Talk:Beauty

Archives (Index)

2023/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wow...

Caption to opening image:

"In Gothic architecture, light was considered the most beautiful revelation of God."

So, it's all down to a single god, eh? Gimme a break. MinorProphet (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible outside info I feel like these would be good sources to include on how beauty further effects society and certain ethnicities Youth, Voices of. "Society's Unhealthy Obsession with Beauty — Voices of Youth". www.voicesofyouth.org. Retrieved 2017-09-29. LMSW, Temimah Zucker (2014-04-23). "Society's Standards Of Beauty Will Get Old, But Being Comfortable With Yourself Never Will". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-09-29. CNN, By Alene Dawson, Special to. "What is beauty and who has it?". Retrieved 2017-09-29. Teresachiyannebeamon (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MinorProphet I agree with your point. A less controversial image should be used. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@MinorProphet considering that Gothic architecture is expressly that of a monotheistic religious order I'd say that there is no problem with the statement 66.11.178.150 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me, I had completely forgotten that I wrote this comment in a drunken moment over five years ago. Thanks for reminding me. In the cited work, the author states at the very beginning of the chapter 'Light in Churches' that "Christian theology is a theology of light." I would tend to disagree fundamentally. Christianity is a theology of redemption, not of light. For Christians, Jesus is the saviour, the Messiah, the only hope and comfort; and unless you believe utterly in his life, death and resurrection, you will never, ever, be saved from the sin of Adam. Talk to a bishop if you doubt me, preferably not someone like Peter Ball for whom I used to pray in church when he was head of the diocese of Gloucester. Light itself can not save you, nor will the bread of heaven. Light is a useful analogy when talking about spiritual matters, but it doesn't matter whether Christianity is monotheistic or not: I don't think that the phrase "In Gothic architecture, light was considered the most beautiful revelation of God, which was heralded in its design" can be deduced from anything that appears on p. 60. With the best will in the world, it's not even a paraphrase. The more I look at it, the less sense it makes. Anyway, the chapter is by Eva-Maria Kreuz and the cite itself is incomplete. I wish I cared, but I'm an Olympian now. Blue skies, MinorProphet (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@MinorProphet ummmm the fact still remains that in Gothic architecture the greatest expression of gods beauty is found in light. This isn't a one off thing from a single author in a single book but instead encompasses the approach of an entire school of thought. not meaning to rip on you btw, I have found myself frustrated with foolish notions arrising from modernism and post modernism (that have corrupted current society) that beauty is socially constructed. 66.11.178.150 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

<Later edit:> IP said "...the fact still remains that in Gothic architecture..." etc. According to who? It's not a fact, it's an opinion or statement of belief. MinorProphet (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

All claims need to be verifiable, including captions like "In Gothic architecture, light was considered the most beautiful revelation of God". This caption has a source, but, according to MinorProphet, this source is not sufficient to verify the claim. The most straightforward solutions would be either to find a proper source or to change the caption. If that doesn't work, a more labor-intensive approach would be to find a new image, a new caption, and get consensus for them. MinorProphet, do you see any simple modifications to the caption that avoid the verification problem? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem of priviledging monotheism, for example, could easily be solved by replacing the term "God" with "the divine" and leaving everything else as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

<Fast forward almost two years> Courtesy ping Jiaminglimjm, Phlsph7. Browsing through my talk page archives, I found a link to this discussion. I still fundamentally disagree about: A) The lede picture being about God, specifically the Christian one; B) That the statement in the caption, "In Gothic architecture, light was considered the most beautiful revelation of God" is not backed up in the slightest by the supporting reference (as I proposed earlier); and C) That an overtly religious image should greet the reader at all. Beauty (it is said) is in the eye of the beholder - maybe no pic at all? It's absoloutely not a requirement. Beauty is surely universal, not confined to the fane of your choice. MinorProphet (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi MinorProphet, it has been a while. According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image. It does not need to be this image but some image would be good. Maybe an image of beauty in nature would be less controversial, like a landscape or flowers. If we can find a generally accepted symbol of beauty, that could also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that some great art is deliberately designed to upset people, and bypasses questions of insubstantial 'beauty', in order to make them question their deepest inner selves and all they believe: "What am I even seeing? What am I looking at?" I think this is one of those paintings, which throws all previous questions into a cocked hat. It could force even the most casual viewer to re-evaluate their entire existence. (That's the idea anyway, or so my teachers tell me.)

