It was asked to me by a professor "is beauty in the eye of the beholder or is it in the object being beheld?" My answer, after taking a moment to think it through, was "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Because it is right? Just because one person sees no value in something doesn't mean that no one else find value in it?
I think that most people in our society will answer this question the same way. It's a saying that we are brought up with. We also have some take off's of it like "one man's trash is another man's treasure". We use it in all kinds of situations. If you have a friend who is dating someone you do not think is attractive, you may use a saying like this. If you see an unattractive person on television, you may use a saying like this. This idea that things can have value to one and not another is something that I had never questioned before. But there's a problem with this thought process. The problem is that by ascribing to this ideal you take away any intrinsic value the person/object has irregardless of what others think. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" means that if no one finds the person/object valuable then it has no value. See how that gets you into all kinds of conflicts of conscious.
This idea that our society holds on to leads to a lot of issues. It leads to people feeling isolated and alone. It leads people to have eating disorders so that they can fit a certain irrational body image. It leads to suicide and homicide. All this because people look at themselves and, since no one else sees value in them, they see no value in themselves.
So in summation, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" = bad stuff. "Beauty is in the object being beheld" = the object having a sense of self worth no matter how the culture around it sees it.
6 comments:
i think it resides in the object, if we can see our own beauty, what others think matters little...
First, define beauty. Then, how can beauty not be in the eye of the beholder? If it is something intrinsic to the thing or person, how can we know if it's beautiful unless someone identifies it so? Thinking that beauty in the eye of the beholder can lead to degradation of someone is limiting the role of the beholder. Don't we first look and judge ourselves? If we find ourselves beautiful, it doesn't matter what others think, just as it doesn't matter if you think someone is beautiful if they don't share your opinion. Unfortunately you could probably find that more than 50% of the population won't weigh in on their own opinion until the rest of the world has voiced theirs.
Sorry, ranted a litte... great post!
Define beauty? That is the hard part isn't it? The study of aesthetics has long attempted to do this...well...sort of. I would argue that aesthetics attempt to define the placement of beauty. I mean the word beauty is easy enough to define. If I might consult Oxford, beauty is defined as "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses". Accepted. You can accept that as can I. Now, what pleases your aesthetic senses? Being as I don't know you I cannot answer this. However, I can use an example from my own "closet". I dearly love a musician who goes by the moniker Bonnie "Prince" Billy. Now, I would define Mr. Bonnie Billy as country music. However, due to his unconventional approach to song writing and his unconventional vocal styling many fans of contemporary country music will not accept his music, much less find it at all appealing. So the question is...is Bonnie "Prince" Billy's music a thing of beauty? (I ask this as he is currently singing..."the bigger the laugh the bigger the belly" over the speakers in my living room.) But, back to the question at hand...is his music a thing of beauty? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then there is no intrinsic beauty in the music. But only beauty when the listener places it there. But isn't there a problem with that? The idea that things only have value when value is placed there by others...would you want your future children growing up with that ideal? I would conjecture that you would not. So I would say that objects/people have beauty/value that goes beyond that which others place on it. A person, a work of art, clothing, thoughts, books, etc...I would argue all have value regardless of the value the immediate viewer places on them.
Second post: "is meant to inspire negative...", not "isn't"***
sorry about that!
Swadhi...welcome to the empty pantry. I'm giong to respond with bullet points as I got through your email. I hope this is ok.
You: (it)..."isn't meant to inspire negative feelings."
me: Of coure it isn't meant to inspire negative feelings. It was probably meant to inspire good feelings. But what I am challenging is our entire system of value. I would say that this is not empowering. It takes the intrinsic value out of people, things, art...etc and places it in the minds of others. Here's the problem. If no one finds value in it...does it have value? If everyone in the world finds a child to be ugly, is that child beautiful? According to your system...No. You should have a problem with that. If we look at things as having intrinsic value then even if everyone finds that child to be ugly...it still have beauty. Because it holds its own beauty and it's beauty is not contingent on other people.
You: ..."doesn't exclude the proposition of an object or person beholding itself"
me: of course it doesn't. but it is a symptom of our modernized system of thought. one where we no longer see things as being important if we do not place value on it. A tree is only important if we think it is. As opposed to that tree is a sovereign entity and has value because it is a tree.
You: ..."the problem is in the fact that often, people just put other peoples' opinions above their own"
me: the problem is much bigger. if we go back to the classical system of value placement then that person would know they had vale regardless of what others thought.
You: ..."there is no set definition of 'beauty' - don't you think?"
me: yes. I am saying there is no set definition of beauty.
Your post was coherent. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment