THE UNIVERSALITY OF BEAUTY Below are photos by Mihaela Noroc, who runs an amazing project called 'The Atlas of Beauty', where she travels the world in order to document and reveal the wonderful diversity in women and cultural beauty. The photos below stood out to me particularly because they reminded me that it's not just girls in Westernized cultures who struggle with their appearance. I think that most, if not all, women (and men) everywhere desire to be beautiful in one way or another. What it looks like changes from culture to culture, but I think the desire remains the same. For me, it simply changes the issue of 'body image' from an incredibly selfish one, to an incredibly human one. It grants me much needed perspective. The struggle of 'beauty' is not between me and my mirror, it is between mankind and his spirit. AMAZONIAN RAINFOREST CUBA ECUADOR ETHIOPIA PERU IRAN ROMANIA I'll never forget sitting on the floor of a woman in East Asia's house, listening to her talk about how she thought that she needed to lose weight. I was so surprised. This beautiful woman lived in a small village, about a five hour drive from the nearest city. She didn't have a car, internet, or magazines. She had nothing around her proclaiming to her that she should be thinner. And yet, there it was, that voice that I knew so well, whispering to her on the other side of the planet. The demons that haunt us aren't exclusive.
0 Comments
NORTH AMERICAN BEAUTY IDEALS THROUGH THE 1900'S Below is an article by Maria Hart that contained information I thought was worth sharing. (supporting images added) 1910's Meet the “it girl” of the era: the Gibson Girl. Illustrator Charles Gibson was to the early 1900s what trend-setting fashion photographers are today. His dream girl, broadcast on the pages of LIFE magazine, Collier’s, and Harper’s, quickly became the Beyoncé of her era. Women raced to copy the signature look: A showstopping feminine body like a looping figure-8, thanks to a super-cinched corset. (Don’t try this at home!) Linda M. Scott writes in Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism, "The Gibson Girl was not dainty… she was dark, regal in bearing, [and] quite tall.” But Gibson’s model and O.G.G. (original Gibson Girl) Camille Clifford was critical of the ideal. She sang in her vaudeville show, "Wear a blank expression/and a monumental curl/And walk with a bend in your back/Then they will call you a Gibson Girl.” 1920's Say bye-bye to monumental curves, statuesque height, fussy updos, and all that jazz—and hello to the flapper. Unlike the frozen beauty of the decade before, the flapper is constantly in motion. The exaggerated curves of Gibson are gone and replaced with small bust and hips. In fashion, the waistline moves several inches below the navel, making narrow hips a necessity. But don’t be fooled, the flapper doesn’t lack sex appeal; the focus has simply shifted downward to the legs, where a shorter knee-length hemline could expose the flash of a garter while doing a “shimmy.” Margaret Gorman, crowned as the first Miss America in 1921, was the era’s ideal. Her 5-foot-1, 108-pound frame was a full 180 from the Gibson era. 1930's Following the stock market crash, spirits dip back down and so do hemlines. Dresses are now draped on the bias. Translation? A less boxy, more fitted silhouette. The natural waist (around the belly button) comes back and there’s a hint of shoulder too. And the flat-chested look so popular in the 1920s gives way to a small bustline, likely a direct result of the new bra-cup sizing invented in this era. The media embraces a slightly more curvaceous body, making this era a stepping-stone from the streamlined, petite look of the 1920s toward the curvier 1940s. Photoplay, the People magazine of its day, declares actress Dolores del Rio to have the “best figure in Hollywood.” The article applauds her “warmly curved” and “roundly turned” figure. 1940's Atten-SHUN! There’s no farewell to arms… but there is a farewell to the softer look of the 30s. Thanks to World War II, military shoulders(broad, boxy, and aggressive) become the look du jour. Angularity is the order of the day. Bras take on a pointed look too, with names like "bullet" and "torpedo." All that translates into the look of the moment: a long-limbed, taller, and squarer silhouette. Don’t be fooled by Rosie the Riveter, the ideal body type still doesn’t include flexing biceps. But it does become taller, and more commanding, possibly echoing women’s expanding role in the workforce while men are on the battlefield. 1950's Welcome to the era of the hourglass. In the 1950s, the ideal body type reaches Jessica Rabbit proportions. After the angularity of the war era, a soft voluptuousness was prized above all else. Ads of the time even advised “skinny” women to take weight-gain supplements like Wate-On to fill out their curves. Playboy magazine and Barbie were both created in this decade, echoing a tiny-waisted, large-chested ideal. Fashions also showcased this body type with the rounded shapes of sweetheart necklines and circle skirts. 1960's The swinging 60s brings the pendulum back in the other direction. Thin is in. And Jessica-Rabbit proportions are out. The look is now fresh-faced, girlish, and androgynously trim. Models like Twiggyand Jean Shrimpton (aka “The Shrimp”) represented a new ideal: doll-faced, super slender, and petite. The clothing supports this look: shrunken shift dresses remove the cinched waistline, and fashion demands of a smaller bust and slim hips. (Sound familiar? It’s the same dramatic swing we saw from Gibson girl to flapper.) More and more women are going girdle-free and embracing a less constricting wardrobe. The trade-off? Now that slim, flat-stomached look must be achieved through diet. Right on cue: Enter Weight Watchers, founded in 1963. 