# Are there objective standards for beauty?



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2007)

Well, we assume there are, but proving it is tricky. We don't want to be the postmodern nihilist (e.g., _Fight Club_), but I can't think of a good way to give objective standards for beauty. It is sort of like the natural law argument: we sort of know it's true, but don't know why nor can we really say what makes a law just or unjust.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 10, 2007)

Check this paper out as a good starting point.
http://reformedperspectives.org/fil...of_frame/HOF.Kemp.epistemology.aesthetics.pdf


----------



## weinhold (Oct 10, 2007)

J, this is an important topic. I'm glad you brought it up. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head that might serve as aesthetic principles:

1) Symmetry
2) Simultaneous existence of Likeness and Difference
3) Inclusion of Complex and Simple design qualities
4) Harmonizing the Universal and the Particular


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 10, 2007)

clear skin, health, symmetry seem to be universal marks of beauty. 

The existence of supermodels seems to indicate somewhat common standards of what is beautiful...


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2007)

weinhold said:


> J, this is an important topic. I'm glad you brought it up. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head that might serve as aesthetic principles:
> 
> 1) Symmetry
> 2) Simultaneous existence of Likeness and Difference
> ...



I agree with you that entities having the above are indeed beautiful. But if I can push further: why those characteristics?


----------



## Answerman (Oct 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> weinhold said:
> 
> 
> > J, this is an important topic. I'm glad you brought it up. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head that might serve as aesthetic principles:
> ...



Jacob, you ought to know this, you're a good protestant, I believe that these characteristics can be deduced from the Bible from good and necessary consequences.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2007)

Answerman said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > weinhold said:
> ...



I agree, but my question is, granting those criteria, what are those standards, and *why* those standards?


----------



## satz (Oct 10, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Well, we assume there are, but proving it is tricky. We don't want to be the postmodern nihilist (e.g., _Fight Club_), but I can't think of a good way to give objective standards for beauty. It is sort of like the natural law argument: we sort of know it's true, but don't know why nor can we really say what makes a law just or unjust.



I agree with you that we 'sort of know its true'... instinctively most humans have common opinions of what is beautiful, subject of course to some variation.

However, how important is it to identify these objective standards? A sin against good taste is not necessarily a sin against God. So even if a man or woman were to have a twisted standard of beauty, what is so wrong about that?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2007)

satz said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we assume there are, but proving it is tricky. We don't want to be the postmodern nihilist (e.g., _Fight Club_), but I can't think of a good way to give objective standards for beauty. It is sort of like the natural law argument: we sort of know it's true, but don't know why nor can we really say what makes a law just or unjust.
> ...



I am not so much thinking about the sin part, _but rather the ability to predicate anything as beautiful_. To even say that assumes some objective, knowable standard, but what those standards are.


----------



## Answerman (Oct 10, 2007)

Admittedly, this does require reflection on many of the statements of scripture, for example, in regard to beauty, Jesus calls attention to the “lilies of the field” and how even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. Good and necessary consequences would force you to ask yourself, what characteristics is Jesus calling our attention to in determining the beauty inherent in God’s creation. It appears that Paul has done a good job at summarizing some of these characteristics for us.

But I can see were you are trying to go with this. Hopefully others can have something to add to this struggle that we have with this question in this post-modern world that we live in.

I don’t have time to go into too much detail here, but one example that I have had to reflect upon in my own life is in the area of music. After studying the subject for some time, I noticed that most of history’s greatest composers and musicians were renowned for their incorporation of Biblical themes into their music. For example, in classical music famous artists incorporate a beginning, a middle and an end movement into their compositions. Emphasis on melody and harmony were also emphasized. But as time progressed and enlightenment philosophy (I like to call it endarkenment philosophy) began to take hold of western culture, you began to see a distortion of these elements. Ultimately when people began to be consistent with their unbiblical philosophy you got music styles that reflected this attack those core elements of music that made it beautiful. Whereas before when the Christian conception of music was dominate, music was created to reflect the true beauty, symmetry, and order that God’s creation also reflected.

Earlier this year, when I was researching nihilism, I found a website that perfectly illustrated this point. This site is called “American Nihilist Underground Society” whose acronym is intended to offend Christian sensibilities, ANUS.

