to be about attraction and pairing-off at all. People look at two-dimensional images of people, mere reflections of light off surfaces, and see beauty. This would also be based on those evolutionary things though.

Or we might consider a sunset beautiful, but this has nothing at all to do with sex, or personalities, or those other things. We just like certain mixtures of colour, brightness, tone, et cetera. Sounds and smells, too, we can consider beautiful. Tactile sensations. All our senses are capable of appreciating beauty, as is the mind.

As for how we measure it all... I think it is different for everyone, although we do have influences in our judgement from evolution.

[Monique]

You can monitor someone's reaction, when sitting in a monitored environment, and relate that to perceived beauty. Dilatation of the pupil, sweating, smiling, maybe certain brain patterns.

[Kal-Elvis]

Originally posted by Sikz
If we can DEFINE beauty, then we must have somehow measured it, or we could not differentiate between it and it's opposite...

I agree, but the difficulty here is that beauty is defined differently by different observers. It is entirely subjective.

However, to some extent you could catalog certain traits (whether in flowers, artwork, or people) that are held to be beautiful, but even then you don't have a universal definition. Everyone would have a different hierarchy in these common traits (person A likes shiny hair, small noses, then big eyes; person B likes big eyes, small noses, and shiny hair).

I think the best answer is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Njorl]

I remember seeing a presentation about pattern recognition. As an aside, the guy did some studies about beauty.

He just studied faces. The judgements were purely subjective. He had a random group of people rate faces for beauty on a 1-10 scale. He then chose a few quantitative characteristics, seperation of eyes, width of mouth, height of cheekbones etc, and tried to correlate them to the beauty ratings. He then found averages for all these quantitative factors. What he found was that the better than average beauty scores tended to be close to the averages in these factors. The low beauty scores tended to be far from these averages. But, the most interesting fact, the very highest beauty marks also went to people who were far from the average quantative factors.

People who look "normal" tend to be attractive, but beautiful people look different.

[selfAdjoint]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

[wasteofo2]

"You can monitor someone's reaction, when sitting in a monitored environment, and relate that to perceived beauty. Dilatation of the pupil, sweating, smiling, maybe certain brain patterns."

If you really want to gague reaction to beauty, at least in men, there's a pretty obvious thing you can monitor that you left out...

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

I think it can only be measured subjectively, no way else. Different people will have different opinions, as stated by Njorl. Everyone has their own little "kinkiness" to them when they find some beautifule. Its something that they can describe, and only them. The explain it to someone, but that someone won't understand fully because their beautiful interpretation would be different, even marginally.

[Gale]

well... i actually hadn't meant beauty in people, but more like... a flower... or a rainbow... or say, given two paths to follow, and you were told to chose only by one's beauty and looks...

as a kid, and now i see in a few books i've read... well, white light... Auras too... they seem to be sort of metaphysical ways of determining beauty... to an extent. I don't mean to ask if these things hold any value or meaning in that context, but just... because of them, i wonderede whether beauty could be quantified...

[Njorl]

I think, if I tried to pick one of the things that I find consistant to beauty, it would be ... hm... hard to express ... that something be the epitome of it's kind. It is hard though, to epitomize something without going to far ... to a charicature. The water in a quarry near where I live is so clear that it suprises me everytime I see it. It is the epitome of water.

Simplicity too is beautiful. When form and function go hand-in-hand with a minimal effort, in a natural way ... without being cut-down and forced into simplicity. My swivel handled socket wrench is beautiful.

Njorl

[Twinbee]

A way of measuring beauty? I think an answer to that might be more profound than how the universe started :) It's probably best to try explaining an area of aesthetics such as music. And then split this up further to explain one aspect of music; what makes a good chord?

Question: Why is the chord C#, F#, B, Eb, F#, Bb, much, much better than C#, F#, C, Eb, G, Bb ?

Here are some more bad chords: C#, F, C, Eb, F#, Bb, ....or this one.... D, F#, B, Eb, F, C
Here are some more good chords: C (in the bass followed by) Bb C D F G and A .... or: C Bb C# E G and A

All you have to do is work out exactly why the good chords are better. Once you've done that, try the countless two chord combinations, and then the multitudes of three chord combinations etc. etc. Find a logical pattern to distinguish them scientifically, work out a multi-dimensional rating system, and you're half way there! Presumably, there would be chords and chord sequences which are excellent (even perfect), very poor/boring, and everything in between.

Yes, an element of subjectivity would come into it, but as long as practically everyone agrees on whether a chord is good/bad (and in the examples I gave above, I believe they would), then we can try to find out the pattern behind it. That's a start.

The same principle could be applied to pictures too. Imagine a long one-dimensional 100-pixel black and white 'picture'. Hundreds of people could rate thousands of these randomly generated 'pictures'. Because each picture is relatively abstract, there would be little room for cultural bias. On the average, I believe we could establish a general consensus on the 'scores' for such pictures.

[jimmy p]

The problem is that everyone has different views on beauty. One mans object of desire could be another's roadkill. Beauty can really only be measured in a persons mind, on what THEY judge as beautiful.

[Gale]

Well, you know forms? wouldn't it seem that things closest to their true forms would appear more beautiful to us?

[selfAdjoint]

This is what Plato taught. For me there is a problem about the form of a person. Is it the case that each of us, say John Doe, has a form, and the closer to the form we are, the more beautiful we are? But some people are "prettyness challenged" from birth - are they far from their own form, or not?

For example, Socrates, Plato's teacher, was not a handsome man, but Plato believed him to be very close to his ideal form, and later generations have agreed, he was as close as ancient Greek culture came to a saint. So evidently the beauty that comes from matching your form is not PURELY physical beauty. It is like beauty of total personhood, inhabiting your own body in a beautiful way.

[jimmy p]

the band Marillion think Autumn is beautiful...or maybe i should read between the lines...

MARILLION - BEAUTIFUL

Everybody knows we live in a world
Where they give bad names to beautiful things
Everybody knows we live in a world
Where we don't give beautiful things a second glance
Heaven only knows we live in a world
Where what we call beautiful is just something on sale
People laughing behind their hands
As the fragile and the sensitive are given no chance

And the leaves turn from red to brown
To be trodden down
To be trodden down
And the leaves turn from red to brown
Fall to the ground
Fall to the ground

We don't have to live in a world
Where we give bad names to beautiful things
We should live in a beautiful world
We should give beautiful a second chance

And the leaves fall from red to brown
To be trodden down
Trodden down
And the leaves turn green to red to brown
Fall to the ground
And get kicked around

You strong enough to be
Have you the courage to be
Have you the faith to be
Honest enough to stay
Don't have to be the same
Don't have to be this way
C'mon and sign your name
You wild enough to remain beautiful?
Beautiful

And the leaves turn from red to brown
To be trodden down
Trodden down
And we fall green to red to brown
Fall to the ground
But we can turn it around

You strong enough to be
Why don't you stand up and say
Give yourself a break
They'll laugh at you anyway
So why don't you stand up and be
Beautiful

Black, white, red, gold, and brown
We're stuck in this world
Nowhere to go
Turnin' around
What are you so afraid of?
Show us what you're made of
Be yourself and be beautiful
Beautiful

[Gale]

well again, i suppose i rather think of people as sort of exceptions, and i really don't mean human beauty. what makes certain flowers beautiful? or paths? or things like that. i don't have an opinion yet on forms, but if such things were true, then it'd seem that it'd make sence that beauty could be based on somethings resemblance of a form. Perhaps forms have more aspects than even just physical ones. I'm not even sure what the textbook definition of forms would be.

and as far as socrates being a saint... pfft...

[Loren Booda]

I recall that symmetry is an important factor in perceived beauty, as it is in sports overall.

A study I saw on TV developed a facsimile, including green eyes, from an international average of superlative female beauty traits. Can anyone find "her" on the net?

[selfAdjoint]

Socrates said, Be what you want others to think you are. If you want to pass for rich, don't fake it, do the work and get rich. Same with being good, or I guess, being beautiful.

[Polly]

Beauty is a kindness.

[THANOS]

Beauty is only beautiful to you, sure people can share views of beauty with other people and face it, if you disagree with what an other thinks as beautiful then it is not beatiful in your opinion. So beauty only has meaning to the person judging it and no one esle.

[MacTech]

Originally posted by Gale17
Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Despite many ppl asking, the kind, it really doesn't matter what kind, as long as the system is there to in your case quantify beauty. In theory yes, but only measured from object to object (use object to your own ie.). So when you say something is beautiful it is imo always in association with "well i remember object and this is better then it." and the like.

[Loren Booda]

What makes a theory, equation or philosophy beautiful?

[elwestrand]

I think beauty, like water, can be qualified but not quantified. Yet its quantity is as subjective as the perception itself. Pain can also be qualified. We judge that quantity using some reference point, however, such as the most pain we've ever felt (which in turn was referenced). Thus, small children react differently to a small scrape. They cry and scream as if they are dying. Their reference for qualifying it is different as they don't have much expereience in feeling pain.

[0TheSwerve0]

I haven't read through all these, but the bit about music chords caught my eye. It reminded me of a discussion in music class where we came to the conclusion that the reason some pieces are more beautiful than others is because the dissonance resolves into consonance. Of course, you can have just consonance, but it seems that greater beauty is created through the progress of imperfection to perfection. Through resolution. In that way, imperfection serves a great purpose.

That said, I would say that beauty (as in music) can be measured through ratios of some sort. Not that I know how one would go about this, but I would say there is definately a form or standard you can measure against.

[expscv]

beauty cannt be seen as universal. but can be common

[mee]

I saw on a documentary that much of beauty (I hope I get this correct) is often seen as the ratio of 1:1.618 or some such thing for body parts. Something like that.

[Mentat]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

Where's that from (sounds like it's in trocheeic octometer, so it can't be from a sonnet)?

Anyway, I find it an interesting coincidence that many scientists and philosophers have looked into the ratio "phi" as a common denominator in many things considered "beautiful"...after all, it is a "strange proportion".

[Mentat]

Beauty is only beautiful to you, sure people can share views of beauty with other people and face it, if you disagree with what an other thinks as beautiful then it is not beatiful in your opinion. So beauty only has meaning to the person judging it and no one esle.

This, too, is an interesting statement. It is the oft-quoted line: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Normally I'd just agree with you, but I recently saw a T.V. special on the subject, and a certain philosopher made a statement that made me think twice about the "eye of the beholder". He (sorry, I can't remember his name) basically implied: If we were to observe the way that the actual eye is constructed, we could logically assume, from it's ability to detect light, that there is such a thing as light in the first place. So, why not also assume that there is such a thing as objectively definable "beauty", considering the fact that the "beholder" has an "eye" with which to detect it, it seems we should be able to logically deduce that such a thing must exist.

[marcus]

A fact known to Shakespeare. "There is no Beauty but has some strangeness i' the proportion".

