Cathie Feild on thu 10 jul 97
In a recent post, Dan Wilson wrote, "What about beauty? What is its form
beyond the subjective. . . .and how to express it in clay?"
Is this a discussion about beauty or a discussion about the subjective?
Most, if not everything, we "think" we know is subjective by the very (dare
I say?) fact that we take in information through our senses, process it with
our brains, and draw conclusions or make pronouncements based on that
processing. Even a very "scientific" undertaking like the current
Soujorner's analysis of rocks on Mars is subjective because people designed
the instrument, instruct it in what to sample and analyze, and then
"interpret" the results based on our current knowledge, which we know from
past experience is ever changing and evolving.
So, maybe it is not even possible for human beings to consider the form of
beauty beyond the subjective. However, just because we live in a subjective
state does not mean there are not standards or consensus about beauty, and
isn't that really more important since that is all we really can comprehend?
I believe that people perceive things along a "beauty continuim." At the
extreme ends of the scale are things that most human beings, regardless of
their personal experiences or cultural backgrounds would perceive as
beautiful (or hideous). It is hard for me to imagine that even if one had
never before seen a dramatic, colorful sunset that it wouldn't cause feelings
(yes, feelings) of awe, pleasure, and reverence that we associate with
beauty. The same could be said of many other sights in nature: bare,
slender branches encased in ice shimmering in the sun or moonlight; a rose
bud just breaking into bloom, the brilliant colors and patterns of saltwater
fish, and on and on. In my opinion, as we move away from the extreme end of
the continuim called beauty, toward the center, more cultural, experiential,
and personal values influence the concept of beauty, eroding consensus.
In conclusion, I believe that no matter how "flawed" by subjectivity our
vision of beauty is, some things do exist that would probably be almost
universally labeled as beautiful (qualifying language because I'm not aware
of or prepared to undertake any studies to prove or disprove this theory).
As to the matter of how to express it in clay, that may be a mystery worthy
of life long investigation. And, it probably can't be adequately analyzed
and defined with words, but as the saying goes, "I'll know it when I see it."
I'd like to end with a quote from Soetsu Yanagi in The Unknown Craftsman:
"What is the beauty that a man of erudition sees as he holds a fine pot in
his hands? If he picks a wild flower to pieces, petal by petal, and counts
them, and tries to put them together again, can he regain the beauty that was
there? All the assembly of dead parts cannot bring life back again. . ."
Cathie Feild
cfeild@aol.com
Dan Wilson on fri 11 jul 97
Cathie,
Recent studies in connection with plastic surgery have shown that when the
structure of the face is composed of parts that are of average porportions;
those faces, when shown to a group of observers, are considered more
beautiful than those at the extremes. The most beautiful, it was agreed,
turned out to be the most average. (don't ask for sources. I saw it on "The
Discovery Channel"). The most common numerical expression of beauty was
found in the portional equation: 1.618 to 1. This is the result of
measurement and therefore, it can be stated with certainty, that beauty is
structured and independent of emotion or subjectivity. The current notion
that beauty is subjective is the result of reactionary forces acting
against the powers of scientific inquiry and objectivity. While ones
perception of beauty is measurable, ones reaction to beauty is subjective.
Currently, aesthetic judgements and values are based on the quality of ones
subjective reaction to the work of art. Not on the objective, measurable,
qualities of the work of art itself. Just thought I'd throw this into the
mix.
Dan Wilson
Jeff Lawrence on sat 12 jul 97
Dan Wilson brought up an interesting item on the universality of attractive
characteristics:
>Recent studies in connection with plastic surgery have shown that when the
>structure of the face is composed of parts that are of average porportions;
>those faces, when shown to a group of observers, are considered more
>beautiful than those at the extremes.
... << snip >> ...
>This is the result of
>measurement and therefore, it can be stated with certainty, that beauty is
>structured and independent of emotion or subjectivity. The current notion
>that beauty is subjective is the result of reactionary forces acting
>against the powers of scientific inquiry and objectivity.
Though not a scientist, I enjoyed this exploration a lot. Mainly, the whole
idea that attractiveness can be measured was a red flag to a lot of
ideologues' bull -- a delightful spectacle. The scientists were never
claimed to be "measuring beauty". They were testing the theory of evolution
by checking the correlation of attractive features with virility and
fertility. Guys -- big chins and noses are in this mutation, and gals, eyes
and hips should be big and soft.
My brilliant wife had to hide her calling in an art class because the
bigmouths in the grouop were so down on that evil left brain. It was to
blame for everything from mismatched socks to thermonuclear war. She just
wanted to draw, while they were busy drawing lines in the sand.
The logic-emotion dichotomy reminds me of a polcartoon of Tiger Woods'
various ethnic parts apologizing to one another. I'm sure there are savants
around with only one or the other, but most evidence I've seen -- including
the articulate and well-reasoned postings here -- is that better results
come from harnessing them together ... dare one mention black horse and
white horse?
saying Hmmm over it all in the Sangre de Cristos.
Jeff Lawrence
Sun Dagger Design
ph/fax 505-753-5913
| |
|