1970's Disco! Jumpsuits! Bellbottoms! This decade was a raging party. But the party girl of the day was still pressured to maintain a slim-hipped, flat-stomached body in order to rock these fashions at the discotheque. Synthetic fabrics like polyester and spandex are embraced, but they’re also far more revealing and less forgiving compared to fabrics of the past. The overall look remains lean, especially in the torso, but curves start to come back. Like the 1930s, this decade is a step away from the petite look of the 1960s. And following the black pride and “black is beautiful” movements of the 1960s, Beverly Johnson becomes the first black woman to grace the cover of Vogue, while Darnella Thomas stars in a groundbreaking “Charlie” fragrance ad. 1980's Amazonian supermodels reign supreme. These tall, leggy women come to represent the new feminine ideal. Women like Elle MacPherson, Naomi Campbell, and Linda Evangelista lead the stampede off the runway and into the heart of pop culture, dominating the media and music videos of this decade. The 1980s also ushers in an era of fitness, thanks to a pioneeringJane Fonda. Aerobics and jogging take off, and for the first time, muscles are acceptable and desirable on women. It’s both empowering and discouraging—one more beauty standard to add to a lengthening list. 1990's Honey, we shrunk the supermodel. Kate Moss ushers in the era of the waif. Naysayers also dub it “heroin chic” for the gaunt look associated with Seattle’s grunge music scene. At 5’7” Moss is undeniably petite for a model and thin, even by industry standards. It’s a firmly unathletic look and a reaction to the Amazonian, uber-fit woman of the 80s. Slouchy jeans, oversized fraying sweaters, and even unisex fragrances (CK One, we’re calling you out) all support the petite and androgynous waif look. Hollywood also embraces the look. A-list 90s actress Winona Ryder is so petite, costar Ben Stiller exclaims, "She's like a little figurine for the coffee table!" 2000's (bonus) Supermodel Giselle Bundchen brings sexy back, according to Vogue. She’s credited with ending the era of “heroin chic.” Gone is the pale, gaunt, glass-eyed look of the 90s. Now we enter an era of visible abs and airbrushed tans. Bundchen is crowned “The Most Beautiful Girl in the World” by Rolling Stone magazine and dominates the runway, print ads, Victoria Secret’s lingerie show, and the red carpet on Leonardo DiCaprio’s arm. Hollywood actresses follow her lead hiring a small army of personal trainers and layering on a couple coats of spray tan during awards season. 2010's (bonus bonus) Two words: booty bonanza. That’s this decade’s contribution to the shifting landscape of women’s body image. Twenty years after Sir Mix-a-Lot sang “you can do side-bends or sit-ups, but please don’t lose that butt,” it seems the media is finally carrying the banner. (Now that The New York Times is reporting it, we can officially call it: “Bootylicious” bodies have gone mainstream.) Nicki Minaj and J.Lo release their tributes to the almighty buttock:Anaconda and Booty, respectively. In Anaconda, Minaj holds a workout session while backup dancers wearing shorts that read "Bunz" do squats to the beat. Subtlety has left the building. But is it empowering? Or exhausting? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We are fickle. We are fleeting. BEAUTY IN NATURE: part one I believe that nature is one of our greatest examples of beauty. Many would use nature to define beauty. Nature is vast, alive, fierce, gentle, powerful, fragile, detailed, and chaotic. All in one. All together. Nature is science. Nature is art. There are a million things to say and discuss and question about beauty in nature. There is so much that is beyond me, and so much that fascinates me. But for today, this is where I'll leave it. The article below is one of my favorites. It says many things much better than I know how, or have the capability, to. (However, I'm not in 100% agreement with everything it states. It's just some good food for thought.) Beauty in Nature April 23, 2014 By Michael Popejoy, Fellow in the Department of Philosophy (underlining added) “I declare this world is so beautiful that I can hardly believe it exists.” The beauty of nature can have a profound effect upon our senses, those gateways from the outer world to the inner, whether it results in disbelief in its very existence as Emerson notes, or feelings such as awe, wonder, or amazement. But what is it about nature and the entities that make it up that cause us, oftentimes unwillingly, to feel or declare that they are beautiful? One answer that Emerson offers is that “the simple perception of natural forms is a delight.” When we think of beauty in nature, we might most immediately think of things that dazzle the senses – the prominence of a mountain, the expanse of the sea, the unfolding of the life of a flower. Often it is merely the perception of these things itself which gives us pleasure, and this emotional or affective response on our part seems to be crucial to our experience of beauty. So in a way there is a correlate here to the intrinsic value of nature; Emerson says: the sky, the mountain, the tree, the animal, give us a delight in and for themselves. Most often, it seems to me, we find these things to be beautiful not because of something else they might bring us – a piece of furniture, say, or a ‘delicacy’ to be consumed – but because of the way that the forms of these things immediately strike us upon observation. In fact, one might