Definition of Beauty

[rogerzilla]

On the other hand, take 10 pictures of women and give them to men to rate (out of 10), and vice-versa, and most people will put them in the same order.

I saw this done with photos of married couples once; the pictures were split in half, rated, and then put back together in the order of "attractiveness".  All the couples ended up back together, showing that (Bernie Ecclestone, Mick Hucknall, Chris Evans and other millionaires excluded) people stay within what they consider to be their "league".

Maybe it's Western media conditioning, but beauty is actually *very* objective.

If you fancy an experiment, hotornot works pretty well.  Mrs Z and I came out within 0.9 of each other.

[border-rider]

A property such as beauty is the result of assessment of merely the senses, rather than in the case of something such as attractiveness it becomes an assessment of the senses plus an assessment of the interpretation and conclusions that can be drawn from these.

That could only be the case if there were an absolute property of "stuff" called beauty, like colour, or loudness, so that the senses (in the sense of the eyes for example)  would be a instrument to turn this into an input signal for the brain to process. 

I'm not sure I see it that way

I'm also not convinced that we all share the same experience of "colour" or "loudness" anyway.  And certainly not that we all interpret that experience the same way.

Edit:

I imagine an neonate to behave like a very smart neural network in that he/she has no real external world model (yet) and has to interpret afresh every sensory input, and try to contextualise it.  The infant builds a self-consistent world model and the only real constraint (apart from self-consistency) is that the child's reactions have to fit both physical and cultural expectation.  Within those constraints, and whatever hard-wiring we all come equipped with, there's no reason for the details of the world-models to be similar.  And we'll never really be able to compare them to find out.

[Julian]

Maybe it's Western media conditioning, but beauty is actually *very* objective.

If you fancy an experiment, hotornot works pretty well.  Mrs Z and I came out within 0.9 of each other.

I think that's why I find sites like hotornot, and programmes like the one mentioned in the OP (I've fortunately never seen it, but I've seen Make Me a Model and Ladette to Lady, which I imagine are similar) so distasteful.

Yes, objective beauty can be reduced to its parts - weight, features, colouring, etc - but to take that as an overall assessment of beauty is to reduce humans, and particularly women, to nothing more than a prize horse at a show. 

[border-rider]

Maybe it's Western media conditioning

I think that's probably so.  We all learn reactions to stimuli and we learn and acquire appropriate cultural context.  That doesn't mean there's an absolute scale for such things, and even if 9/10 people agree the other 10% may disagree strongly.  Doesn't make them wrong.  I also suspect that that ranking exercise would give different results for different groups of people.  Nuts/Maxim readers vs Spare Rib ?

[Really Ancien]

We seem to have focussed on sexual attractiveness as beauty, surely we need to move on a step and ask if babies and children are beautiful. The reaction of the women at a 21st party I was at over the weekend would probably indicate that they are. It was a reaction that did not seem to require much intellectualising over.
Further to the OP we can also ask why we so dislike vanity. I would contend that it is the calculation we don't like, beauty is ideally innocent of its own power, perhaps this derives from the child as the model of beauty.

Damon.

[Tim]

Yes, objective beauty can be reduced to its parts - weight, features, colouring, etc - but to take that as an overall assessment of beauty is to reduce humans, and particularly women, to nothing more than a prize horse at a show. 

But a horse is merely assessed on it's beauty. To merely assess a person on beauty would be foolish. The weighting that beauty takes in the assessment of an individual will vary by the person assessing and by the context within which the person is being considered.

In the same way as height can be assessed, people can be tall or short, but there is no "right height".

There is equally no right amount of beauty, too much beauty is not attractive - if you make something too perfect it is no longer attractive (I've forgotten what the phenomena¹ is called), but it is there.

¹Do-doo-d'dudu

[Flying_Monkey]

Yes, objective beauty can be reduced to its parts - weight, features, colouring, etc - but to take that as an overall assessment of beauty is to reduce humans, and particularly women, to nothing more than a prize horse at a show. 

Exactly. The problem here is:

1. that too many people here seem to be folding everything they like into the word 'beauty' (i.e.: they are starting to make what was merely metaphorical - e.g. "a beautiful mind" - concrete); and,

2. that having done this, some of those seem to think that 'beauty' can or should be a single measure of judgement;

3. that therefore anyone who uses the term 'beauty' must  be objectifying a person in a total way.

I don't 'judge' people on their beauty (or indeed places or things). It might be one of many criteria depending on the circumstances. In terms of sexual attraction, it becomes more important. It makes no odds to me at all in finding someone to work with on a project. In any case, it doesn't say anything about the their worth or goodness. 

[gonzo]

I've just seen the picture of my new bike. That is the most beautiful thing I've ever laid eyes upon!

[nutkin]

True beauty = perfection

My interpretation of perfection may be quite different from yours, as may the things or people I consider to be perfect. But I think the reason we find things beautiful is because we consider the beautiful to be the most perfect example of that thing we have ever seen.

Yes, beauty may be based solely on appearance, on the amount of work it has taken to create something, or because of some indefinable quality that we just find fascinating.