Mentat asked about the meter, or commented about the meter.

this was believed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who wrote a bunch of essays including an essay called:

"BEAUTY

Virtue is like a rich stone, best plain set; and surely virtue is best in a body that is comely, though not of delicate features; and that hath rather dignity of presence than beauty of aspect. Neither is it almost seen, that very beautiful persons are otherwise of great virtue; as if nature were rather busy not to err, than in labor to produce excellency. And therefore they prove accomplished, but not of great spirit; and study rather behavior than virtue. But this holds not always: for Augustus Cæsar, Titus Vespasianus, Philip le Bel of France, Edward the Fourth of England, Alcibiades of Athens, Ismael the Sophy of Persia, were all high and great spirits; and yet the most beautiful men of their times. In beauty, that of favor 1 is more than that of color; and that of decent 2 and gracious motion more than that of favor. That is the best part of beauty, which a picture cannot express; no nor the first sight of the life. There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. A man cannot tell whether Apelles or Albert Durer were the more trifler; whereof the one would make a personage by geometrical proportions; the other, by taking the best parts out of divers faces, to make one excellent. Such personages, I think, would please nobody but the painter that made them. Not but I think a painter may make a better face than ever was; but he must do it by a kind of felicity (as a musician that maketh an excellent air in (music), and not by rule. A man shall see faces, that if you examine them part by part, you shall find never a good; and yet altogether do well. If it be true that the principal part of beauty is in decent motion, certainly it is no marvel though persons in years seem many times more amiable; pulchrorum autumnus pulcher [beautiful persons have a beautiful autumn]; for no youth can be comely but by pardon, and considering the youth as to make up the comeliness. Beauty is as summer fruits, which are easy to corrupt, and cannot last; and for the most part it makes a dissolute youth, and an age a little out of countenance; but yet certainly again, if it light well, it maketh virtue shine, and vices blush."

[NateTG]

I saw on a documentary that much of beauty (I hope I get this correct) is often seen as the ratio of 1:1.618 or some such thing for body parts. Something like that.

Not really. The ratio that's being referred to is the golden ratio, which has some numerological (thing astrology) appeal.

In practice there are certain types of features that consistently considered to be beautiful for example strong jaw lines, clear skin, and good facial symetry. Additionally in women Large eyes, large lips, a small nose, and a hip to waist ratio of 1.7 are (generally) considered attractive.

[marcus]

if a quality is measurable (assigning a number on a scale)
then things can be ranked
weight is measurable so things can be ranked by weight

Gale asks if B. is measurable. No it is not.
One of the most difficult and arbitrary things to do is to rank two beautiful things and say which has more beauty. this is a sign that B cannot be quantified and cannot be assigned a number on a scale. some things cant.



The sense of beauty has evolved both genetically and culturally. It is not identical in everybody but it is broadly similar from individual to individual, with exceptions of course. It represents accumulated experience and the results of choices.

Those who have chosen well have passed their ideas along to us. The sense of beauty in humans has survival and reproductive value, representing a store of information

The sense of beauty involves irrational guesswork at a subconscious level about what will repay focusing ones attention on.
It is in the involuntary focus of attention.

The line of poetry or the physical law has no beauty apart from the
evolved-over-millennia ability of humans to recognize and be alert to it.

[Stevo]

I haven't read through all these, but the bit about music chords caught my eye. It reminded me of a discussion in music class where we came to the conclusion that the reason some pieces are more beautiful than others is because the dissonance resolves into consonance. Of course, you can have just consonance, but it seems that greater beauty is created through the progress of imperfection to perfection. Through resolution. In that way, imperfection serves a great purpose.

Yet many pieces which are technically well composed are boring. Take Carl Czerny, for example. He wrote thousands of pieces, all skillfully composed. But none reached anywhere near the heights of his great teacher.

I don't think consonance resolving into dissonance is the answer for music. Take the music of the likes of Webern and Stravinsky. Beautiful music, but it certainly doesn't adhere to the usual tonal principles of consonance and dissonance.

I'm not sure about beauty in general, but for art the answer lies somewhere in between objectivity and subjectivity. Art is the product of an intersubjective world, so it's extremely difficult to justify a completely subjective aesthetic theory. On the other hand, art allows for a variety of interpretations, and this does seem to conflict with a completely objective aesthetic theory.

I think qualitative judgements can be made, and we can talk about better or worse in a comparative sense. But I think it's impossible to talk about best and worst.

[0TheSwerve0]

Yet many pieces which are technically well composed are boring. Take Carl Czerny, for example. He wrote thousands of pieces, all skillfully composed. But none reached anywhere near the heights of his great teacher

I didn't mean to imply that was the rule for all music, it was just something that I discovered in a few pieces (esp. Palestrina). I don't think simply composing by numbers yields a beautiful piece. But resolution of dissonace to consonance is a relief of tension and an arrival to balance, perfection, however you describe consonance.

[TENYEARS]

Does a flower know that it exists?

[Stevo]

I didn't mean to imply that was the rule for all music, it was just something that I discovered in a few pieces (esp. Palestrina). I don't think simply composing by numbers yields a beautiful piece. But resolution of dissonace to consonance is a relief of tension and an arrival to balance, perfection, however you describe consonance.

Well, it's just that you said "the reason some pieces are better than others". If this criteria only holds in a limited case, then I don't think we can claim that it's the reason why one piece is better than another. It may be part of the issue, nonetheless, but I think it is subsumed under a more general theory of musical expression.

[Imparcticle]

Normally I'd just agree with you, but I recently saw a T.V. special on the subject, and a certain philosopher made a statement that made me think twice about the "eye of the beholder". He (sorry, I can't remember his name) basically implied: If we were to observe the way that the actual eye is constructed, we could logically assume, from it's ability to detect light, that there is such a thing as light in the first place. So, why not also assume that there is such a thing as objectively definable "beauty", considering the fact that the "beholder" has an "eye" with which to detect it, it seems we should be able to logically deduce that such a thing must exist.

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

[0TheSwerve0]

Well, it's just that you said "the reason some pieces are better than others". If this criteria only holds in a limited case, then I don't think we can claim that it's the reason why one piece is better than another. It may be part of the issue, nonetheless, but I think it is subsumed under a more general theory of musical expression.

I guess I'll take this to an actual music thread.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7332

[0TheSwerve0]

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

Personal opinion may weigh in on it, but there are certainly things that seem to be almost universally attractive. Males, with I suppose the exception of homosexual males, are attracted to a healthy female body. Almost all human beings will find a forest more intrinsically beautiful than a city street. Designers recognize that groups of three are universally pleasing to the subconscious mind. A singer who actually hits the notes is more pleasing to the ear than one who is tone deaf. I think it is worth investigating why these standards hold true.

[Stevo]

I guess I'll take this to an actual music thread.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7332

I didn't reply, basically because I don't have the time right now to reply in a manner which I would deem satisfactory.

I am a serious musician (not professional, just serious) and I have done a lot of study on the philosophy of music. I will put forth a few views, and discuss their merits. At the moment, I don't have the time. I'm currently behind schedule with some work I have to do.

The philosophy of music is not a trivial issue, and I think some of the responses in that thread show just how easily the nature of music can be misunderstood. It's a very elusive thing to talk about, but definitely worthwhile.

[Mentat]

But the point is not what the eye beholds, but what the opinion of the beholder is concerning what is being beheld.

Not exactly. The statement is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". The beholder need not prefer the same kind of beauty as another, but the philosopher was merely stating that some things are, by their nature, beautiful (that is, of course, if you follow his reasoning).

[Imparcticle]

No, I am afraid I do not follow this philosopher's reasoning. You are explaining that some things have intrinsic properties which make them beautiful. But what is beauty? It is a subjective adjective.

[quddusaliquddus]

I used to consider human physical beauty to be linked to a combination of rarity of physical characteristics in the socety we live in, and what society has decided (through whatever circumstances ... ) to consider beautiful.

I just read Njorl's post (on the first page) about the statistical study that found cretain average features scored high as well as certain extreme (sorry-only word i can think of) fearures.It seems to confirm the theory - does it?

About music - I haven't really thought about that. But it seems on the serface to be quiet a different kind of beauty to peiople's faces for example. I have a feeling it has something to do with people's mother-language and what other sounds they've been exposed to when young. Is there muscial scales/notes sequences that are universally (around the whole world and maybe also over long time) that is considered to be beautiful? - other than the few dissidents. I've read somewhere not that long ago that scientists have found a link between musical scales (12?) and voice/language of humans - does that have an effect?

[Pinkline Jones]

Beauty is probably best considered this way - remember when you were a young kid and you would while away the hours cutting the womens magazine lingerie ads into a scrapbook?

Okay - I guess you all had the experience when a gust of wind blew in the bedroom window and upsets the marvelous patterns you had made on the floor with the various pictures of brassiere-clad lovelies. Not forgetting the annoyance that this could have assisted the authorities in building a psychological profile on you just a few years down the track - wasn't it just the pits!

So up rocks the mailman - Now excuse me for being possibly a little disturbed or just your average teenager BUT Stuff! the George Foreman Grill - I've waited months for this department store catalogue - straight to the relevant stuff - lots of pretty women in underwear - the rest of the catalogue is for well who cares. Okay - enough of that - So then just what gives a female beauty? - I think the rules are fairly simple:

1) If she knees you in the balls and doesn't say thank you for dinner - THAT is NOT beautiful

2) If when she opens her mouth she talks to you at the same volume level as an Aeroflot coming in for a regulation landing into the side of a mountain - THAT is NOT beautiful

3) If she has more hair on her armpits than you have on your back - THAT is NOT beautiful

4) If her teeth set off the airport security detector each time you want to go on vacation to Tampa Island - THAT is NOT beautiful

5) If her entire record collection consists of nothing but Britney Spears and Weird Al Yankovic - THAT is NOT beautiful

6) If when you kiss her the experience conjures up the feeling of Elephant Seals blended with expired Papa Guiseppe pizza - THAT is NOT beautiful

7) When she blends in too well at the local Agriculture show and pesters you for the same ring that the Santa Gertrudis is wearing - THAT is NOT beautiful.

I trust I've cleared that one up now.

DR PINKLINE JONES

[young e.]

beauty? it can't be measured by any measurement known to man......thats it and enough said...:)

[Nicomachus]

You could use some sort of arbitrary standard for which to quantify beauty but I think your results, on the whole, would be meaningless.
*Nico

[p-brane]

Beauty. Depending on your focus, upbringing and cultural constraints and how anal you are, beauty could be anything. I've heard people say, "beauty!" about a car accident. Go figure.

I did have a nice theory about beauty all worked out using compound curves and topographic calculus. But this punk that liked the car crash has blown the thing to ruins.

The most accurate description would be that it is a relative call that not only changes from person to person but also from second to second in each person.

Beauty.

[Nicomachus]

P-brane, well I contend it is more than that. I do not think beauty is well defined enough to be quantified or even to be specifically discussed. Of course one may arbitrarily define and quantify beauty but yes because of subjectivism and other factors I think any attempt to do this would be fool's errand as the results would be meaningless.
*Nico

[p-brane]

P-brane, well I contend it is more than that. I do not think beauty is well defined enough to be quantified or even to be specifically discussed. Of course one may arbitrarily define and quantify beauty but yes because of subjectivism and other factors I think any attempt to do this would be fool's errand as the results would be meaningless.
*Nico

That's beautiful, Nico. :uhh:

[davis]

the difficulty is how u treat each subject that your are measuring. if you consider something beautiful or pleaseant than youre actions will change towards your subject. that is the problem when you measure beauty, your actions will undoubtledly predetermine youre response.

[the number 42]

Research by Zajonc (if you know how to pronounce his name please let me know) suggests that the more we are exposed to something, the more we like it. He found this for men's faces as well as for things like Chinese-like lettering.