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com

Once at the site, I downloaded some of the podcast’s that they have on their site, and I noticed that the music that they promoted and played for commercial breaks on their podcasts was a perfect example of this distortion that I am talking about. Music like death metal and other such garbage that was so distorted and unorganized that it was difficult to listen to for any amount of time.

Anyway this same distortion can be seen in all of the arts, music, painting, architecture etc. In essence, once you detach yourself from objective forms of beauty as can be deduced from the Bible, you lose all principled argumentation that what you consider beautiful is any better or worse than anyone else’s view of beauty and therefore beauty becomes meaningless and subjective to your own personal tastes. In fact, the nihilist would then be justified in saying that his conception of “beautiful” music is just as “beautiful” or even more so than yours is since it reflects the randomness and chaos of the universe more than yours does.

Actually, many of the things that I read on that nihilist site were actually educational. If you click on the “history” link under culture, it takes you to a flash program that teaches you about history from a nihilistic perspective. My next post is one that you will find in the cellar of the building titled “Pop Music in American History”, that contains a lot of truth that Christians should take to heart. But on a positive note, the Christian is the only one that can provide the one and only true answer to this dilemma.


----------



## Answerman (Oct 10, 2007)

Here is the article that I was eluding to in my previous post.

Pop Music in American History

Youth rock culture is primarily a construct of commercial entities that realize rebellion is a very effective marketing tool, especially within the framework of popular music and entertainment. Businesses realized many decades ago that teenagers and young people have lots of disposable income that can be sapped in various ways. The product that results from this corporate venture into the wallets of youngsters is very limited by acceptable and marketable forms, therefore offering little room for experimentation and growth, if this was not true, the music would not have as much commercial value. In Frank Zappa's interview with journalist Frank Kofsky, he discusses the implications of the youth herd mentality. He seems to know that merchandising is a key segment of any sort of politics or ideas that young people will religiously support. New York Times coverage of Woodstock, which is usually seen as one of the most important and enduring legacies of the rock movement, demonstrates that even at this event young people mostly just want to use drugs and socialize, the politics and ideas become incidental. Alan Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind contains a chapter titled "Music", where he discusses the lasting detrimental effects of rock and popular entertainment. Bloom discusses how many teens will deny their selves the chance to grow morally and intellectually because they are hung up on some rock n roll fantasy. Philip Ennis' book The Seventh Stream develops in much depth the idea that market and technology are just as responsible for modern forms of youth rock culture as rebellious emotions and ideas. All of these factors combine to create generations confused by the rapid advance of information and technology, willing to purchase any product that promises to make some sense out of their anxiety (Film: 1950s at Rutgers, Rutgers University 11/4/04).

Businessmen knew shortly after it happened that a new generation of market conscious consumers had risen out of post World War II prosperity; these young people had large amounts of expendable income and not a lot of experience or intellect to use towards making purchasing decisions. Popular music, along with other extensions of youth culture, is a product because its source is rooted in large corporations; there is little that is political about it. Frank Zappa criticizes the youth culture by saying, "It's got nothing to do with politics - what it is is mass merchandising" (255). John Lennon echoes this by saying that the hippie scene is "just middle class kids with long hair and trendy clothes" (Yans, 12/2/04 Rutgers University). A paradox arises out of a movement that prided itself on nonconformity and defiance against established norms. They all wanted to be different and rebellious, yet they all had to do so in unison. The true bohemians were likely few and far between. Most enjoyed membership in this scene because "it's just another club" as Zappa puts it (255). Rock was obviously a commodity and concert organizers, record labels, drug dealers, and radio stations all had their hands in the cookie jar.

Popular music is stagnant as an artistic medium because its form is limited by several factors. Ogren introduces this concept as early as jazz musicians when he says, "The rise of large companies dominating music publishing, recording, and radio opened economic opportunities for musicians - but only for those who conformed to standards set by the corporations" (104). Even before the entertainment industry had become as large and oppressive as it is now, musicians would have to make a difficult choice between personal integrity and financial stability. Anyone being too creative at once might find himself out of a job. It is an unfortunate thing that "the market determines the value" of music since the entertainment revolution (Bloom 77). The marketability has become such an important aspect of popular art that "the essential character of musical entertainment is not changing" (Bloom 79). Some of the most educated members of the jazz culture rejected the idea that moneymaking music is the best music and believed that creativity and commercial value should be kept separate. They were "not certain that commercialization was a good thing", it could be dangerous if money became the motivating factor for what type of music to create because "public taste was a notoriously poor judge of quality" (Ogren 124). It is also important to note that, "Harlem Renaissance leaders generally devalued blues and jazz and preferred the transformation of blues and jazz themes into symphonic arrangements patterned after European art music" (Ogren 116). A serious movement in the arts such as the Harlem Renaissance required music with much more depth than what was currently being offered to the majority. These educated people needed to look to the past to find music with lasting artistic value, because marketability seems to have destroyed what was valued in art for centuries; novelty has become the new aesthetic.