even think that this experience of beauty is one of the bases for valuing nature – nature is valuable because it is beautiful. Emerson seems to think that beauty in the natural world is not limited to certain parts of nature to the exclusion of others. He writes that every landscape lies under “the necessity of being beautiful”, and that “beauty breaks in everywhere.” As we slowly creep out of a long winter in the Northeast, I think Emerson would find the lamentations about what we have ‘endured’ to be misguided: The inhabitants of the cities suppose that the country landscape is pleasant only half the year….To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again.The close observer of nature sees a river in constant flux, even when the river’s water is frozen and everything appears to be static and unchanging for a time. Nature can reveal its beauty in all places and at all times to the eye that knows how to look for it. We can hear Emerson wrangle with himself on this very point in the words of this journal entry: At night I went out into the dark and saw a glimmering star and heard a frog, and Nature seemed to say, Well do not these suffice? Here is a new scene, a new experience. Ponder it, Emerson, and not like the foolish world, hanker after thunders and multitudes and vast landscapes, the sea or Niagara. So if we’re sympathetic to the idea that nature, or aspects of it, are beautiful, we might ask ourselves why we experience nature in this way. Emerson says that nature is beautiful because it is alive, moving, reproductive. In nature we observe growth and development in living things, contrasted with the static or deteriorating state of the vast majority of that which is man-made. More generally, he writes: “We ascribe beauty to that which…has no superfluous parts; which exactly answers its end; which stands related to all things”. He cites natural structures as lacking superfluities, an observation that in general has been confirmed by the advancement of biology. Furthermore, he says that whether talking about a human artifact or a natural organism, any increase of ability to achieve its end or goal is an increase in beauty. So in Emerson we might find the resources for seeing evolution and the drive to survive as a beautiful rather than an ugly process, governed by laws that tend to increase reproductive fitness and that we can understand through observation and inquiry. And lastly, Emerson points to the relation between what we take to be an individual and the rest of nature as a quality of the beautiful. This consists in the “power to suggest relation to the whole world, and so lift the object out of a pitiful individuality.” In nature one doesn’t come across individuals that are robustly independent from their environment; rather things are intimately interconnected with their surroundings in ways that we don’t fully understand. Nothing is quite beautiful alone: nothing but is beautiful in the whole. All of these qualities of beauty seem to go beyond the mere impression of sensible forms that we started with, and what they require is what also served as the basis of truth and goodness in nature. In addition to the immediate experience of beauty based in perception, Emerson suggests that the beauty of the world may also be viewed as an object of the intellect. He writes that “the question of Beauty takes us out of surfaces, to thinking of the foundations of things.” In other words, we can also experience the world as beautiful because of its rational structure and our ability to grasp that structure through thought. Think for instance of the geometric structure of a crystal, or snowflake, or nautilus shell. Or consider the complexity of the fact that the reintroduction of the wolf in Yellowstone National Park changed the course of the rivers due to a chain reaction of cause and effect through the food web, a process called a trophic cascade. This reinforces Emerson’s emphasis on the interconnection between all members of the natural world; as observers of nature we are confronted with one giant, complex process that isn’t of our own making, but that we can also understand, and get a mental grasp on, even if only partially, and be awe-struck in that process of understanding. There is thus an emotional or affective component in the beauty of the intellect just as there is in the immediate beauty of perception. If we destroy the natural world, we take away the things that we can marvel at and experience awe towards in these two ways. And this experience of the beautiful through the intellect may reinforce our attributing value to nature here as well, but a deeper kind of value, the intrinsic value I talked about in the last essay. Here it is not only that nature is valuable because it is beautiful, but nature is beautiful because it possesses intrinsic value, grounded in its intelligible structure. Thus we see a close parallel between goodness and beauty in nature. We can find an objective basis for goodness and beauty in nature, namely its intelligible structure, but also see that nature is valuable and beautiful for us, with the particular apparatus that nature has given us for navigating our way through the world. So that which is the basis of truth in nature and provides it with intrinsic value is also that which makes it beautiful. Emerson himself ties these three aspects of nature into one package himself: He should know that the landscape has beauty for his eye, because it expresses a thought which is to him good: and this, because of the same power which sees through his eyes, is seen in that spectacle. This is the unified philosophy of nature that I set out to explicate in the first