Black Square by Kazimir Malevich c. 1930–1932

MinorProphet (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is the purpose of lead images to force even the most casual viewer to re-evaluate their entire existence. According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, they should give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page and should avoid contents that readers would not expect to see there. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your admirable and sensible comments, with which I agree. I felt that the surprising effect of the Malevich painting was to concentrate the mind on the text of the lede, which is cogent and well-written. Having re-read the source for the quote (Stegers 2008) I realise I had somehow missed the exact words in the caption. Sorry. I added the url to the ref in the article. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with a picture with religious connotations appearing at the top of an article about aesthestics. I realise that for many people the idea of beauty is inextricably bound up with one or more deities, but I think that the image of the rose window sets a tone which is not sustained in the article. In the 'Philosophy' section there are currently two mentions of god in the Ancient world, and three of the Christian one, all brief and without much discussion. The words 'religious' or 'deity' don't appear anywhere. So, what sort of picture (if any) is going to be acceptable? Representational or abstract? Or none? I might take the question to the Humanities Ref Desk for consideration. MinorProphet (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Those words also do not appear in the image caption, which was modified when the image was restored and talks about the beauty of light rather than god. As I mentioned before, natural beauty in the form of a landscape or flowers could be an alternative. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Any image is going to have the baggage of the culture it comes from, and I don't object to an image whose caption notes a link between religious and aesthetic values of a culture. That said, there are plenty of other options to choose from on Wikimedia Commons. Relevant categories might be [1], [2], [3], [4]... Some more specific suggestions could be a picture of cherry blossom [5],a landscape by Capability Brown, Analysis of Beauty Plate 1 by William Hogarth, the image of the Birth of Venus from further down the article...of course the latter carries the baggage of female nudes in Western art. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Or a photo of a famous "beauty" such as Margaret Gorman, who was the winner of the first Miss America beauty pageant in 1921. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A perfect illustration of the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  --Lambiam 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No Original Research please! AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Irene Papas portraying Helen of Troy, "the most beautiful woman in the world".

Here, evaluating Malevich's Black Square on the axis beautiful – not beautiful is called an inappropriate criterion. I agree and therefore think it would be a less felicitous choice for an illustration. Several articles have illustrative images in the lead that are tied to one specific religion. For example, Altar opens with an interior view of a Lutheran cathedral, Monk with a Roman Catholic monk, Ritual with a Hindu ritual and Temple with a Hindu temple. The second of two images in the lead section of Festival is of a Hindu festival. The statement that in Gothic architecture light was considered the source and actual essence of all that is beautiful is only indirectly tied to religion and does not by itself constitute a religious pronouncement – unlike the earlier text in the caption that "Light was considered as the most beautiful revelation of God". Therefore I think that objections based on the (by itself correct) idea that Wikipedia articles should not appear to favour some religion do not apply here. It may be helpful, though, to have one more illustration that helps to establish the rather wide range of the concept of beauty. Suggestion: Irene Papas portraying Helen of Troy, said to have been the most beautiful woman in the world, in the film The Trojan Women.  --Lambiam 12:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree Helen of Troy is a good suggestion, but rather than a picture of an actress, I would counterpropose a painting or sculpture. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Helen of Troy, in Greek mythology, was said to have been the most beautiful woman in the world. She is shown here gazing into a mirror decorated with the figure of Aphrodite, goddess of beauty.

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the painting of Helen of Troy might work but we could also leave the current image as it is. As AlmostReadytoFly has pointed out, Any image is going to have the baggage of the culture it comes from. So I'm not sure that the exchange of picture would be an improvement in this respect. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, since the focus of the article is on attempts to analyse and define beauty, how about Hogarth's attempt?

Artists and philosophers have attempted to define beauty, for example here in Analysis of Beauty by William Hogarth.

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer two images in the lead paragraph, juxtaposing quite different notions of beauty, such as beauty based on composition (like the symmetry of the rose window) and beauty based on conformity to an ideal (like the mythological Helen). A problem with using the De Morgan painting of Helen is its aspect ratio. We could crop it to a headshot (for which we could also use a depiction from Greek antiquity, as on this krater); the category Helen of Troy in paintings also contains several more squarish paintings. The illustration from The Analysis of Beauty is very usable for the article but IMO less so for the lead paragraph. Hogarth's analysis accords with the classical concept of beauty, so I suggest using it in the section Classical.  --Lambiam 12:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

