On the Nature of Beauty

Well, here it is. The long awaited post on Beauty, and my thoughts on the subject. But where to begin this discussion?

The dictionary shall be my starting point. Dictionary.com's definition of beauty reads the following: the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

This definition gives a good starting point, but it leaves open the question of what exactly that quality is that creates that feeling of pleasure.

I shall postulate here that the qualities of beauty are a combination of nurture and nature. From nature, some reactions must necessarily arise. Such emotions as fear, anger, love, and compassion come directly from nature in order to contribute towards the survival of the species. These primal emotions are triggered by certain characteristics. It is because of this nature that a sad song indeed sounds sad, that a carefully selected color scheme and texture in a painting can draw out our deepest emotions, or, on a human level, that the face of a baby can draw out the parental instinct of (especially female) older humans (which I shall casually refer to as the "awwwww! factor").

Nurture is a much tougher nut to crack. Environment will have an impact on what a person finds aesthetically pleasing. To an older person, the Beatles may have sounded like useless noise as their children wore out records listening to their favorite songs, and we (by which I refer to people of my generation) listen to and enjoy music that our parents may not be able to stomach. In this example, the music we grow up with affects our taste.

How, then, does this relate to Art? Art tries to capture these aspects. Through various means, be it the written word, colors, shapes, hues, tones, chords, etc, Art seeks to capture this spirit of Beauty. I am afraid to call it a mysterious force, but I must, because its ultimate source, the human, is a mysterious being. Is Art Human? No. But it is an extension of humanity, one of the many ways by which we exercise our humanity, our capacities to think, our emotions, and the full range of aspects that set humanity apart from other animals.

On Beauty and Art

Beauty. So many people look for it in Art. A work must have this "beauty," this aesthetic value that make people want to view the work.

But should Beauty be central to Art? Can we define Beauty? Should we even try?

Beauty is a muddy subject. It is far too subjective to ever craft a meaningful definition. Two people can watch a lion kill a gazelle, and while one can call it beautiful, another may call it horrifying, appalling. How can beauty be defined when a single object can elicit such diametrically opposed reactions in the viewer?

The simple answer is that it cannot be defined, this it should NOT be central to Art. Just as a person who eats only for pleasure cannot grasp the true meaning of eating, so can a person miss the meaning of Art if they search only for Beauty.

Art is anything, ANYTHING, that conveys a feeling, a message. How that message is interpreted may vary from person to person. But if it communicates a feeling, any feeling, be it love, lust, depression, disgust, or anything in between - THAT is Art.