If we can take liking the look of something as being the thin end of the wedge for thinking it is beautiful, then:

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - if beheld repeatedly'. :confused:

[shadowman]

man, I dont know how to measure it, but it sure is beautiful isnt it? :wink:


you guys are all beautiful.. :redface:

when you are on drugs, everything is beautiful... :rofl:

wait ive figured it out!!!!!!!!!!! You meausre beauty by how much beer you've had!!!



you're all beautiful, see ya

[the number 42]

Here is something not beautiful - a bit of social Darwinism from Magro (1997):

"Why Barbie Is Beautiful. A study of a long series of hominid fossils reveals a progressive loss of some physical attributes and the acquisition of other characteristics. One wonders why evolution has been remodeling the human form in what often seem to be nonadaptive ways. A curious, superficially frivolous test may offer some insights, some of which may be profound.

Drawings and photographs showing humans with various physical traits were prepared and shown to 495 subjects, who were asked to select the most attractive characteristics.

In disfavor were: short shins, short legs, bowed legs, large and pointed canines, gums showing above the teeth, short thumbs, long palms, curved fingers, jutting jaws, short necks. These are all primitive features still seen in apes and monkeys.
Favored were: tallness, long legs, slim waists, long necks, curved red lips, large eyes, square shoulders, straight teeth, straight fingers, smooth and hairless skin, nonsloping foreheads, flat abdomens.

These are all features "derived" during evolutionary history. A look at a photograph of a Barbie doll, which accompanied the article, proves that Barbie epitomizes these favored characteristics.
Apparently, human males have been selecting their mates for these traits. The fossil record indicates this Barbie trend over millions of years. In effect, humans are selectively breeding themselves with Barbie as a goal for women".

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf118/sf118p16.htm

Bad news for girls with short thumbs & long palms :confused:

As with all social Darwinism, what's the evidence? Flimsy, and in this case blond and plastic too :rofl:

[hitssquad]

a bit of social Darwinism from Magro (1997):

"Why Barbie Is Beautiful. A study of a long series of hominid fossils reveals a progressive loss of some physical attributes and the acquisition of other characteristics. One wonders why evolution has been remodeling the human form in what often seem to be nonadaptive ways. A curious, superficially frivolous test may offer some insights, some of which may be profound.

As with all social Darwinism, what's the evidence?


Furnham, Adrian; Mistry, Disha; McClelland, Alastair. The influence of age of the face and the waist to hip ratio on judgements of female attractiveness and traits. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 36(5) Mar 2004, 1171-1185.
• •
(from the journal abstract) Various studies have established that the waist to hip ratio (WHR) influences perceptions of female attractiveness. The present study investigated the assumption that ageing of the face will exert a greater influence than WHR in ratings of female attractiveness, when WHR in females is manipulated within the normal range (0.67-0.85). In a within subjects design, 100 participants (mean age 23.4 years) rated 27 photographs on the following scales: youthfulness, attractiveness, fertility, healthiness, fecundity (likelihood of being pregnant), attractive to the opposite sex, a good mother and sexiness. The photographs had been digitally manipulated in terms of three levels of age of the face (young, middle, older: range around 20-40 years) and three levels of WHR (low, medium, high). Regressional analyses indicated that although WHR was found to have a significant influence on all the above attributes, the age of the face was found to have a greater effect. Results are interpreted in terms of age being a sexually selected trait providing potential mates with information concerning phenotypic and genetic quality.


Wade, T. Joel; Irvine, Kristin; Cooper, Marjorie. Racial characteristics and individual differences in women's evaluations of men's facial attractiveness and personality. Personality & Individual Differences. Vol 36(5) Mar 2004, 1083-1092.
• •
(from the journal abstract) Prior research investigating the perception of men's faces has not considered the hybrid nature of black and white racial characteristics. Fifteen faces ranging from "pure" black or white to "hybrid" black and white were rated in the present research. Main effects for race of face were hypothesized. Predominantly black faces were expected to receive higher ratings for dominance and gender identity characteristics. Predominantly white faces were expected to receive the highest attractiveness rating and higher ratings for nurturant and expressive characteristics. The results supported the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of parental investment theory and existing research.


Sugiyama, Lawrence S. Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 25(1) Jan 2004, 51-62.
• •
The proposition that universal standards of female beauty reflect adaptations for reproductive value assessment does not preclude cross-cultural variation that is contingent on local environmental variation. Cross-cultural tests of the hypothesis that men have adaptations generating preference for low female waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) have used stimuli that were not scaled to local conditions, and have confounded WHR with level of body fat. I present a reassessment of the WHR hypothesis, showing that when effects of WHR and body weight are less confounded, and local environmental context is taken into account, it appears that Shiwiar forager-horticulturist men of Ecuadorian Amazonia may use both WHR and body weight in assessments of female sexual attractiveness in a manner consistent with the prediction of a context-sensitive preference psychology.


Jones, B. C; Little, A. C; Feinberg, D. R; Penton-Voak, I. S; Tiddeman, B. P; Perrett, D. I. The relationship between shape symmetry and perceived skin condition in male facial attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 25(1) Jan 2004, 24-30.
• •
Studies have shown that male faces high in symmetry are judged more attractive than faces low in symmetry even in images where visual cues to facial symmetry are reduced. These findings suggest that there are correlates of facial symmetry that influence male facial attractiveness independently of symmetry itself. Apparent healthiness of facial skin is one factor that may influence male facial attractiveness and covary with facial symmetry. Here, using real and composite male faces, we found that males with symmetric faces were perceived as having healthier facial skin than males with relatively asymmetric faces (Study 1), and that facial colour and texture cues were sufficient to maintain an attractiveness-symmetry relationship when the influence of facial shape was minimised (Study 2). These findings suggest that colour and texture cues contribute to the relationship between attractiveness and symmetry in real faces.


Olby, Brian Christopher. Perceived attractiveness and personality attributes: A gender and racial analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering. Vol 63(9-B), 2003, 4420
• •
Subjects rated 12 female body shapes with respect to their physical attractiveness, and the extent to which they would be expected to possess various personality characteristics. The shapes were varied using 3 levels of overall weight and 4 levels of body shapeliness. The sample was modified to control for socioeconomic factors and results are based on 297 undergraduates from Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic racial backgrounds. Loglinear analyses revealed that men and women, regardless of racial background, rated shapely underweight females as most physically attractive, sexy, and ideal for a woman, followed by normal weight figures of similar proportion. African Americans, women in particular, judged the shapely normal weight figures more favorably than the other subjects. Multidimensional scaling and subsequent frequency analyses showed that those figures judged as most attractive, sexy, and ideal were also expected to be fairly emotionally stable, and most successful and interpersonally competitive, but least faithful, kind, and family-oriented. Overweight female shapes, while rated as least physically attractive, sexy, and emotionally stable, were expected to be most family-oriented, kind, and faithful. Shapely normal weight figures were judged to be attractive and sexy, and were assumed to possess a moderate amount of the personality traits in question. The results suggest that Caucasian and Hispanic subjects prefer shapely underweight women, while African Americans, particularly women, find shapely underweight and shapely normal weight women to be physically appealing. African American women also rate shapely normal weight women favorably with respect to personality traits. This perceptual difference may help inoculate them from developing eating disturbances and account for the low prevalence rate of eating disorders in African Americans compared to women of other racial backgrounds. It is suggested that future research identify those beliefs, values or behaviors that seem to inoculate African American women from developing eating disorders. Once identified, mental health professionals may facilitate their development in those women who are likely to have eating problems.


Johnston, Victor S. Female facial beauty: The fertility hypothesis. Pragmatics & Cognition. Vol 8(1) 2000, 107-122.
• •
Notes that prior research on facial beauty has suggested that the average female face in a population is perceived to be the most attractive face. The author argues that this finding, however is based on an image processing methodology that appears to be flawed. An alternative method for generating attractive faces is described and the findings using this procedure are compared with the reports of other experimenters. The results suggest that (1) beautiful female faces are not average, but vary from the average in a systematic manner and (2) female beauty can best be explained by a sexual selection viewpoint, whereby selection favors cues that are reliable indicators of fertility.


Soler, C; Nunez, M; Gutierrez, R; Nunez, J; Medina, P; Sancho, M; Alvarez, J; Nunez, A. Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 24(3) May 2003, 199-207.
• •
Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

[hitssquad]

Van Duuren, Mike; Kendell-Scott, Linda; Stark, Natalie. Early aesthetic choices: Infant preferences for attractive premature infant faces. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Vol 27(3) May 2003, 212-219.
• •
Previous studies have shown that when newborn and young infants are shown attractive and unattractive adult faces they will look longer at the attractive faces. Three studies with infants ranging from 5 months to 15 months were conducted to examine whether this attractiveness effect holds for infants looking at infant faces. A standard preferential looking technique was used in which infants were shown pairs of colour slides of upright (Experiments 1 and 2, n = 16) or inverted (Experiment 3, n = 16) infant faces previously rated by adults for attractiveness. Although Experiment 1 did not reveal an attractiveness effect, this effect did become manifest in Experiment 2 after increasing stimulus exposure time and replacing three of the original stimulus faces. The attractiveness effect was lost when faces were presented upside down. Findings are discussed in relation to the feature-based vs. configural processing debate in the face processing literature and in relation to the notion that attractiveness is based on presexual maturity rather than "cuteness".


Wade, T. Joel. Evolutionary theory and African American self-perception: Sex differences in body-esteem predictors of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem. Journal of Black Psychology. Vol 29(2) May 2003, 123-141.
• •
Evolutionary biological theory has been shown to be relevant to an understanding of how individuals assess others' physical and sexual attractiveness. This research used the Body-Esteem Scale and multiple regression to determine if this theory is also relevant to an understanding of self-perceived physical and sexual attractiveness and self-esteem for a sample of 9l African Americans (aged 18-39 yrs). The hypotheses that regression models of physical and sexual attractiveness would differ within and across sex groups and that models of self-esteem would differ across sex groups in accordance with evolutionary theory were supported. Attributes (if the body related to fecundity and successful mothering characteristics predicted for women and attributes of the body related to strength and dominance predicted for men. In addition, attributes of the body dealing with sexual maturity were stronger predictors of sexual attractiveness for women. This research indicates that evolutionary biological theory can provide relevant insight for an understanding of self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem for African Americans.


Streeter, Sybil A; McBurney, Donald H. Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of a "critical test". Evolution & Human Behavior. Vol 24(2) Mar 2003, 88-98.
• •
An evolutionary model of mate choice predicts that humans should prefer honest signals of health, youth, and fertility in potential mates. D. Singh and others have amassed substantial evidence that the waist-hip ratio (WHR) in women is an accurate indicator of these attributes, and proposed that men respond to WHR as an attractiveness cue. In response to a recent study by L. G. Tassinary and K. A. Hansen (1998) that purports to disconfirm D. Singh's hypothesis, we present evidence showing a clear relationship between WHR and evaluations of attractiveness. We evaluated responses of 95 undergraduate students to a range of waist, hip, and chest sizes, spanning the 1st through 99th percentiles of anthropometric data. Waist, hip, and chest sizes were altered independently to give WHRs of 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.9, and 1.2. We replaced line drawings with more realistic computer-manipulated photographs. The preferred WHR was 0.7, concordant with the majority of previous results. By asking participants to estimate weight in each stimulus figure, we were able to statistically control for the effects of weight on attractiveness judgments; the effect of WHR remained.


Ishi, Hanae; Gyoba, Jiro. Analyses of psychological aspects of attractiveness in feminized and juvenilized Japanese faces. Tohoku Psychologica Folia. Vol 60 2001, 29-34.
• •
Averaged Japanese faces were quantitatively transformed into feminized or juvenilized faces by morphing. Fifty-six university students (28 males and 28 females) evaluated the facial attractiveness, and the attractiveness score was compared between the feminized and the juvenilized faces. As a result, for female faces we found that juvenilization was preferred to feminization, while the optimal transformation ratio producing high attractiveness was limited to a narrower range for feminization than for juvenilization. However, there was no large difference between the juvenilized and the feminized faces in male attractiveness. Thus, the present study indicates that feminization and juvenilization have different psychological effects on the attractiveness of female faces in spite of the similarity between the average young adult female face and child face. In contrast, juvenilization and feminization have the same effect on the attractiveness of male faces, while male faces are largely different from female and child faces in both physical and psychological aspects.


Dixson, Alan F; Halliwell, Gayle; East, Rebecca; Wignarajah, Praveen; Anderson, Matthew J. Masculine somatotype and hirsuteness as determinants of sexual attractiveness to women. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol 32(1) Feb 2003, 29-39.
• •
Five questionnaire studies asked 685 women to rate the attractiveness of outline drawings of male figures that varied in somatotype, body proportions, symmetry, and in distribution of trunk hair. In Study 1, back-posed figures of mesomorphic (muscular) somatotypes were rated as most attractive, followed by average, ectomorphic (slim), and endomorphic (heavily built) figures. In Study 2, computer morphing of somatotypes to produce an intergraded series resulted in a graded response in terms of perceived attractiveness which mirrored the findings of Study 1. In Study 3, back-posed figures were manipulated in order to change waist-to-hip ratios and waist-to-shoulder ratios. In Study 4, symmetric figures of a mesomorphic somatotype were rated as less attractive than a normal version of the same man. Study 5 showed that presence of trunk hair had a marked, positive effect upon women's ratings of attractiveness for both mesomorphic and endomorphic male figures. Women also judged figures with trunk hair as being older and they consistently rated endomorphic figures as being older than mesomorphs. These results are consistent with effects of sexual selection upon visual signals that advertise health, physical prowess, age, and underlying endocrine condition in the human male.


Konecni, Vladimir J; Cline, Laney E. The 'golden woman': An exploratory study of women's proportions in paintings. Visual Arts Research. Vol 27(2,Issue54) 2001, 69-78.
• •
Examined painters' use of the golden section, that is, the ratio 0.618-to-1, and other proportions when depicting females. 28 female figures painted during the period 1900-1967 were examined concerning the facial ratios of cheekbone width over face length and bi-section at eyebrows, and the body ratios of bisection at the navel and waist to hip. 81 university students (mean ages 21.1 yrs - 23.6 yrs) assessed the age and physical attractiveness of the portrayed females. Results show a strong attractiveness bias in favor of younger female figures. The most attractive figures differed significantly from others in that there was significantly less variability in 3 of the 4 examined ratios. Both the ratios of cheekbone width over face length and the bi-section at the navel were, in line with classical ideals, at the golden section for the most attractive figures, which also displayed significantly less waist-to-hip variability than the rest of the sample. Findings suggest that painting may act as intuitive transmitters of the accumulated cultural wisdom regarding females' proportions, attractiveness, health, and reproductive fitness.

[the number 42]

Findings suggest that painting may act as intuitive transmitters of the accumulated cultural wisdom regarding females' proportions, attractiveness, health, and reproductive fitness.

Apparently, human males have been selecting their mates for these traits

Nice try, hitsquad. However, the fact that people of many cultures and throughout history have seen characters in the constellations doesn't mean that Orion, the Ursas, Daffy etc are really there.

It may well be true that guys have been unconsiously selecting for Barbie for a long time (and presumably gals select for Ken), but all the abstracts in the world aint gonna prove it. All we end up with is a lot of circumstantial evidence, not a shred of causal evidence. That's what I mean by 'flimsy'.

[p-brane]

Landfills are beautiful too.

[shonagon53]

i wonderede whether beauty could be quantified...


There are numerous attempts by sociologists. They're pretty straightforward. And they all show that beauty is a social construction, as everything else is. (At least if you agree with their basic assumption that something like class and social identity does in fact exist). But then you're only measuring "beauty as a social construction". So this is all quite tautological.

If you say that beauty is a purely subjective perception, then you say beauty is a purely subjective perception. Rather tautological too.

You can quantify beauty if you want to quantify it.

All pretty boring, if you ask me :-)

[the number 42]

There are numerous attempts by sociologists. They're pretty straightforward. And they all show that beauty is a social construction, as everything else is.

If you ask a sociologist about beauty, they may well say its a social construction. If you ask a biologist, they may say its genetic. Ask a painter, they might say its about light and shade. All of these, including biology, can be seen as part of the 'construction' of beauty.

Of course on a personal level, this is purely academic. If I think something is beautiful then I like it whether a sociologist agrees or not. But if we were to consider that beauty consists of some quality beyond the subjective... then we have to agree that it is possible that sometimes when we think a thing is beautiful, we are wrong.

[Mentat]

What if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" just means that beauty has no meaning, aside from the effect it has on the beholder? I think Monique mentioned this possibility on the first page of this thread.

It's not that something is beautiful because it has this effect, since that still leaves it as an objective phenomenon (albeit, one with a purely subjective effect...the cause is still objective, and thus quantifiable). No, it is that the effect itself -- caused by whatever source, for whatever reason -- is beauty. Note: The effect itself is not beautiful, it is beauty. "Beautiful" would come to mean "having the ability to make one experience beauty", which is not very different from the typical definition of it anyway, is it?

In this case, everything is beautiful (assuming that everything has the ability to make at least one person experience "beauty"), and how beautiful something is is simply a measure of how potent the experience is for the beholder.

[odersven]

....

so many words for what you cant put a finger on.

Mentat basically has it. You must remember that all things have been created from a source (not metaphyisically or anything, they simply are, and do change) and that these things exist objectively since they were created. And yet, produce a subjective effect. That is the paradox in rational terminology.

There is no value to this - when you try and generalize the characteristics of beauty to a is or is not divide, you will not be able to see or understand it until you loose your definition.

[the number 42]

....these things exist objectively since they were created. And yet, produce a subjective effect. That is the paradox in rational terminology.

Alcohol exists objectively, and we could argue that it affects each person differently. But it affects people in a more similiar way (e.g. slower reflexes, falling over) in general terms, than a drink like milk or a drink like water i.e. it is catergorically and objectively different. Within that category, alcohol comes in a variety of strengths.

Are 'beautiful' things of a different category than 'drab' things?
Are there degrees of beauty?
If strength of booze is in the gut of the drinker, can you drink a bottle of scotch and be sober?
And finally, if beauty be the booze of love, where's the bar?!

[odersven]

that was my point. Beauty in relation to anything is specialized and you cannot formulate a generality to condition beauty.

In plot form, you would have drab as the opposite of beauty. Yet, that would mean that whatever was beautiful to some degree could be defined by its corresponding relation to drab. This is the whole good vs evil argument. If something is not entirely good, or as good as something else, then it is composed of some evil. It is a stupid argument. So, I would say there is no degree to beauty because beauty is not a moral vice, it transgresses it.

When you observe (not experience) something in an analytical manner and try and measure the "beauty" of something, you are automatically objectifying what you are observing and cannot experience the beauty is presents because beauty is a subjective reaction of the experienced.

Analytical anything cannot translate emotions. That is why you would automatically fail in your attempt to quantitize beauty.

There is no definite now, only what is plausible. You cannot know where an electron will be all the time, and you cannot know the character of beauty all the time.

[shonagon53]

Here's a famous and interesting sociological exercise in measuring "beauty" as it exists as a social fact.

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" has been translated as "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674212770/qid=1089158300/sr=8-5/ref=pd_ka_5/102-7401152-7477721?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


It's probably the most thorough and most quoted work on beauty in the social sciences and in psychology. In 1998, the work was voted by members of the International Sociological Association to be the third most important sociological treatise of the 20th century. Whatever that means...

Just for your information. :-)



[I know this is not an argument, but sometimes info should suffice. I just think the matter is too complex to be discussed on a message board.]

[the number 42]

... you would have drab as the opposite of beauty. Yet, that would mean that whatever was beautiful to some degree could be defined by its corresponding relation to drab. This is the whole good vs evil argument. If something is not entirely good, or as good as something else, then it is composed of some evil. It is a stupid argument. So, I would say there is no degree to beauty because beauty is not a moral vice, it transgresses it.

Perhaps beauty is qualitatively different to drab i.e. they exist not on a dimension, but as separate categories, as much as things can be considered separate. And that one is not good nor the other evil. Drab is evil? I need to exorcise my wardrobe! I think we can fairly leave good vs evil arguments well alone.

Even if we can't percieve it objectively in all its wonder - as we filter everything through our limited senses - perhaps it does exist out there, in the real world. But if you are suggesting that we cannot measure beauty, and that's all there is too it, then we have come to the end of an otherwise interesting thread.

And thanks for the reference, but I hope I don't have to buy a book to have a discussion on Physics Forums - I'd be broke within a week :biggrin:

[THANOS]

There are many differnt kinds of beauty. A friend once told me beauty exist for our survival. So i thought more on that and agreed. What we see as beautiful will most likly be preserved and treasured. Like gold, diamonds, roses, cats, dogs, nature, babies of all types of animals and humans. Mating is a part of survial also and we all have differnt personalitys so it makes sense that our sense of beauty may differ also. Humans don't need to fight over mates like animals altough some do. Humans are more likly to find thier mate by enojying thier personality and/or looks.

[shonagon53]

And thanks for the reference, but I hope I don't have to buy a book to have a discussion on Physics Forums - I'd be broke within a week :biggrin:

It's called a library card. :biggrin:

[wtfc]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

Why does the west always get into such things. Just relax and enjoy ! Why do u have to measure anything like beauty.
Catterpillar turns into a butterfly. If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

[shonagon53]

Why does the west always get into such things. Just relax and enjoy ! Why do u have to measure anything like beauty.
Catterpillar turns into a butterfly. If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

You do have a point about the West's obsession with measuring everything. This morning I received not less than 4 e-mails promising me an easy and cheap way of adding at least 2 inches there where Western man thinks it's important!
One of the e-mails included a detailed chart showing the different sizes of different races. It was called "Size Matters. Don't make your girlfriend go black. She'll never come back!"

You truly have a point.

[Philocrat]

Beauty has only one definition......

It is an ability to overcome, or raise oneself above, all causal and relational laws of nature!

[the number 42]

If a catterpillar was not beautiful, how would butterfly trun out to be beautiful.

Is potential for beauty the same as beauty? Is potential for intelligence (foetus) the same as possessing intelligence (adult boffin)?

I've got to be honest, wtfc; if you honestly think - on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level - that a maggot is equal in beauty to a butterfly, I would be very hestitant to see how you decorate your living room. :uhh:

[marcus]

Here's a famous and interesting sociological exercise in measuring "beauty" as it exists as a social fact.

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" has been translated as "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste".


... the matter is too complex to be discussed on a message board.]

Hello shonagon
thanks for the title
I went to amazon with your link and read about 10 pages for free

it is certainly a book worth looking at
if one is interested in taste and what underlies it

personally i believe there is a component of the sense of beauty which is genetically programmed because it has evolved
and that there are some survival/reproductive success things connected to being able to spot beauty almost reflexively---without rational or verbal process

of course much much much of one's taste is learned and even trained into one----and undoubtably correlates as Bourdieu says with social class (but I am interested in the evolved/genetically programmed substrate of it, which I think is there before training)

early on in this thread I have tried to introspect and express some of this about the sense of beauty

(sense of beauty seems operationally definable to me, but the abstract idea of "beauty" not so definable or only secondarily definable)

[young e.]