essay – nature is the source of truth, goodness, and beauty, because of its intelligible structure, and because of its production of organisms that can recognize that structure, us. And this view of nature includes an inherent call to protect that which is true, good, and beautiful. These are the things that we as human beings are searching for, are striving after, and yet they’re right in front of us if only we would listen with our ear to the earth. Although I’ve been advocating an approach to nature based on its intelligibility, we are far from tying down the giant that is nature with our minds. Emerson writes that “the perception of the inexhaustibleness of nature is an immortal youth.” Although we shall continue to try to uncover nature’s secrets, let us also continue to take pleasure in our immediate encounter with her. Let us continue to be awe-struck, like the child on the seashore, or clambering up a tree. Let us hold onto that experience, and fight for the environment that makes it possible, both for the child in each of us, and for those that come after us. - See more at: http://green.harvard.edu/news/beauty-nature#sthash.XPs3GW9x.dpuf THOUGHTS/IDEAS Nature is beautiful not just because of it's visual appeal. Nature is beautiful because of what it does; because of what it is. Nature is beautiful because it is alive, because it is helpful, because it is powerful, because it is miraculous. Nature is beautiful because it was designed with care. Nature is beautiful because it is united, each part working seamlessly with the rest. I believe in God, and I believe that nature is beautiful because it is surrendered to Him. Soft clay that allows itself to be molded by the artists hands. How beautiful could we be if we were the same? If we were surrendered to the designer of the whole system? Maybe we could play our parts better if we stopped trying to rewrite the script. BEAUTY? : The alive, the designed, the united, the useful, the natural. BEAUTY IN NATURE: part two JAGUARS AND MONA LISA’S I have confessions to make. To myself and to everybody else. I have for the majority of my life wished that I was someone else. I’ve wanted to be prettier, stronger, smarter, happier. I have wished myself away. But I see now that this is wrong. And not only wrong, but a terrible thing. A sad thing. I learned this at the Zoo. Because of a Jaguar. I was watching it walk, watching it move, admiring it’s perfect spots. I was drinking it in, amazed by it. It just seemed so ideal. So complete. So wonderful. It was powerful and sleek. It was graceful and elegant. Perfect in it’s design. As I watched I wondered, “What if the Jaguar wished that it was different?” What if it wanted to be a Chimpanzee, and swing from the tops of the trees? What if it wished it’s spots away? A surprising sadness came over me. The loss of such an incredible creature felt weighty. What if it tried to rub off it’s fur and stand upright? What if it tried to make it’s paws look like hands and began to a diet of fruits and nuts and seeds and such? It wouldn’t make the Jaguar any more like a Chimp. It would just make it a really messed up and malnourished Jaguar. The Jaguars DNA has required it to eat meat and have incredible spots. In the same way, no amount of work, dieting, or wishful thinking will ever turn me into, say, Gigi Hadid. I could treat my body like it was hers. I could do all her workouts and eat her diet and all that. But the result will not be another Gigi Hadid. The result will be a really messed up and malnourished Elisa McCready. I believe that when we wish ourselves away, we are scribbling on the Mona Lisa. We are looking into the face of Leonardo Da Vinci and saying, “I could have done it better.” Nothing I think or say about the Mona Lisa will ever change what it is. Valued. Loved. Cherished. Beautiful. I could waltz into The Louvre and scream about how ugly I think she is, but it will not change her value. It is fixed. It is secure. The Jaguar could form all it’s own ideas about what it thinks it should be. But then it would miss all the beauty that it is. MY CULTURE. PEOPLE MAGAZINE'S 2015 WORLDS MOST BEAUTIFUL This is my culture. This is the world I breathe in. Where groups of humans sit in rooms with fancy presentations and decide what other humans they think are better than the rest. I have given so much power to these humans. I have exalted these editors and photographers and models (who are all flawed beings along with myself), and allowed them to define my perception of beauty and attraction. I forget that they are people just like me. They are searching, they are imperfect. Why have I allowed flawed human beings to define what is beautiful? They have just as much capability of being wrong as I do. I have put my weight on the things that they have told me. They have told me a thousand times how I need to be thinner. How I need to get a perfect complexion. How I need to get those shiny glowing straight teeth. How I need abs. How I need long toned legs. How I need to be SEXY. They have thrown diet plans, exercise plans, face washes, hair products, makeup products, clothing lines, and promises upon promises at me. And I have so gladly swallowed every word. Why? Why have I given these humans, these flawed, imperfect humans, who are most likely just trying to make a buck, the power to define something so powerful and majestic and sacred? Beauty does not belong to them. Beauty is not theirs to own. Beauty is not theirs to define. Beauty belongs to all of us. Beauty is so much bigger than all of us. I am the one who has built their empire. I am the one who gives their lies power. I am the one who feeds the beast. I am