The use of mind-altering substances seems to be an inseparable part of rock and popular music culture. This was the case even within early forms of pop music such as jazz and ragtime, which were mostly played in red-light districts (Yans 10/7/04, Rutgers University). Ogren recollects the audience during the 1920's by saying "The hip liquor toter wants sensational noise. They have no consciousness of what real music is" (115). This music was being played in clubs where alcohol and socializing were the primary concerns; artistic creativity was, for the most part, a distant second. A band could be playing any random collection of tones on stage; the audience would be too intoxicated to care what sounds were thrown their way. This legacy extended and expanded much later with events such as Woodstock. When asked how widespread marijuana use was at the event, "the almost unanimous response was: Ninety-nine percent", they further supported the speculation of incoherence by saying that drugs helped them "groove" to the music, and that "most of the rock music nowadays is played by stoned people for stoned people" (New York Times 8/18/69). More so than the audience of the jazz club in the 1920's, teens at Woodstock were primarily occupied with substance abuse, not creativity or politics as they claimed. If even at Woodstock - which is generally considered the pinnacle of rock expression and community, young people were mostly concerned with drug use, what does that say about the rock movement as a whole? It possibly says that men like Timothy Leary with their "consciousness expansion" through the use of drugs, were able to deceive an entire generation of ignorant kids, while making them think they were part of a revolution (Ennis 309).

Any youth movement based on rock, which is an extension of pop culture and therefore rooted in market impulses, will eventually fade away. Ennis describes this syndrome by saying "The flower children, the hippies, the communes, the rock festivals, the whole youth culture, hair clothes, and all, straightened up and dispersed The music was largely returned to its commercial owners" (362). This entire alleged revolution that the hippies brought on had worn into an illusion; their optimism and political zeal soon receded and has been used as a marketing tool ever since. Kids buying music now will think that they are in some way being dissenters, when they are really just being fashioned into consumers. Bloom further supports this when he wrote about the inevitable resulting situation of students who had been raised on rock music. He states, "These students will assiduously study economics or the professions and the Michael Jackson costume will slip off and reveal a Brooks Brothers suit beneath. They will want to get ahead and live comfortably. But this life is as empty and false as the one they left behind" (81). Even when Bloom was writing about young people a few generations removed, he finds what are basically the exact same effects that Ennis had mentioned were prevalent in the hippie generation. Young people are raised on popular entertainment that will give them some kind of false hopes, which can never be fulfilled. Once they are assimilated into adulthood they will (hopefully) realize that their reactionary ideas were a sham rooted in self-interest and further propagated by corporations that knew there was money to be made by making this pipe dream appear real. They will let go of the ideals they had once lived according to and "sell-out".

Much of what has been youth culture is essentially group identification with various products, this trend will likely continue into the future. Ideas that will cause lasting change have to come from the more advanced, or at least adult, members of society. Young people acting for "drastic change" or "free love" or "world peace" under any moral system fabricated by their self-interests will eventually lose focus and disperse, also due to self-interest. It is a vicious cycle of hyper-individualism created by greed for more products, they only deceive themselves into thinking they are righteous in some way. No matter how hard they thought they were trying, these generations could not resist societal demands long enough to create an enduring movement. Pop culture is a market construct and will never be a serious source for political and social revolution.


Works Cited:

1950s at Rutgers. Shown 11/4/04, Rutgers University. LOR-020

Bloom, Alan. The Closing of The American Mind. Chicago: Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1987.

Ennis, Philip. The Seventh Stream. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1992.

Kofsky, Frank. Frank Zappa Interview.

The New York Times. Bethel Pilgrims Smoke 'Grass' And Some Take LSD to 'Groove'. 8/18/1969. 