Well the term "MEASURE" lexically mean "...to regulate by a standard..." so i think that if this topic would be the case the closest posibble method is first we must set a certain reference point or a DATUM then set a standard and then postulate a unit of beauty. It is very hard for us to measure something (in this case beauty) in which we dont know where to refer or what is the regulating standard. Then if this requisites could not be satisfied then there would not be any possibility that BEAUTY could be measured--- and thence we could let out the term "BEAUTY" in the world of measurement and just consider it as just a psychological matter on how we evaluate certain things around us........

***KHOULSZZSZ***

[shonagon53]

personally i believe there is a component of the sense of beauty which is genetically programmed because it has evolved
and that there are some survival/reproductive success things connected to being able to spot beauty almost reflexively---without rational or verbal process

(but I am interested in the evolved/genetically programmed substrate of it, which I think is there before training)

(sense of beauty seems operationally definable to me, but the abstract idea of "beauty" not so definable or only secondarily definable)

Fully agree here. It's just a matter of what interests the researcher most.
I think that for all "cultural" matters, there can be a fundamental "evolutionary" or socio-biological explanation or at least an explanation referring to "subconscious" and non-reflective dynamics.

But then you're saying very universal things: being able to spot beauty serves survival; being able to smell bad things is necessary to spot out bad food and recognize people, etc...

These things are often so universal that they tend to become almost devoid of meaning (all people in all cultures eat food in order to survive).

My interest simply goes out more to how different groups have built different strategies of "organizing" beauty as a social construct. And how "beauty" can be used as a tool to distinguish groups and create boundaries between them.

I know this can be considered to be merely "the surface" on a deep layer of evolutionary processes. Although I think both lines of thought aren't mutually exclusive: distinguishing groups and forging group cohesion (through marks of identity, and culture in general -- which includes notions of beauty), are crucial for the survival of any group.

[shonagon53]

I've got to be honest, wtfc; if you honestly think - on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level - that a maggot is equal in beauty to a butterfly, I would be very hestitant to see how you decorate your living room. :uhh:


See, that's interesting. In this kind of debates, it's always interesting to refer to food preferences in different cultures. You simply can't imagine to eat dogs, horses or insects. And still, billions of people do it every day. And they simply can't imagine you to eat such disgusting things like pigs.

Again, everything from which you don't die when you eat it, can be considered to be "food". But if you say that, you say nothing. The interesting things begin when you start to look at why certain groups eat certain things, and how they use these food habits to distinguish themselves from other groups.

That's my dissatisfaction with mere socio-biological or evolutionary explanations of many things we humans do. We all eat. But that's too basic. That way you state the obvious. To me, socio-biology is often the science of stating the obvious.

[marcus]

Fully agree here. It's just a matter of what interests the researcher most.
I think that for all "cultural" matters, there can be a fundamental "evolutionary" or socio-biological...

My interest simply goes out more to how different groups have built different strategies of "organizing" beauty as a social construct. And how "beauty" can be used as a tool to distinguish groups and create boundaries between them.
....

you seem to have the discussion well in hand.
I can come in and read a smattering of posts only sporadically
and so cannot contribute much to discussion

I thought Bourdieu was real interesting and hadnt seen it before

Alas, Bourdieu research was with French of 1960s
a culture and society no longer existing
all local cultures are being smashed by globalization
and some traditional people are angry

a friend of mine was invited to a conference about the book "Jihad and McWorld" and spoke with the author. It was a troubling experience and she did not seem entirely happy afterwards.

I love certain mathematics and certain circa 1800 vienna-type choral music.
If a Mullah who liked those things would come, maybe, in desperation, I would join a traditionalist group. We would have a rule against broadcast TV and rightwing Talkshows.

I normally decline to be objective about cultural values
(to do the kind of sociological study that interests you, it may be
necessary to make at least a show of objectivity)

I believe in the reality of beauty
I think the human mind has evolved
and it has evolved with an ability to have a sense of beauty
(the details do not matter to me. it does not matter if
some people love pig-stew and others love cow-stew
as long as they LOVE the food they eat and care about making it delicious)
the differences do not matter and they are sociological
accidents but somehow the human brain has evolved
an ability to thoroughly enjoy singing contrapuntal
4-part sacred choral music from 1750-1850

or 1950 new Jersey doo-wop

or the Paean to Apollo that Xenophon's soldiers sang when they
had to fight the hill-people of the Anabasis.

the amazing thing, the miracle, is that the mind should have
this love of music in the first place

and so on

and the stars

and screw the rest

(so as I say my particpation is extremely sporadic but I think
to discuss beauty and the sense of beauty is to discuss what is
absolutely the most important most essential thing)

[the number 42]

You simply can't imagine to eat dogs, horses or insects. And still, billions of people do it every day. And they simply can't imagine you to eat such disgusting things like pigs.

Again, everything from which you don't die when you eat it, can be considered to be "food".

Yes, we all eat food, from bugs to other people. And there are individual and cultural differences in what is preferred. Yet all of this stuff is 'food'. But apart from sideshows, people don't eat glass or metal. A categorical distinction can be made between 'food' and 'non-food'. And I am suggesting that some things can be considered 'pleasing to the eye' (beauty), and others 'unpleasing to the eye'. Of course there are individual and cultural variations, but only the severely disturbed can look at a car wreck or a mutilation and consider it 'beautiful'.

[0TheSwerve0]

Can someone be sexually attractive yet have minimal beauty? Are beauty and attractiveness different? I guess it depends on whether you're talking about humans or just objects and images in general.

[The Bob]

Anything can be beautiful if you look at it in the right way.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[0TheSwerve0]

You mean when you're on drugs, right? In that case it would also depend on your mood. Plus, when you're drunk, a lot of people look beautiful/attractive that would not suit you on other occasions.

[Dayle Record]

There is a lot of beauty here, this group creates it, free.

http://www.phidelity.com/cms2/index.php?set_albumName=album55&id=DSCF0449&option=com_gallery&Itemid=72&include=view_photo.php

[reilly]

A
Question: Why is the chord C#, F#, B, Eb, F#, Bb, much, much better than C#, F#, C, Eb, G, Bb ?

Here are some more bad chords: C#, F, C, Eb, F#, Bb, ....or this one.... D, F#, B, Eb, F, C
Here are some more good chords: C (in the bass followed by) Bb C D F G and A .... or: C Bb C# E G and A



Chords are good or bad depending on their context, how they are voiced, and how they are used -- in fast passages, or slow ones, how are they resolved etc. Your first example of a "bad" chord, could be used effectively in arpeggiated form -- you can hear dissonances like this in Charles Ive's works.I'm not so sure it's necessarily bad.

Actually, your next two "bad" chords are used in jazz music. The C# F C... can be thought of as a C# major 7 with an Eb minor on top, something you can find in Herbie Hancock's music. The D, F# etc is a D dominant 7 with a flat nine (Eb), a sharp 9(F) and a 13th(B) -- putting a natural 13th with flat/sharp ninths is somewhat unusual, but you can certainly hear it in Thelonius Monk's music.

It all depends.

As far as measuring beauty or other highly subjective matters, statisticians have developed some powerful techniques generally known as perceptual mapping and multidimensional scaling. They are often used in marketing -- largely developed at the University of Pennsylvania -- to get at such questions as how to balance sweetness vs. packaging -- the red or the blue -- and price -- and. Or, they have been used, sometime ago to find the characteristics of the "ideal" political candidate. The techniques are highly sophisticated and very mathematical, and, generally work with appropriate survey data.They are used fairly widely in market research, often with considerable success.

Years ago, I and some colleagues applied multidimensional scaling to see if we could discern what made a pop hit, and to learn how to use the technique. As best as I can remember, "the beat" was primary, and I don't recall what else.

But, these techniques could be use to try to measure beauty, and probably have been so used. This stuff is for real. Do a GOOGLE if you want to learn more.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

[Billy T]

I have only read a few recent posts so repeating, i apologize, but some may be interested in the following fact:

If many people of one sex selected at random have photos taken of their faces and these photos are the data base shown to many other people (usually only of the opposite sex, in most such psychological tests) and they rate the "beauty" of the faces, one that always rates very high is not any of the original photos, but a computer generated image that is effectively the average of the entire data base.

I think about this demonstrated result in the following terms: Cows are very different from humans (my group :smile: ) and none appear particularly beautiful to me. They differ in appearance too much from my group. Likewise any face that differs greatly from the average of all faces I see will be "ugly" (mouth not centered under the nose, etc.)

Conversely a face which is very typical will never be considered "ugly" so when its scores are added up in the test, it will rate well above average, if not "highly". Each individual making ratings of the faces will rarely select the same face as "most beautiful" (once mass culture effects are removed - no recognizable "models" in the data set etc.).

If the rating group is segregated in to different ethic groups during the data analysis, their set of highly rated faces will tend to have characteristic of their ethnic group.

Not much surprizing in all this, but in some sense, beauty is like I have seen often and never far from the average.

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Two words:

Beauty is relative. :biggrin: :tongue: :biggrin:

[Gale]

heh, i think i'd forgotten about this thread... lots of replies. thanks...

But really, i think people are focussing on people mostly. I'm really curious how it is that we all seem to be able to really appreciate rainbows or the stars. is it intrinsic? A lot of things in nature are generally agreed upon to be beautiful.

But anyways, i liked the thing about how when you look at something longer, it becomes more beautiful. I find that true in personal experience at least. Perhaps everything is beautiful then, but somethings take more time to appreciate? Also, about beauty being what is average... i think thats sort of true as well. At least perhaps, the most easily appreciated beauty tend to be most normal.

[dextercioby]

I think there's a ****load amount of nonsensical speculation in this thread...:yuck:

Daniel.

P.S.Ooops,it's in the phylosophy forum.It think that figures...:rolleyes:

[Loren Booda]

Billy Tand they rate the "beauty" of the faces, one that always rates very high is not any of the original photos, but a computer generated image that is effectively the average of the entire data base. A virtual digital inbreeding!

[fuzzyfelt]

Kant measured beauty something along these lines- from prettyness through to sublime, and the sublime is percieved by the emotions it arouses of inadequacy and morality, negative emotions that when we realise we are actually the same as ever, we feel relief and joy.
I think the german idealists were the last to take this sort of study of beauty seriously- rather than as a call to justice, I remain pretty inadequate and immoral despite having this feeling quite a lot, and their ideals of attaining a notion of universal beauty were replaced (Adorno) by admittion of individual suffering- I think.

[SpaceTiger]

I think there's a ****load amount of nonsensical speculation in this thread...:yuck:

P.S.Ooops,it's in the phylosophy forum.It think that figures...:rolleyes:

Actually, I think this is one of those areas in which philosophy has rather serious practical implications. The way we view beauty will likely impact the way we approach many problems in our political, personal, and even scientific lives. And, of course, our view of beauty will influence that of others.

In our personal lives, the implications are obvious. If we want long-term happiness, should we focus primarily on superficial biological drivers, like physical appearance, or should we be looking for something deeper? I'm pretty curious about the answer to that question myself.

In the political realm, think of the current question of gay rights. Our cultural conception of the "beauty" behind a gay relationship will undoubtedly impact the decision we make about its legality.

Finally, there are many books on how scientists view the "beauty" of their work and how it impacts their opinions about new theories. I think most scientists would agree that relativity is a "beautiful" theory and they will likely use it as a standard for comparison to new ones. Why do they view it this way and is it really appropriate for them to do so?