the problem. I have looked for beauty in all the wrong places in all the wrong ways. It doesn't take a genius to see that what we believe and proclaim about beauty and attraction in the U.S. is less than accurate. In fact, what we have believed is destroying us. It's killing us. You can look up the statistics for yourself. Whether it be eating disorders or suicide. It's real, and it's not a joke. I don't take it lightly. Men, women, and children's lives are being destroyed by what I have believed. Is it not then my responsibility to seek out change? To seek out truth? To no longer sit in self-pity, but instead strive to understand and conquer these lies? - - - - - - - Below are photos of women that I found on almost every "top 10 hottest" list out there, and the thoughts that they provoked in me. I know and believe that these women are beautiful, and I realize that the way they are portrayed is sometimes out of their control. However, what I'm coming to understand is that I live in an obsessive culture.
I think we as a people have a hard time accepting the ambiguity of beauty. We love absolutes, and rules. It seems like we're constantly trying to be the same; to create a mold and fit inside it. Constantly searching for "what all men want", when the truth is, all men are not the same, and they often want different things. Maybe it's some sort of strange survival instinct, trying to become like each other. (Which is ironic, because all it does is kill us.) My culture is obsessed with sex. It's everywhere. As if, if no one wants to sleep with you it means you're not beautiful. But I think there's a difference, however small, between beauty and attraction. Attraction changes, it's fleeting. We can be attracted to one look one moment and another look the next. Attraction is instinct. It takes no will of conscious thought to be attracted to someone. It comes and goes, forever changing; just like my cultures standards of beauty. It's all based on sex, instinct, with no thought involved. But beauty, I think, is more everlasting and unchanging. Beauty can go beyond appearance. An experience or a feeling can be beautiful. Beauty transcends even people. Anything can be beautiful; a landscape, an animal, a piece of art... Beauty is vast. Beauty is powerful. This all reminds me of when Jesus said you cannot serve two masters. Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Money. I don't think it just means cash. I think that money is currency. Money is whatever our culture values most. It's what we trade with, what we work for and grow success with. Sex has become our currency. Being 'hot' is what we have measured our success by, our happiness by. But I think we have to choose. God or currency? Will I spend my conscious effort to become 'sexy' or to become like God? What will I value, pursue, and work for? I can't serve God and whatever is currently most valuable to my culture. Beauty Over The Centuries Ancient Hebrews - (Below is an excerpt from this article by David P. Goldman) (Underlining added) "Judaism does not accept the Greek concept of beauty carried over into Christianity. But how does Judaism—Torah and the rabbinic tradition—understand beauty? Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, director of the Strauss Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, observes that not once does the Tanakh call God “beautiful” (yafeh). God is called adir (splendid), and his voice is called hadar(majestic). As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein wrote: The verse says (Tehillim 29:4), “Kol Hashem ba-ko’ach; kol Hashem be-hadar—The voice of God is power; the voice of God is splendor.” We perceive God in one sense as boundless, unbridled power. In another sense, we perceive Him in terms of values, of truth and goodness. … Hadar is presumably some kind of objective beauty, a moral beauty, a beauty of truth. But that is moral beauty, not visual or sonorous beauty as in the Christian definition. In the all of the Tanakh we find God and beauty mentioned only once in the same verse: “I have observed the task which God has given the sons of man to be concerned with: He made everything beautiful in its time; He also put an enigma [ha–Olam] into their mind [b’libam] so that man cannot comprehend what God has done from beginning to end” (Kohelet 3:11, Artscroll translation). What Artscroll translates (following the Targum) as “enigma” and Koren as “mystery,” ha-Olam, is rendered in its more common usage as “eternity” in other translations. Ibn Ezra supports the latter reading, noting that in the whole of the Tanakh, the word olam is used only in the sense of time and eternity. Perhaps the ambiguity sheds light on the implicit Jewish understanding of beauty. Kohelet tells us is that beauty comes from God. We are obligated to say the blessing “shekakha lo b’olamo” when we see beautiful things. But God made things beautifulin their time. Creation is contingent; even the world itself will wear out like a suit of clothes, and God will replace it (Tehillim 102:26). Beauty is not an eternal characteristic of nature in its recondite essence, accessible to the adept through special knowledge, as Plato taught; much less is it an attribute of God. Beauty, rather, is temporal and hevel, or “fleeting” (rather than “vain” as Kohelet is usually rendered). Next to this terse statement about beauty we find a statement about man, namely that God has put an enigma (eternity) into the minds of humans such that we seek after eternity, even if we cannot fully comprehend it. This reading of Kohelet 3:10 gains clarity if we read Kohelet 3:15 in the Koren translation by the 19th-century rosh yeshiva Michael