I love fashion, and for me the most beautiful dresses were made by Charles James. They're not practical in the slightest, I know I'll never own one, or, if I was lucky enough to, I'd never wear it. For me these dresses are beautiful because they are the most perfect examples of form that I have ever seen. They were immaculately constructed (which is part of their appeal), they were made of the most exquisite materials, and they are, quite simply, beautiful to look at. The fact that they are dresses is irrelevant.

Sunsets can be beautiful, animals can be beautiful, cars can be beautiful, as can people. To think of beauty solely in terms of physical / sexual attractiveness is a mistake.

True beauty can be appreciated by everyone, no matter what the beautiful thing is.    I am not a fan of modern architecture, yet I can see an elegance in simple lines and clear open spaces. Although I don't find it beautiful myself, the fact that I can see something pleasing in it must mean that real beauty is something that cuts through personal prejudices.

[teethgrinder]

Elleigh.
You are!
I'm surprised nobody else has said this.
Come on lads, what's the matter with you lot?

[scott]

I kept trying to reply to this thread, but didn't have much to say other than "I agree."

FM may be right that people are mixing up "physical beauty" and "niceness." But Elleigh did ask about (un)attractiveness as well as simply beauty, and I think people are just responding to that.

There's a big difference between an immediate, visual reaction to beauty/attractiveness (wow!), and a slower assessment (which sounds too cold) of the mix of attractiveness and personal traits talked about above.  I hate to admit it, but it's proved very difficult to avoid having that "wow" reaction, with all its baggage of objectification, even when I almost always very quickly (1) realize that I'm objectifying and feel bad for it, and (2) realize that someone who put a lot of effort into generating that reaction is not someone I'd really want to spend time with.

too much beauty is not attractive - if you make something too perfect it is no longer attractive (I've forgotten what the phenomena¹ is called)

Not sure if this is what you meant, but perhaps "wabi-sabi" is related. Also, one of my favorite quotes, regarding perfection: "The love of the irregular is a sign of the basic quest for freedom." -- Soetsu Yanagi. But then that was about objects, not people.

[scott]

Elleigh.
You are!
I'm surprised nobody else has said this.
Come on lads, what's the matter with you lot?

You're about four days too early for the Friday flirting thread. 

[diapsaon0]

I'll get my vote in too - for Elleigh and our other gorgeous yacf ladies 

N

[Flying_Monkey]

Not sure if this is what you meant, but perhaps "wabi-sabi" is related. Also, one of my favorite quotes, regarding perfection: "The love of the irregular is a sign of the basic quest for freedom." -- Soetsu Yanagi. But then that was about objects, not people.

Wabi-sabi is however also a very deliberate and artificial aesthetic that tries to create a look of rusticity and roughness through an enormous degree of control. I think, personally, it is overrated, particularly by non-Japanese...

On the other hand, the Japanese concept of 'aida' - the space inbetween is the one I think reflects an aspect of beauty we haven't talked about yet. The absent, or what is hinted at is what creates desire, isn't it? What is truly beautiful is what can only be imagined... or is that just metaphysical nonsense?

[andygates]

The wabi-sabi of weathered beams and rough, uneven edges is surely similar to the beauty found in a wrinkly, weatherbeaten old face.  Both talk not merely about form but about form through time (and by extension, character). 

Too much perfection hits the Uncanny Valley and becomes terrifyingly hideous.  Asymmetry, in particular, is important in attractiveness - too much and you're the Elephant Man, too little and you're Halle Berry (who used to be the Nightmare Life-In-Death until she aged, and now that she has some lines, looks great and doesn't give me nightmares any more).

[Polar Bear]

Elleigh.
You are!
I'm surprised nobody else has said this.
Come on lads, what's the matter with you lot?

You're about four days too early for the Friday flirting thread. 

Besides, we've told her yonks ago.  Keep up that man !

[scott]

Wabi-sabi is however also a very deliberate and artificial aesthetic that tries to create a look of rusticity and roughness through an enormous degree of control.

True enough--in a way, it seems as false as any other decorative aesthetic designed to satisfy the wealthy and comfortable. Unlike most, though, it manages to come up with objects that aren't as terrifying or obviously creepy as others, and some that are downright attractive (to me, at least).

I think, personally, it is overrated, particularly by non-Japanese...

I'd defer to your knowledge. I was only trying to point out something for the discussion, not to claim any expertise.

Too much perfection hits the Uncanny Valley and becomes terrifyingly hideous.

Have to agree there....

Asymmetry, in particular, is important in attractiveness

A former boss of mine used to rate people's personalities by their tolerance/propensity for asymmetry--as a Major and minor trait. So a "Symmetric symmetric" would be an order freak, while an "Asymmetric asymmetric" would be a force for chaos. I was happy to have been rated an "Asymmetric symmetric." 

[Tim]

Too much perfection hits the Uncanny Valley and becomes terrifyingly hideous.

Thank you Andy. That's what I was looking for earlier.

[rogerzilla]

Like an episode of Hollyoaks.