It's my opinion that everybody should be at least a part-time philosopher because it's their responsibility to understand the guts of what they've devoted their lives to doing, whatever it may be. In particular, ethics are crucial. I think every physicist, in order to earn a Ph.D., should be required to have thought about potential ethical consequences of their work. In particular, we should all be thinking hard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Kant measured beauty something along these lines- from prettyness through to sublime, and the sublime is percieved by the emotions it arouses of inadequacy and morality, negative emotions that when we realise we are actually the same as ever, we feel relief and joy.
I think the german idealists were the last to take this sort of study of beauty seriously- rather than as a call to justice, I remain pretty inadequate and immoral despite having this feeling quite a lot, and their ideals of attaining a notion of universal beauty were replaced (Adorno) by admittion of individual suffering- I think.

Jaspers thought much like Kant, but beleived that it wasn't the subleme. but he did think the rest.

[fuzzyfelt]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

[Huckleberry]

"You can monitor someone's reaction, when sitting in a monitored environment, and relate that to perceived beauty. Dilatation of the pupil, sweating, smiling, maybe certain brain patterns."

If you really want to gague reaction to beauty, at least in men, there's a pretty obvious thing you can monitor that you left out...

Actually they have a device to measure stimulation in women as well. It looks like a tube with a little light in it that measures the flow of blood... well, you can guess the rest. I saw it on a show a few weeks ago. I believe it was called "Anatomy of Sex".

There have been studies done on what people find beautiful. It seems that we are generally attracted to overall symmetry. Ofcourse, the statistics only work over a large population. Individuals still refuse to cooperate. :rofl:

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

That's interesting, Guille, I wasn't aware there was much existential dealing with beauty, may I have some more information to look it up? Is it to do with his transcendental cyphers?

Actually I don't have more info now. I will have it further in time, after reading more about Jaspers, its because I'm reading right now some of his lectures and, I mean, he didn't speak much about beauty, only a little, but didn't dedicate time to it. When he mentions beauty he doesn't speak about existence, well, now I just find something: "the nearest an object gets to the encompassing, the more it shows itself and how it is, and the reality of it's appearence creates increasingly more douptfullnes about it's beauty" and more things............I do know that Kant and Kierkegaard were the most inportant philosofers in Jaspers............ haven't reach any place were he talks about "trascendental cyphers". When I get to know more, I will post it

[Huckleberry]

well again, i suppose i rather think of people as sort of exceptions, and i really don't mean human beauty. what makes certain flowers beautiful? or paths? or things like that. i don't have an opinion yet on forms, but if such things were true, then it'd seem that it'd make sence that beauty could be based on somethings resemblance of a form. Perhaps forms have more aspects than even just physical ones. I'm not even sure what the textbook definition of forms would be.

and as far as socrates being a saint... pfft...

I would say that beauty depends entirely on a persons aesthetic values. When a person looks at something and it pleases them then it is beautiful. One person could look at a flower and think it beautiful because it fits into some symbolic image they have of what the world should be. Another person might step carelessly all over your petunias without a second though because flowers have no signifigance in their personal ideology.

Ancient greeks had a thing similar to this concept. Hmm, what was it called? I think they called it archetypes. An archetype was a perfect example of whatever it represented. These things could not exist in reality because they were just so perfect. So somewhere there was a perfect chair that exemplified every idea of what a chair should be. Substitute chair with whatever you like and you got the idea.

The concept of beauty is connected to the concepts of good and evil.

What was the question again?
Huck

[Telos]

If my girlfriend thinks a flower is beautiful, and I don't, is it because she is equipped with special sensors to "see the beauty," and I am not? Or perhaps, I have not opened my beauty sensors sufficiently?

Lots of Buddhist and Hindu traditions stress that it is possible to "see the beauty" in rocks and in the face of your enemy, etc... in everything, because it's everywhere. I guess the Christians say the same, for the kingdom of heaven is everywhere, and all that.

So, it's up to you. You bend and twist your mind through meditation in order to think that everything is beautiful, putting on your "beauty glasses" as it were, or you can go the western route and either follow the social fashions or explore your own uncertain subconscious recreations.

Whatever you do, I guess one thing is for certain - it's not advisable to go through life thinking nothing is beautiful.

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks, Guille, I will keep a look out for your post. Its a nice thought that there is something more to beauty, that Plato, Kant, Jaspers may share. Would be nice to think there was something in it.

[lawtonfogle]

one word i know will answer the question--- postmoderism ---

it is when a society has no set absolute truth, one thing may appear to one person one way, and to another another way.

in my opion, everyone should see themselves as beutiful, and if they do not, it is due to believing someone telling them they are not. And if eveyone can see themselves as beutiful, then everyone is beutiful.

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if im not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

[Huckleberry]

And to end,
Huckleberry, you need to watch more family movies.
Just from the title i can tell it must be dirty,
and that is one reason why people think
'if im not caught, then what i do is not illeagal'

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Do I really want to know?

[lawtonfogle]

ok, from the title, the movie sounds like something i would not watch at home, school, or church. It sounds like a NR-Mature rated, or at least a R rating.

At school, many people who break the law, form speeding to doing drugs, say they are not breaking the law because they have not been caught. In other words, what i do is fine and not wrong unless im caught, is how they think. An R-rated movie is not something that will change this. It encourages this, some R-rated movies say sex out side of marriage is ok. Others say killing someone is ok. And even if the bad guy is punished in the end, there always seems to be someone who is killed or hurt. If you like watching this watch the news. (which i think should become R-rated because of the things they show.)

Anyways, i looked up a family friendly reveiw of the movie, and it is something that i think should be a crime to film. You can do something better with your time than this. Try watching the Sci channel.

[lawtonfogle]

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Do I really want to know?

What i mean is not something nasty. I am a Christian and not one of those hipporcrits ones people seem to stereotype nowa days.

[Huckleberry]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't mention any movies. I mentioned a show, and it was a scientific show measuring sexual stimulation, which is related to physical beauty. I think we are talking about two entirely different things here.

[lawtonfogle]

well, i did not see the show, and what i heard about it said it was sexual show

i thought it meant a movie, like lord of the rings, sherk, ect.
which led me to think it was something like a waterdown playboy show

sorry, i just know it is something i do not need to watch.

anything on that subject ill learn when i get married, besides for what your parents tell you

[nmondal]

It is about feeling, it is about golden ratio as somebody says....
I believe it is a Vector/Tensor of requirement....
:biggrin:
Here is the link I wanted to share:--
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/humanface/articles/mask.html
So, ask the comp guys write a program...that is it, and you are done...
Even if you want, build own mask based upon requirement...it is all in the face-space.
:rolleyes:

[Myriad209]

I don't think anybody mentioned anything about this, but... symmetries in nature are naturally beautiful.

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I don't think anybody mentioned anything about this, but... symmetries in nature are naturally beautiful.

good point, simetry is very important.

I my self, devide beauty in two parts: natural beauty and relative beauty.

What I call relative beauty may be what others call "artificial" beauty. But the problem is that I think that everything artificial is natural.

Well, natural beauty is normally agreeed between the "graders" of it. It is very dificult to etect, because nature does the most dificult work to hide it, so that only the wisests get to find it. This beauty is basicly based on simetry.

Whiles there is the other beauty, relative beauty. This beauty is said to be artificial, but not always it is like that, and I'm not talking only about human, but everything. This beauty is compeltely relative, and is based on the actual appearance in reality of the object. It is what everything is "supposed" to be. You may see a bird that may look cute, but is in fact a hoorribly ugly one.

[Loren Booda]

Relative beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[d880640]

http://www.seankernan.com/html/articles/thegood.html

[mrfeathers]

of course true beauty cannot be defined, it can however be defined by a society. In the middle ages, beauty was defined by weight, the richer you were, the fatter you were, the more beautiful you are. However in our current society, fat people are more or less looked down on when it comes to beauty. However it can be defined socially because in either society, if you had an arm growing out of your head, your not beautiful. beauty is purely judgemental

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder....

everyone has their own definition of beauty causing them to react to different qualities as beauty.... but then a again... a pretty face is called beautiful, even if the heart is ugly....

[0TheSwerve0]

Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture? I remember someone saying consumption (Pulmonary tuberculosis) or some sickness was romanticized and thus waifishness became the ideal of beauty. It seems like wanting to be thin would come from a number of sources

- Western thinkers' ideas about beauty, virtue, and grace and what kind of body possesses these (ties back to ideas of control and linearity)
- Christian ideas about gluttony
- Racism and the idea that "primitive" peoples are larger and ungainly (whether due to muscle or fat) and that more evolved peoples will look smaller, thinner, and hence more graceful (and I'm not agreeing with this).
- Western dualism and the division of the sexes (women idealized for looking as non-"male" as possible, influenced by what we perceive to be male)

We don't see this ideal in all cultures, so where did it come from in ours?

[0TheSwerve0]

Also, not sure if this study (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/male_facial_beauty.htm)was mentioned, but there was a study on facial attractiveness in both sexes. Turns out people preferred feminine looking faces for both sexes. I'm not sure the study really got at sexual attraction, but it would make sense that feminized faces are more appealing since they would look less threatening.
Some interesting findings:
Interestingly, when people were rating the faces of their own ethnic group, they liked an even greater degree of feminization of both male and female faces than when they were ranking the faces of a different ethnic group....
The scientific study of beauty is rife with mysteries and contradictions. A number of reports have demonstrated that a composite face is usually deemed more attractive than any one particular face -- that is, a consolidated image of 60 people is voted more attractive than is the image of most of the individual members. The classic evolutionary explanation for the triumph of the norm is that an average-looking person conveys a comforting familiarity, and is unlikely to harbor any unusual genetic mutations.
Yet the exaggerated pretty face has been shown to be favored over the average. If the faces of the 15 people rated as most attractive of the original pool of 60 are merged into a composite image, that averaged face outranks the first composite.
And if the features of the top-15 composite are then pushed to extremes, by raising and emphasizing the cheekbones, for example, the image is reckoned more beautiful still.

Also from this study, but written about elsewhere (http://html.channel3000.com/sh/health/conditionsaz/news-health-990623-181600.html):
For Japanese and white faces, the women preferred faces that were on average about 20 percent and 15 percent feminized, respectively, when they were least likely to become pregnant.
When they were most likely to become pregnant, the women preferred faces that were only about 8 percent feminized for both groups of images.

In another study (http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/beauty.html):
"We found that that there definitely was a type of adult female face that men found attractive and that it was different from the average face," says Johnston. "The two key measurements are the distance from the eyes to the chin, which is shorter - in fact it is the length normally found in a girl aged eleven and a half; and the size of the lips, which are fatter - the size normally found on a fourteen-year-old girl". The Kate Moss view seems to be confirmed, but where does that leave actress Sigourney Weaver as an example of an attractive mature face, for instance?
Johnstone came to these conclusions by running a computer program that tried to mimic the process of evolution. Faces randomly selected by the computer were rated according to attractiveness by volunteers, and the most attractive were combined to breed a second generation of faces, continuing the process on to third and fourth generation,and so on. Gradually a shorter,full - lipped face took over. But Johnstone doesn't believe that the reason for its success was that it triggered protective feelings. "Although the features are juvenile, the face wasn't seen as being babyish," he says. The ideal face turned out to be that of a woman of 24.8 years.
The proportions seem to point to fertility, specifically the effect of the hormone oestrogen on the female face. "Up until puberty the faces of boys and girls are similar," says Johnstone. "But then the rise in oestrogen in girls gives them fuller lips, while testosterone in boys gives them a fuller jaw . So what people are picking out as beauty is really a sign of fertility brought on by oestrogen. Interestingly, 24.8 years - the age when most women achieve ideal facial proportions, according to the study - is the time when oestrogen levels are highest and women are at their most fertile"...Cunningham also found that attractive women with mature features, such as small eyes and a large nose, received more respect ."It could be that societies where women have more power and autonomy idealise women with more mature features," he says, "while those which value submissive females may prefer baby faces".