Friedländer: “That which is, already has been; and that which is to be has already been; and only God can find the fleeting moment.” As I wrote in another context for Tablet Magazine, Rabbi Friedländer might have had in mind the celebrated wager that Faust offered the Devil in Goethe’s tragedy. Faust would lose his soul and will if he attempted to hold onto the passing moment, that is, to try to grasp what only God can find. The impulse to grab the moment and hold onto it is idolatrous; it is an attempt to cheat eternity, to make ourselves into gods. That is not the standard reading of Kohelet 3:11, to be sure. Rashi comments that the day of our death is unknown, so that a man says, “Perhaps my death is far off,” and builds a house or plants a vineyard. Because the time of our death is concealed from us, we should rejoice with our portion and follow God’s law while we yet live. But rejoicing in our portion throughout the days of our lives is never quite enough, for eternity is set in our hearts, which is to say that our hearts are set on eternity. St. Augustine paraphrased Kohelet in the opening words of the Confessions: “You have made us for yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until we come to you.” We might think of beauty as an intimation of the eternity that God has set in our hearts. God has planted in our hearts the enigma of eternity, which is the same as the mystery of human mortality, and beauty is an intimation of that eternity. We do not say that God is beautiful, for we have never seen his form. For Jews, unlike Christians, beauty is not an attribute of God, but rather a fleeting human perception of God’s action in the world. Judaism abhors the program of Matthew Arnold and others who saw in art a replacement for religion. But if we understand beauty through the eyes of Kohelet—as a fleeting glimpse of God’s action in the world—we also understand why we cannot do without it. God has planted eternity in our hearts, but the whole of his purpose remains hidden. All the more so do our hearts require these fleeting glimpses of God’s action in the world. This may take the form of awe in the presence of natural beauty, which shows us Godb’hadar, as in Tehillim 29. But God has made us his partners in creation, and human artists also can create beauty. The risk of emulating God is great. A king may share in God’s glory, as in the blessing for seeing a king (“Blessed are you, God, King of the universe, who has given of his glory to flesh and blood”), but a king who does not subject himself to the law becomes a monster who arrogates God’s authority to himself. Artists are at risk of the same kind of abuse of power. From the standpoint of Kohelet, idolatry can exist in time as well as images. A musician who fails to acknowledge the fleeting character of beauty becomes an idolater." ( An excerpt from this article from Rabbi Joshua Shmidman ) (emphasis added) "What, then, is distinct and singular about the Jewish concept of beauty? To answer this, one looks to the Torah to find the sources of the Jewish idea of beauty. Like all abstract theories in Judaism which ultimately find their expression in concrete mitzvot, the idea of beauty, as well, finds a tangible realization in the central mitzvot of the holiday of Sukkot. The Torah requires: "And you shall take unto yourselves on the first day (of Sukkot) a fruit of a beautiful tree -- pri etz hadar." The Talmud (Sukkot 35a) wishes to define what constitutes a beautiful tree by analyzing the Hebrew word for beautiful, hadar. The sages conclude that it is the etrog tree, because the word "hadar" is interpreted to be a fruit which "dwells continuously all year on the tree" (ha-dar, literally, "that which dwells"). Thus, they understand the word "dar" to mean the opposite of temporary or intermittent residence; rather, it implies permanence, a continuous process through time (similar to the French "duree" or the English "endure"). The etrog tree fulfils this requirement of constant dwelling, for most other fruits are seasonal, but the etrog grows, blossoms and produces fruit throughout all the seasons: in the heat and the cold, in the wind and in storm -- it stubbornly persists! It endures! And in the Jewish view, that is why it is beautiful. Beauty, then, in classical Jewish sources, means the indomitable power of life, the determination to live on despite all difficulties, the affirmation of the victory of life over death, the drive for eternity." PERSONAL THOUGHTS/IDEAS Their concept of beauty seems to me opposite to the modern day westernized concept of beauty. Completely different and utterly spiritual. I find it fascinating that it has almost nothing to do with visual aesthetics or attraction. I love the idea from David P. Goldmans article; that beauty is a fleeting glimpse of Gods action in the world. Yet, however fleeting, we need it. We need the glimpses of God. We need beauty. We are always chasing after eternity, and perhaps beauty is the few moments when we glimpse it. ("we might think of beauty as an intimation of the eternity that God has set in our hearts.") BEAUTY? : The indomitable power of life, the determination to live on despite all the difficulties, the affirmation of the victory of life over death, the drive for eternity. A glimpse of God in action. Ancient Egyptians (an excerpt from this article by Maggie Rutherford) (underlining added) "It would seem that the ancient Egyptian concepts of beauty are not very different, at least in regards to the human form. At the same time, Egyptians seem to have been just as influenced by beauty, if not more so, than we are in our modern world. Indeed, it seems at time that beauty