Ogren. The Twenties America and the Meaning of Jazz. 

Yans, Ginny. Popular Music in American History Lectures, Rutgers University. LOR-020 Fall 2004.


by "Omni"


----------



## Answerman (Oct 10, 2007)

George Grant has a lecture in his “Modernity” series called “Jazz and Cubism” where he goes into how modern and post modern philosophy began to be reflected in the arts. Good stuff for those interested in this topic.


----------



## weinhold (Oct 11, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> weinhold said:
> 
> 
> > J, this is an important topic. I'm glad you brought it up. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head that might serve as aesthetic principles:
> ...



Jacob, I don't have an absolute answer for you, but I find that often most people agree about beauty. Recognition of beauty thus seems to be an innate human sensibility that can be refined through education. Nearly everybody can distinguish between bad poetry and great poetry, for instance. But what is the difference between good and bad, or between good and great? These are often fine lines, and I doubt if we will discover some sort of theoretical objective rubric to help us make distinctions. Instead, I think that one's aesthetic sensibility is partly innate and partly developed through experience with particular works of art.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Oct 11, 2007)

My mom thinks I'm handsome but I'm 24 and single so who knows.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2007)

AH, the hard "WHY" of it all?

Some things are universally acknowledged as beautiful, but WHY?

As an atheist I read Desmond Morris' Nakes Ape and heard evolutionary biology's answers. Everything was for sex and reproduction. Apes walk bent over, their butts in the air. When we started going bipedal, women developed butt cheeks on the front (breasts) which they then make more butt-cheek like to elicit sexual response. Red cheeks (ala rouge) mimicked sexual excitement in women and eye makeup made the pupils all look wider. All signs of health and sexual readiness. HIgh heels make the hips sway...and etc.


As a Christian WHY are some things seem as attractive...

I guess for some of the same reasons. We are attracted to health. We are attracted to those who would make pretty babies. 

Even if a girl wears a veil and covers here hair for modestly, many people would notice clear skin, clear and heatlhy piercing eyes and a good symettrical smile with good teeth. We would notcie any hair that was showing as a mark of the orderliness and care that a woman takes in fixing it. All these are signs, again, of health, sanity, clear thought and intelligence - good traits for a wife and a possible good pick to make babies. 

So, in summary, as an atheist or a Christian...I think beauty boils down to signs of health.


As far as the modern trend of twig skinny models, I would point out that many fashion designers are gay men. WHat do they know about female attractiveness?!?!?


----------



## bradofshaw (Oct 11, 2007)

I'm not sure how aesthetics are much different than morals or the laws of logic. The ultimate reference point for them is absolute righteousness, reason, and beauty in God. We know these because the creation demonstrates them to us. 

This doesn't really answer you basic question though, "how can we demonstrate what is and what is not true beauty." It would seem to me, that much like our moral sense, our aesthetic sense is part of our carrying the image of God. So while general beauty will be universal in men who bear God's image, sin and individuality will distort that and make it imperfect. 

I think even works which may seem ugly on the surface, may display beauty in a sense, in that they are they reflect the mind of the artist. Even the most depraved artist has the image of God in him, and is able to reflect that in his art. For instance, Answerman's example of post-Christian music. It may not be organized after a Christian worldview, but it is still organized and displays intent and meaning. This is a quality of the image of God in man. 

I do think culture can condition us to accept certain things as beautiful as well, making it more complicated. I'm not sure that that would make that beauty invalid. For instance, the modern supermodel doesn't look much like the beauty depicted in, let's say, rounder women in earlier times. Another example, Bach had never heard electronically distorted music. Does this mean that an organic instrument is universally preferable to an electronic one? Since it has become well recognized in our culture as aesthetically acceptable, I'm not sure you can make a case that electronic music is inferior to organic music. I certainly wouldn't want to throw out any innovations since the "Christian" era of music and say that they are universally inferior just because the Christian artists of 400 years ago preceded them.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 11, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



Well being able to recognize or know a standard does not mean that you will be able to deconstruct exactly what makes it what it is. It also does not guarantee that you will be able to say why it is what it is. This seems to fit somewhat in with the problem of vagueness (when does something cease to be x and become y). For example, when does a pile of rocks become a non pile of rocks? If you cannot tell us exactly when this happens then that does not imply that there is no objective standard for a pile, does it?

CT


----------