[nameless]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!!

I have a different take on beauty. I haven't read the entire thread so excuse if I'm redundant, but I somehow doubt it...

I have found that our access to our own inner health, beauty, etc... is what the 'world' reflects back at us. The healthier, the more beauty we find within, the more beauty we see around us. It is all within anyway!

As I watch my wife heal and blossom and grow, she constantly comments on the 'ever increasing amount of beauty' surrounding her. She, like us all, open our eyes and look into the mirror. Wherever we look.

Please permit a short parable that perhaps someone hasn't heard yet;

A traveller arrived at the gate of a city and spying an old man asked him what sort of people lived in the city, that he was looking to relocate. The old fellow asked the traveller what the people were like in the city from whence he came? The traveller was sullen as he described a bunch of lazy, good for nothing, backstabbing, thieving horrible people there. The old fellow looked at him and said that he was sorry, but that was the kind of people that he would find here also. The traveller was sad as he bypassed the gate and travelled on down the road.
Soon another traveller stopped and asked the old man that same question. The old fellow asked the same question of this traveller also to which the traveller responded that they were lovely, caring, compassionate and generous people where he came from. The old man replied, "Welcome! That is exactly who you will find here also!" And smiling and thanking the old fellow for his time, the traveller entered the 'city'.

No matter where you go, there you are!
Beauty too.
*__-

[0TheSwerve0]

Why do you want to 'measure' beauty? What perversity is that? Shall we take representative samples of various 'quanta' on the value scale of beauty, put it in bottles in chloroform for referrence? Please!!

Concerning the studies I posted, I don't think they're actually talking about beauty. I think they're talking about physical attractiveness as it matters for survival. EG the peahen chooses the peacock with the biggest tail because it displays his ability to survive even with that ridiculously costly and dangerous accessory. I agree with you actually, I don't think beauty (as you are thinking of) can be quantified or pinned down. Just like art, certain sights connect with and speak to us, it's not a sexual thing like physical attractiveness. I think beauty has a lot to do with our thoughts and usu within a context. However, certain things like music do seem quantifiable, at least for certain characteristics. Usu pieces that resolve tension in a piece are the most pleasing.

[nameless]

Music is so very personally 'meaningful'. Some pile of testosterone or estrogen driving by with his/her 'beautiful meaningful music' blaring and polluting the soundscape is nothing but painful noise to me.

[Human Being]

It's interesting that so many people "believe" or at least "espouse" the adage, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For what follows that statement, is the assumption that everyone *understands* what beauty is, such that they are not "wrong" if they perceive something to be beautiful. If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder....

What surprises me about this thread isn't the "incompleteness" of so many posts, but that not a single person has introduced the concept of "rating" human visual beauty from 0-10. Since this thread is quite generally about *measuring* beauty, even if one is of the belief that such an endeavor is for naught, the most common definiton of beauty is human visual beauty. And the most commong measure of that specific beauty IS a point scale. :-) Some prefer a minimum value of 1, which is fine. I myself prefer the 0-10 scale as it provides an integer value for the "middle" beauty value of "average" - neither beautiful nor "ugly". Which leads me to another aspect of the measuring of beauty. Many people will quickly give the value of 10 to someone they find quite beautiful, and 0 (or 1) to a person if they are "mostly" ugly. It seems that people often err towards an extreme, when making "objective" evaluations of beauty. They don't put forth enough effort to be accurate, even moreso when evaluation is "difficult" because the object being evaluated is nearer the middle of the continuum. That said....

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.

I'd like to get back to the "scale" that people often use to measure human visual beauty. Almost exclusively, people implement a linear scale for evaluation, where 10 is the "maximum" amount of beauty possible. Sure, some like to use "11" in "special" cases, but let's ignore that anomaly. Theoretically, the "maximum" measurement of beauty should be very rare, if not "unattainable". However, there's a different scale which I find can be more "useful" - the exponential scale. Whereas "average" beauty is but the "mid-point" between the two extremes of "maximum beauty" and "maximum ugliness", and hence would be a "5" on the 0-10 scale, on the exponential scale, "average" beauty is more akin to "beauty to the zeroth power". Something which is "ugly" can then be described as "beauty to the negative first power", and something "beautiful" would be "beauty to the first power". As ugliness increases, so does the negative exponent - likewise, as beauty increases, so does the positive exponent. If, in one's evaluation, they determine the beauty of a thing to be an "order of magnitude" greater than merely "beautiful", they could describe that thing as "beautiful squared" - etc. (yes, I really like math) Of course, any rating system is only good if a "rater" is trying to be consistently accurate.

The point of my post is twofold. Firstly, to highlight the adequacy and/or inadequacy of "rating scales" as they pertain to beauty. Secondly, to say that beauty IS something which CAN be measured - and not everyone is "qualified" to measure it accurately. Just as it is true that not everyone knows how to calculate a derivative or integral, or knows how to prepare Peking duck, there certainly are people who don't know how to measure beauty. What they state is then mere opinion and CAN be "incorrect"...

I look forward to your feedback and the ensuing discourse. (and forgive the edits, I didn't like what I said in a couple places)

[nameless]

If one were to think a mangled deer at the side of a freeway was "beautiful", should that assessment be considered accurate? Clearly, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder....
What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?

[Human Being]

What abysimal nonsense!
If I think that a 'road pizza' is beautiful, who are you to tell me that my perceptions and tastes are 'wrong' because they do not allign with yours. Each individual is not qualified to determine their 'tastes' for themselves? Are you some kind of fascist? Maybe you want to legislate what is beautiful? "Sorry, this sunrise doesn't qualify as beautiful on my one-size-fits-all arbitrary scale and if you disagree, you will need to go to re-education camp? 'Beauty therapy'? Like Hollywood? You are either joking, or..? Can you be that clueless?
Beauty, in the general sense of the word, has no regard for your personal tastes. If you choose to *think* that a "road pizza" is beautiful, I'm not going to *stop* you from thinking that. However, it's my opinion that you would be *wrong*. Don't like my opinion? Darn. Although you grossly mischaracterize my platform, I will assure you anyway that I'm no fascist. Perhaps you'd like to drop the chest-beating style of your posts? If not, that's okay. I don't have to like your style. If you wish to debate the merits of my diatribe, then be a little more exacting. Anyone can respond as you have.

[0TheSwerve0]

Another mistake that people often make is to anthropocentrize universals, like beauty. Many people think of beauty *primarily* as human visual beauty. That shows how many people really don't understand what beauty is at all. In the "set" of all that is beautiful, the visual beauty of the human being is but a single member. Beauty is far more than a visual influence. As I like to do, when I want to understand something better, I include in my research the dictionary definition when applicable. Here's what I get from Dictionary.com:

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."

There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor. A few here have mentioned PHI, or the golden ratio, as another factor. What should be noted is that symmetry is a form of self-similarity and the golden ratio does influence self-similarity.


Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

[Human Being]

Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?
Certainly. I appreciated your posts, please don't think otherwise. The redundancy in my own post wasn't intended to slight those whom have said similar things.
Does anyone know when and why being thin became the trend for Western culture?
Great question. I think the "Thin Movement" began only after distribution methods of art and entertainment became pervasive thoughout the world's "alpha" cities. With focus being on visual human beauty, the trend also had to begin after televisions became commodities. It seems like a somewhat "modern" development of U.S. social norms. My guesstimate is that other countries which also have "elevated" physical appearance trends are being influenced by the U.S. For example, on NPR the other day they did a story about the increasing amount of purely cosmetic plastic surgeries in the Middle East. As for "when", after World War II would have been a great time to "elevate" particular trends such that they become a future "norm". And what better vehicle than the "sex symbol"? Which female celebrities were the first to be "underweight" for their height/build? How did they get "discovered"? More questions, the answers to which could help explain the "why" part of the *original* question. Me, I'm a "moderate" cynic, and I think the "Thin Movement" was started as a supremely effective way to polarize societies and genders against one another. Keep some people's attention on human visual beauty, and a great many are kept. Base pleasures fulfilled, many people could care less about what's going on in the world until it affects them directly. The grand chess match can go on as planned. Okay, perhaps I'm not moderate.

[0TheSwerve0]

Certainly. I appreciated your posts, please don't think otherwise. The redundancy in my own post wasn't intended to slight those whom have said similar things.

No problem, just wanted to make sure I was heard:tongue2: I'm vain like that:wink:


More questions, the answers to which could help explain the "why" part of the *original* question. Me, I'm a "moderate" cynic, and I think the "Thin Movement" was started as a supremely effective way to polarize societies and genders against one another.

That sounds plausible, but why is being thin considered beautiful? Seems like evolutionarily speaking, males have sought plumper females because it indicated the ability to give birth to and rear more children. Plus having more fat indicates being female. Why didn't the trend go the more "natural" way? Seems like being small and thin is a characteristic of pre-pubescent kids. Maybe that is the answer then, males might have preferred juvenile appearing females. That is why females have higher voices (beyond their ontogeny, I mean evolutionarily) - males would want to protect them as if they were juveniles.

[jimmie]

An individual will not know what beauty is until that individual eliminates the 'thought' of what they 'think' beauty is.

It is not possible to measure beauty.

Beauty is all that is, and that is all it is.

o:)

[Human Being]

That sounds plausible, but why is being thin considered beautiful? Seems like evolutionarily speaking, males have sought plumper females because it indicated the ability to give birth to and rear more children. Plus having more fat indicates being female. Why didn't the trend go the more "natural" way? Seems like being small and thin is a characteristic of pre-pubescent kids. Maybe that is the answer then, males might have preferred juvenile appearing females. That is why females have higher voices (beyond their ontogeny, I mean evolutionarily) - males would want to protect them as if they were juveniles.
As I understand it, the dynamic between man and woman has been severely messed with over the last several decades. "Fitness Indicators" are no longer as rationally formulated, and that's because *survival* has changed so much within the context of human civilization. Men and woman of today, at least in U.S. society, are often times concerned only with "trivial" fitness indicators, like visual beauty. It seems to me that among the "middle and upper classes", the biggest fitness indicators today are IMAGE, FAME, FORTUNE, and POWER. Hence, a woman having the "proper" amount of body fat for her natural body size is seen as a negative contributor towards these four "false" indicators.

It should be noted that in "many" cases, having what is seen as "favorable" image, fame, fortune, or power CAN and DOES enable a "higher-level" survival. I'm thinking that in modern society, survival isn't about merely living, but living the "good life" - buying anything you want, vacationing anywhere you want, driving fancy cars, wearing the latest fashions, eating sophisticated meals, having similar friends, etc. Surely, if one IS living life in such a way, they are more likely to be able to seek "quality" health care when necessary.

Ugh, I can tell that I have more to say than time to say it. So I'll leave things here for now.

[0TheSwerve0]

I think this (http://www.glendale.edu/title5/120_cpe/beauty2.htm)article makes a good point. Seems that beauty is racialized, so I see how we would want blonde hair, and I've addressed the whole breast thing in another thread (see below), so perhaps being thin is racialized or part of class stratification ie thin upperclass women vs husky lowerclass workers. I've also read that being this is an expression of the Western ideal for control over the physical world.