may have even been a part concept related to ma'at, the order that Egyptian's saw in their world. For example, foreign lands were considered by the ancient Egyptians to be a part of chaos, the opposite of ma'at, and foreigners are very often depicted in a form very different than the ancient Egyptians themselves, and in a very different artistic style. Frequently, they may even be represented in a more realistic, and much less idealistic style. A classical example is that of the Queen of Punt recorded during the reign of Hatshepsut, but prisoners were very often represented in very less than ideal forms." PERSONAL THOUGHTS/IDEAS This form or outlook on beauty makes a lot of sense to me. It fits easily with my own natural ideas and tendencies; and yet, somehow feels less true (in my opinion). I like orderly beauty. Clean beauty. Easy beauty. And yet, I can't deny that there is often beauty in chaos, and sometimes even destruction. Take a tornado for instance, or a thunder storm. They are incredibly chaotic things, that often cause damage, and yet, in all their might, they are beautiful. I guess the catch I keep running into with beauty is that it can be twisted. It's not absolute. Something evil or chaotic or destructive could still be called beautiful. Whereas, something true could never be called a lie, or it would no longer be true. In the same way, something orderly could not be called disorderly or it would no longer be orderly; they are, in a way absolute. But beauty can be perceived and observed and appreciated from almost any angle, and it still remains beautiful... BEAUTY? : The order in the world. The balance in the world, the morality and justice in the world. Ancient Greeks (an excerpt from this article ) ( underlining added) PLATO "Of the views of Plato on the subject, it is hardly less difficult to gain a clear conception from the Dialogues, than it is in the case of ethical good. In some of these, various definitions of the beautiful are rejected as inadequate by the Platonic Socrates. At the same time we may conclude that Plato's mind leaned decidedly to the conception of an absolute beauty, which took its place in his scheme of ideas or self-existing forms. This true beauty is nothing discoverable as an attribute in another thing, for these are only beautiful things, not the beautiful itself. Love (Eros) produces aspiration towards this pure idea. Elsewhere the soul's intuition of the self-beautiful is said to be a reminiscence of its prenatal existence. As to the precise forms in which the idea of beauty reveals itself, Plato is not very decided. His theory of an absolute beauty does not easily adjust itself to the notion of its contributing merely a variety of sensuous pleasure, to which he appears to lean in some dialogues. He tends to identify the self-beautiful with the conceptions of the true and the good, and thus there arose the Platonic formula kalokagathia. So far as his writings embody the notion of any common element in beautiful objects, it is proportion, harmony or unity among their parts. He emphasizes unity in its simplest aspect as seen in evenness of line and purity of colour. He recognizes in places the beauty of the mind, and seems to think that the highest beauty of proportion is to be found in the union of a beautiful mind with a beautiful body. He had but a poor opinion of art, regarding it as a trick of imitation (mimesis) which takes us another step farther from the luminous sphere of rational intuition into the shadowy region of the semblances of sense. Accordingly, in his scheme for an ideal republic, he provided for the most inexorable censorship of poets, etc., so as to make art as far as possible an instrument of moral and political training. An example of Plato's considerations about poetry is: "For the authors of those great poems which we admire, do not attain to excellence through the rules of any art; but they utter their beautiful melodies of verse in a state of inspiration, and, as it were, possessed by a spirit not their own."[2]" ARISTOTLE "Aristotle, "ignores all conceptions of an absolute Beauty, and at the same time seeks to distinguish the Beautiful from the Good." Aristotle explains that men "will be better able to achieve [their] good if [they] develop a fuller understanding of what it is to flourish."[3] He nonetheless seeks (in the Metaphysics) to distinguish the good and the beautiful by saying that the former is always in action (`en praxei) whereas the latter may exist in motionless things as well (`en akinetois.) At the same time he allowed that the good might under certain conditions be called beautiful. He further distinguished the beautiful from the fit, and in a passage of the Politics set beauty above the useful and necessary." THOUGHTS/IDEAS (Plato Beauty) "Nothing discoverable as an attribute in another thing, for these are only beautiful things, not the beautiful itself." I like this. It reminds me of The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis; simply in the idea that the things we see are only pointing to better and greater things. Maybe the beauty we see is only pointing to the beauty. Maybe it all belongs to God, and therefore points to Him. (Aristotle Beauty) "ignores all conceptions of an absolute Beauty, and at the same time seeks to distinguish the beautiful from the good." I agree with the pursuit of distinguishing beautiful from good, and, in some ways, also the denial of any absolute beauty (aside from God). BEAUTY? : Nothing discoverable as an attribute in another thing. Greater than the useful or necessary, different from good. No absolutes. For my senior project my parents, knowing that I wrestled