Why Beauty Matters (Widescreen) [2/6]

[Lorien]

Run time: 09:43 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DvYcOgvsJQ   Posted on YouTube: January 13, 2010 By YouTube Member: ICGrip Views on YouTube: 2250   Posted on DU: April 09, 2010 By DU Member: Lorien Views on DU: 793

 
Philosopher Roger Scruton continues his exploration of why humanity needs beauty, and how modern society has rejected beauty as "unrealistic" in favor of embracing ugliness, chaos, utilitarianism, dehumanization and the rampant plundering of nature for personal gain.

[handmade34]

1. "utilitarian will soon be useless"

...in a changing world. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is an excuse.


of interest:
http://goldennumber.net/design.htm

[Lorien]

10. Exactly. But as usual the anti-intellectual brigade is willfully obtuse on this issue

"nobody with no hoity-toity accent gonna tell me no nothin' bout what's purdy. Must be one o' them totalitarian reactionaries with uh stick up his dumb ass. Ay yup"!

There are indeed rules to good design. That's why fung-shui has worked so well for thousands of years and has the effect that it does.

[sui generis]

2. There is an entire philosophical essay on aesthetics in here somewhere

Styles change as they evolve or new ideas are introduced or recycled, but absolutely nobody can speak for all of "modern society".

The fashion world shops at venues where women are cadaverous thin and look like they've been recently exhumed, while the real world shops in malls and stores where the models look more wholesome.

The art world elite loves their current non-derivative post-modern expressionist minimalism while the real world loves their velvet elvises and cottage paintings.

The disconnect is that real beauty in any form is something we perceive semiotically as an indication of some inner quality. In art, and where art approaches our utility in building design and clothing design, a more critical eye dispenses with what it thinks of as kitsch and overt crassness and ornamentation in search of innate quality. That lack of detail isn't ugly to some, it's an opening of perception untrammeled by distraction. It's also boring to me - because the things I like are eccentric; juxtaposition, character and resonance.

The same holds true for physical standards of beauty. In context of our current world where we equate obesity or extreme gauntness with poor health, we unwittingly create an aesthetic value system centered on a healthy appearance. The counter culture responds with a standard of beauty that ISN'T sun soaked muscular and vibrant. In a world where nearly everything in our lives is out of our personal control, controlling what we wear and how we look, even how our skin, hair and limbs are ornamented makes "control" of our visual identity another standard of beauty, to some.

Modern society is not one animal. Nearly every culture and society has made the claim in every single generation that the next generation's standard of beauty is uglier than theirs was. Personally I like juxtaposition.

Music without some variation between the notes is just noise.

[Lorien]

3. Did you watch the entire six parts?

He's not talking about uniformity of beauty or beauty standards; he's talking about that which is universally seen as ugly, vile or totally utilitarian with no thought to aesthetics vs. everything else. Nobody ever called a can of shit "beautiful"; not even the person who produced it.

[sui generis]

4. did I watch all six parts?

maybe this weekend when I'm not at work. I got the gist of it though - enough to not agree with his conclusions.

Art is about evoking a reaction, not defining your work as beautiful or not.

What we plebes typically "appreciate" as art, ugly or not, can be split into two categories: representational, and expressionistic.

Representational is meant to share the artists experience of the referent. Expressionistic forms are meant to evoke a personal response with an abstract reference.

Discussions of "beauty" and "ugliness" are temporal. My point is that that phrase "modern society" doesn't refer to anything in reality, and to claim that modern society has a communal direction and ethos is a bit absurd.

[Lorien]

8. There's no point on conversing about it then.

thanks for the unrec and kick.

[progressoid]

5. And therein lies the problem

He's not talking about uniformity of beauty or beauty standards; he's talking about that which is universally seen as ugly

But what is universally ugly? In part one he makes some supposedly objective declarations about what Art is and is not. Ironically, many of the examples he used to show what isn't beautiful, I see as beautiful.

Then in part three he says "painters like Rembrandt are important for showing us that beauty is an ordinary, everyday kind of thing. It lies all around us, we only need the eyes to see it and the heart to feel". But when a "modern" artist tries to show the beauty of an ordinary, everyday kind of thing, he's offended and calls it ugly.

And, yes he is talking about uniformity of beauty. While I agree with many of his statements, he's still returns to the idea that it is his idea of beauty that is universal. With a sorrowful British accent and lamenting music, he tries to convince us that his assumptions are right.

[Lorien]

9. The artist's work he described as ugly was intended, for the most part, to BE ugly

it was meant to revolt, or cause despair, hopelessness, numbness...any kind of negative reaction. I'm a professional artist and I'm appalled that the many in the "art establishment" have declared beauty passe and without merit. "form follows function" (without ANY thought to aesthetics) is indeed dooming itself to an early dustbin. I know thousands of artists who share his view that we should not discard the knowledge of the centuries for that which is only meant_MEANT-to revolt and shock. I'm disgusted every time I read the headlines on DU. Why would I desire to be revolted by "art" as well? Why would I want to live in a cold featureless housing development? Nature is beautiful and when design follows the golden mean, reflects and celebrates nature, shows the love or passion of the artist then it will be beautiful to a good many people. Function alone is rarely beautiful. Intended ugliness is only beautiful to those with deeply ugly souls.

Why choose chaos and ugliness over thoughtfulness and beauty? Beauty HAS a purpose-or do you disagree with that as well?

[progressoid]

13. Yes and No

A few of them may have been intended to be negative, but that's not true for most of the pieces he chose to show as lacking beauty (Koons, Gilbert/George, Judd, etc). I don't think they were trying to make "ugly" art. In fact many of the characteristics he says are needed for beauty, I find in many modern pieces.

Yes, beauty has a purpose, I don't dispute that. In fact, I like things in my house that are "beautiful" However, I would welcome many of the pieces that he says supposedly lack beauty. No, I don't want a Serrano Crucifix in my house. But then I don't want any crucifixes in my house.

I also think chaos and ugliness have a purpose. Some of us even find beauty IN chaos. And ugliness too has it's place in art. Imagine a Caravaggio without the violence and strife.

I too am a professional...whatever (I don't usually use the word artist - too much baggage with that word). And I'm mostly unimpressed with the professional art world. But that has more to do with a host of other issues rather than with beauty-vs-ugly thing.

I'm not saying that anything can be art, but at the same time, I don't want art to be limited to what this guy thinks it is. I get the impression that he would have been eager to join the critics that panned Manet a century and a half ago.



I feel like I'm back in college arguing with one of my profs again. (coincidentally his phd dissertation emphasized the golden mean, universal beauty etc. He would have loved this guy). Have a great weekend :hi:

p.s. I saw a beautiful sunset tonight! :)

[paulkienitz]

6. in one word, the man is a reactionary (nt)

[Lorien]

11. So am I. I react to the deadness, thoughtlessness and intentional ugliness

that is pushed upon our consumer driven society.

[handmade34]

12. of course he is a reactionary

to a society that so often merely focuses on the premise that "form follows function", a society that doesn't understand art, creativity and beauty for its own sake and a society that is selling itself out for the quick fix, quick buck and/or quick resolution

[paulkienitz]

14. seems like he supports art by opposing artists (nt)

[MrMickeysMom]

7. W-E-L-L....

I don't know nothing about no art, but I sure know what makes me feel a kind of beauty in my soul when I gaze my eyes upon it...