From Social Construction of Gender (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=780597&highlight=breast#post780597):

It is gender obsessed. Western culture is based on a separation of the sexes. And this comes from religious and philsophical ideas that organize those concepts for us. That is why when women began encroaching on the "male" domain of work, breast enhancements became popular. That is why women who look less like men and who emphasize female characteristics (ie breasts, butt) and de-emphasize the male characteristics (having muscles, being tall, being strong in general) are the ones thought of as "real women" and "sexy." Simply put, they don't threaten a man's maleness. This shows just how important a separation of sexes really is [in Western culture]. Even if you hear about equal rights and equality for the sexes, it is still a major division in our culture. Why do females still get paid less?[etc.]

[fuzzyfelt]

"1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality."
There are five senses with which people can evaluate beauty, yet as I said before, most people only "understand" the visual sense of the concept. And then there's the mind itself, which can evaluate "hidden" aspects of beauty. (like Euler's identity) But I'd like to focus on visual beauty for a moment. As others in this thread have said, SYMMETRY is a major factor.

Quote from Human Being.


Isn't that what I was saying? That beauty is tied to thought and some unconscious grasp of order (eg in music)?

Quote from 0theswerve0.

Just to clarify, do you think there are aesthetic universals, and if so, on what basis do you think so? What is your definition of art, or music in particular, how would you measure its value, more specifically? For example,
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/kaiserslautern.txt
do have any thoughts on this?

[0TheSwerve0]

Just to clarify, do you think there are aesthetic universals, and if so, on what basis do you think so? What is your definition of art, or music in particular, how would you measure its value, more specifically? For example,
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/kaiserslautern.txt
do have any thoughts on this?

I don't think there are aesthetic universals. I think it's all in our minds. I discuss music below, which has a system based on mathematics, ie the proportions between notes. I think that our brains are designed to recognize order so that we may survive, that's why we like it, it's very ordered and we can grasp it. We enjoy things that make sense to us. Whether or not order is universally beautiful is the question in that case. For human's it might as well be.

I find it hard to untangle physical attractiveness, pleasure-inducing behavior, recognition of order and symmetry, and this intangible concept of "beauty." When I talk about music, for example, I am differentiating between the mental pleasure one experiences upon grasping resolutions of tensions in something like Palestrina and the unknown reasons for why people like other kinds of music. This seems to be what that link of yours is discussing. I definitely think that the dynamics created by the arrangement can be analyzed. However, trying to do a paint by numbers thing seems to still be missing something - the human part. That link talks about auditory scenes, I think this is what I am referring to.

There is also the question of synesthetes who have crossed senses. I have a friend who can taste names. She hates the sounds of machines, eg vacuum cleaners. They taste and sound bad to her. Some famous composers have been synesthetes who see colors and shapes dancing and morphing when they hear music. They see actual ordered patterns. This seems like a good argument for the idea that symphonic music appeals to the mind. The more one studies music and is aware of what to be listening for, the more pleasure one derives. I think this is analogous to Maimonides' golden apple in his intro to Guide for the Perplexed:

...It refers to the image of a golden apple covered by a silver filigree that is itself punctured with small openings. [A] saying uttered with a view to two meanings is like an apple of gold overlaid with silver-filigree work having very small holes,” writes the 12th Century Jewish Rabbi, physician and philosopher, quoting a Sage from Proverbs 25.11:

Now see how this dictum describes a well-constructed parable. For he says in a saying that has two meanings—he means an external and an internal one—the external meaning ought to be as beautiful as silver, while its internal meaning ought to be more beautiful than the external one […] When looked at from a distance or with imperfect attention, it is deemed to be an apple of silver; but when a keen-sighted observer looks at it with full attention, its interior becomes clear to him and he knows that it is gold[10]

That's how I understand composed music. Music today can be appealing for many reasons. For myself, I tend to like histrionic singers, eg Jeff Buckely, Chris Cornell, Muse. They could be singing anything and it'd still sound wonderful to me (not that I don't appreciate their wonderful lyrics). Perhaps this is related to the composed music because the singers are creating and resolving tensions, instead of just repeating the same 3 chords over and over.

We tried to do this in my music class with counterpoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint). We'd have the cantus firmus (the pre-existing melody) set, then we'd create a new line of notes that worked with the cantus firmus to create a theme. To do this successfully, we'd use Fux's rules EG no parallel 5ths or octaves (the consonant chords), use imperfect 3rds and 6ths, always resolve with either unison or octave. We always ended up liking the pieces that followed what Fux set out, but even when everyone used the rules, some pieces were better than others - so it wasn't just using those rules but going beyond in some inexplicable way. I just skimmed over that link btw, so point out whatever parts you want me to look over in particular.

I also brought up the idea of attractiveness and pleasant sights. One example could be of a child's face or someone smiling. We are designed to be attracted to these sights, and to receive pleasure from them. We also get pleasure from smiling back, if it was a genuine smile. So this isn't strictly universal, it's just another part of the human experience.

As for art, what is considered beautiful varies from person to person. But I do think there are universal bases for these estimations - they appeal to our individual minds, our unique perspectives and understadings, and are not simply about perceiving order. For example, my favorite artist is Linda Bergkvist (http://www.epilogue.net/cgi/database/art/list.pl?gallery=142). She draws mostly dark fairytale in digital media, but she also has a story behind them. That's what I find appealing, the character that I perceive. It isn't the pretty faces, it's the ideas I find appealing that are communicated through the art. I don't have a solid definition of art, there are too many ideas I've encountered to actually choose. I did find one telling point, tho; in my book Material Culture Reader, one of the articles points out that early anthropologists were pretty much antiquarians who would bring back material objects and call them art. In their original context, they may have had a functional use, EG Native American ceremonial masks were now being called art in it's new context - sitting in a museum to be looked at. Are the cave paintings of Lascaux art, or merely functional? Or both? I don't know. I guess you could say art is whatever fits my original statement - anything that speaks to your mind; we can say it can only be man-made, man-made for that purpose, or unintended natural scenes.

Lastly, you asked about value. I guess value would function a lot like my understanding of art - it varies from individual to individual.

[fuzzyfelt]

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I simply gave the link for a few reasons, not because I agree entirely, but because it exemplified some of the issues. As well because I haven’t come across many such theories (I mentioned Kant’s obsolete views earlier in the thread), and would be interested to hear of any more. Also I linked it because he is a Noble Laureate in Physics, which suggests a good grasp of the physical world, and which of this might be most analogous, as well as maybe more readable for the users of this forum. I do agree however with ideas that art is symbolic language that is capable of touching all people.

I enjoyed the points you made and am interested to learn more about synesthetes.

I appreciate that you don’t have a solid definition of art, nor do I, but I am interested in some of the ideas you suggested. You said art could be anything that speaks your mind, that this could be man-made, man-made with intent, or an unintended natural scene. Googling around, I have found some other broad interpretations, too. I like your idea, that sounds rather like Tolstoy’s ‘emotional response’. Where you mention an unintended natural scene, I would call that nature, but, more in line with your words, would say art includes the mind’s selection of some natural scene to perceive and its response to that. This would not be a far step from a photograph of a natural scene, which is widely considered art. Choosing and responding to a natural scene could in fact be the simplest form of art, unencumbered by another human artist and various communication channels.

To quickly link this with the thread, beauty is a pleasing emotional response to something, and falls within this definition of art.

You did seem to draw a line yourself, to some distinction between art and function, rather like a different definition I found – ‘Art refers to all creative human endeavours, excluding actions related to survival and reproduction. I agree that if you look for boundaries are difficult to distinguish. As an example, clothing, food, shelter, sex, themselves are needed for survival, but become artistic symbols themselves, of wealth, status, style… and these symbols in turn are used as functions for survival advantage. I think your example of ancient artefacts, or another example, Duchamp’s finding a urinal and placing it in an exhibition back in 1917, are more obviously delineated, for function becomes secondary in this context. But the lack of boundaries between function and art makes it difficult to decipher how much of human nature is bound by utility and how much is bound by art. Begging the questions is art necessarily non-functional, is it a different form of survival technique, and if not why does it happen? When emotional meaning other than an identified purpose for survival occurs, is this all that constitutes art? Or, is all human endeavour artisitic on a level? Is basically everything that distinguishes us from animals our ability to symbolise artistically and that is basis of what it is to be human and our more complex abilities that may have evolved for the purpose of survival? This is a further quote about art- ‘From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits — such as science via alchemy, and religion via shamanism.’ If this is the case, is art that is more obviously functional (such as science) a lesser art than something that is more non-functional? Is something that has more layers of meaning a measure of greater art? Are these measures of art? I don’t know.

I see I touched on symbolism a bit in the last paragraph, I think symbolism allows creativity/art/conceptual thought, again, everything that distinguishes us mainly as humans. I don’t think I’m the only one, but I’m getting a bit bogged down now.

Although you say you don’t think there are aesthetic universals, you do say that ‘what is considered beauty varies from person to person’, but that you do think there are universal bases for these estimations, and in your first paragraph, you said that these were based on order, that our brains are wired like that for survival, ‘and that’s why we like it’. If I have understood you correctly, I agree entirely. I think all easily identifiable art involves a sense of order based on, ( there are different words for these) the inclusion of pattern, symmetry, emphasis, counterpoint, harmony, balance, movement, rhythm and unity. Possibly, jointly and severally these aspects relate to the human condition, and probably to its survival, as you say. This is going to sound generalised and obvious, but I think these are symbolic of life, finding an appropriate mate, sex, living a social animals, basic needs and death and renewal, the human condition. I think there is something here that can move the whole species, and that is how I see it as universally human.

And I do think that there are different ways of combining these that can be more understood by those who are more familiar with a certain way of combining these, that is culturally, and further there can be more differences in this combination that speak to us on a personal, individual basis.

At the beginning I mentioned appraising nature was art, and I think that anything artistic involves also some amount of human judgement, whether it be selecting the natural scene, idly choosing what to wear, or selecting the combination of elements for a composition, an amount of skill is involved.

As far as using this idea for measurement at all, or more precisely for one of the components of this, beauty, things start to get pretty hard. It must, as you say, vary from individual to individual, though have cultural and human criteria as well. And as beauty is something that is pleasing, something we find attractive, it probably involves the apprehension of something important to survival. Perhaps measuring beauty can be done in two ways, by evaluating our individual response, or by evalutating what is beneficial to our survival, on different levels, perhaps evaluating too its lack of obvious benefit or function, and also evaluating the skill involved, or the notion of our own skill in choosing to enjoy it.

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Can beauty be measured? in any way shape or form? even if its subjective to one person's ideas... can it still be measured? Or is beauty an abstract sort of thing that one cannot put a value on?

I don't care what anybody says, Adriana Lima is HOT!!

[0TheSwerve0]

My roommate said the same thing last night. We were talking about what race has the most beautiful people (not seriously of course), and he said Brazilians - an example being Adriana. I really don't get it tho...She'd snap like a twig if you tried to do anything with her! Men like this?

[0TheSwerve0]

Guess she does get maximum exposure;)

[Dmstifik8ion]

That stars should form and produce the elements of life and that a life form should arise with the ability to be the eyes and mind of the universe and allow the universe to have awareness, knowledge, understanding and appreciation for its existence is where beauty is created, blossoms and grows.
The human ability to do this is at the core of beauty for without the ability to appreciate beauty it is meaningless. Using this standard go forth and measure beauty for as long as you maintain a body and a mind to do so.