with the subject, challenged me to study beauty. Already having an extensive amount of questions about it, the challenge came as a welcome one. I began my research not in order to necessarily come to any firm conclusions about beauty, but rather to get a better handle on the thoughts and questions about it that I know plague so many people; including myself. I began this project fully expecting to finish on time with a polished product. Ha. Now I see that this is a project I may continue for years to come. There are still so many questions and thoughts that I have yet to research, so much I still want to discover, and am discovering. Beauty is a nearly endless subject. This project began as a journal, a simple way to document my thoughts, feelings and questions about the vast complexity of beauty. In it I do my best to take account of the culture around me, my own personal perspectives, and the perspectives of others. It’s not incredibly in-depth, but rather an overview of many different ideas and information. With this journal, I desire to inform and encourage, because I don’t believe in the cultures facades of beauty. I don’t believe that we should be letting magazine editors and fashion designers rule our ideas about beauty. Beauty isn’t theirs to exclusively own; or, in the words of Katie Meade, “Beauty belongs to everybody.” Below is an entry that gives a summation to my heart behind the project. ~ ~ ~ What is beauty? It’s a question that is so often asked, and so seldom answered. Beauty is such a vague thing. Slippery in its nature. It is as vast as the stars, yet lies within the smallest of things. Down to the atoms of the cells inside your very bones. It’s there. Beauty is everywhere. Yet how can it be defined? How can it be boiled down to simple words and syllables? Can we say that beauty is mathematical? Can we say that it is predictable or has any pattern at all? No matter how hard we try, we cannot draw our maps and tell beauty to follow our roads. It is ever surprising. I find it in the most unlikely of places. The places I have deemed unfit for life, or even ugly. Somehow, beauties life grows even there. It is a mysterious thing. Unexplainable. Perhaps that’s why we’re so enraptured by it. Because no matter how hard we try, we cannot bring beauty down to earth. We cannot fit it inside our box of definitions and rules. Perhaps that’s why we need it so bad. Maybe we need things that are unexplainable so we can remember that there are things greater and bigger than ourselves. That there are still some surprises left. Especially in today’s world. The world where the people walk around with mankind's knowledge in their pockets. Anything they want to know, anything they’re curious about. Just one click. Just one command, and it’s yours. There are so few places left that haven’t been explored and so few things that haven’t already been discovered. At least that’s the thought that we shove down our own throats every day. But is it true? I don’t think we were meant to be told at every turn, at every question, that someone, somewhere, has already found the answer so we should just stop asking. I think that it has broken something very important in us. It has broken our sense of awe, our sense of wonder, our sense of beauty. We forget to look up. Because it’s all already figured out right? It’s all already been seen right? My generation has been car-seated and helmeted and regulated till we don’t even know what life is anymore.We’ve never been allowed to fall, so of course we don’t know how to get back up. We’ve never been trusted with responsibility so of course we throw it off when it comes. We’ve been told what to do and how to dress and how to talk and what pictures to post and how to think for so long that we don’t even realize that we’re being brain-washed anymore. We take whatever headline you give us. You see, our beauty is broken. We’ve been told that beauty is A+B=C. That if you do your makeup like this and dress like this and do this workout and don’t even think about that bread over there, then you are beautiful. That if you could just lose that weight and get those abs, then you would be beautiful. Our beauty has been scripted and photoshopped. Our beauty has been processed and regulated. Our beauty has been prostituted and sold on a magazine stand. Our beauty has been cropped into a little square photo that is only as valuable as the amount of likes it gets. We have wandered so far. We have forgotten so much. I think that’s why beauty is so important. It draws our eyes up. It reminds us of life. And, I believe, when it’s true beauty, it causes us to wonder, and to remember, there are still surprises. There are things that are beyond us that we don’t understand and there are still mountains to climb and jungles to explore and questions to ask and things to build. At least, that’s what it does for me. As you can see, I believe that beauty is so much bigger than us. I believe that it’s so much bigger than physical attraction and nice hair. Beauty is in the wind blowing the trees, beauty is in the Jaguars walk, and the ocean's depths. Beauty is in your mothers laugh and a good conversation. Beauty is in the rainstorm and the desert and that hard lesson you learned, but are glad you learned it. Beauty is in a child’s innocence and an old man's resilience. It is everywhere. So I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I just want to get to know beauty. I want all of us to. I’d like to ask beauty questions and see who she really is. But more than that, I think I’d like to remember who she’s not. And maybe along the way somehow we can help a few other people remember too. |