An image representing human beauty at the top of the article is a very bad idea in my opinion as it inevitably suggests that we are presenting a particular ethnic type as the ideal. Ewulp (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the ethnicity of a daughter of Zeus? We have no idea what the ideal feminine beauty type was of the mythological Late Bronze Age Greeks and Trojans who are described as being gobsmacked by Helen's beauty. No poet who sang her beauty ages later can have known that either. If we include an image of Helen, we are not claiming that her ethnic type is ideal. Even the Ancient Greeks did not claim that. We are simply reporting that she, Helen (and not "her ethnic type"), was thought to be extremely beautiful in some mythological universe.  --Lambiam 12:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The article already reports that. But what we're discussing here is a lead image, and what has been proposed is a painting by a European artist of a white lady. If you study [[Category:Helen_of_Troy_in_paintings]] you will find more of the same. And why such concern with what ancient Greeks dreamed about when the far more numerous Chinese prefer the Four Beauties? Helen as a lead image reinforces a systemic bias we should all be trying to avoid. Ewulp (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I proposed using a detail of an Ancient Greek krater painting from about 370 BCE depicting a Persian orange lady. I'd have no problem with using an image depicting the Four Beauties. If people were to complain that this means that Wikipedia is presenting the Chinese type as the ideal, we should advise them to get a life. Unfortunately, one image of two hosted on the Commons is blurry, while the other has a problematic aspect ratio.  --Lambiam 07:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Black and white image of Michelangelo's David

Wow... many thanks indeed, for everyone's thoughtful and perceptive comments so far. I stayed away for a few days, certainly not expecting this level of activity. Lots of serious stuff to digest. It's a pity that an exchange of pix/memes isn't a substitute for cogent analytical discussion.

1st edition of Black Beauty, signed by the author to her mum

Black Square by Kazimir Malevich c. 1930–1932

Does there even have to be an image at all? I'm sure that the MOS:Ministry of Sex will have something to say.

Nègre au turban by Eugene Delacroix

Yep: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." But surely any and almost every image directly representing anyone's idea or conception of 'beauty' is necessarily subject to confirmation bias, aka 'Eye of the beholder' syndrome? Attempting to decide on a universally acceptable non-shocking representation of 'beauty'—or even its concept—must include sort of contradiction in terms?

Since this is an article about aesthetics, how about a pic of Plato and Aristotle (NB just some dead white men) going head to head? Sort of, anyway.
How about The Metaphysics of Beauty?

The School of Athens by Raphael

MinorProphet (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If we include any images in the lead, I feel they should represent in some sense beauty itself, and not philosophers or scholars considering the concept of beauty or records of their thought. They should in no way represent the Wikipedia editors' concept of beauty, but be of items famously and verifiably described by others as being the epitome of beauty.  --Lambiam 06:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

According to philosopher Immanuel Kant, natural objects like a rose possess "free beauty", while works of art such as the Mona Lisa may possess "dependent beauty" if they meet presupposed criteria for what makes a beautiful piece of art.

Reference: Qirui Jiang, Columbia University, Kantian Aesthetics: Free Beauty in Fine Arts, March 2022, BCP Social Sciences & Humanities 15:121-131, DOI:10.54691/bcpssh.v15i.371, License CC BY 4.0 Authors: Qirui Jiang, Columbia University

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Amplexus Bufo bufo 2010-03-29

Sorry, IMHO the person depicted in 'La gioconda' is unbelievably plain. I suggest it's her enigmatic smile which makes the painting famous, and the soup throwers knew exactly what they were doing, despite the protestation of the non-RS DM against the eco-morons. I beheld it with my own eyes some 45 years ago, and even then it was protected by glass, and besieged by others wanting to catch a glimpse of what has become one of the most well-known works of art ever. Why, I still have no idea. I summon the spirit of that apologist Sir Thomas Browne, who put me straight as regards Beauty, although I have since become an Olympian rather a failed Christian:

"I hold there is a general beauty in the works of GOD, and therefore no deformity in any kind or species of creature whatsoever. I cannot tell by what Logick we call a Toad, a Bear, or an Elephant ugly; they being created in those outward shapes and figures which best express the actions of their inward forms, and having past that general Visitation of GOD, Who saw that all that He had made was good, that is, conformable to His Will, which abhors deformity, and is the rule of order and beauty. There is no deformity but in Monstrosity ; wherein, notwithstanding, there is a kind of Beauty; Nature so ingeniously contriving the irregular parts, as they become sometimes more remarkable than the principal Fabrick. To speak yet more narrowly, there was never any thing ugly or mis-shapen, but the Chaos ; wherein, notwithstanding, (to speak strictly,) there was no deformity, because no form  ; nor was it yet impregnant by the voice of GOD." Religio Medici, p. 19

But does not Malevich's Black Square define Browne's horror of chaos? It's beautiful for me; and who other than 'Wikipedia editors' get to decide on which image greets readers of the 'Beauty' article?

MinorProphet (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The claimed beauty, in the source referred to, is that of the painting known as “the Mona Lisa”, and not of the person depicted, assumed to have been Lisa del Giocondo. But Kant, in explaining his concept of "adherent beauty" (not "dependent beauty"!) uses human beauty as an illustration, not that of paintings. Moreover, I cannot follow his reasoning why the beauty of a rose is "free" while that of a human is "adherent" – his argument seems to be that we don't have a presupposition of the purpose of roses by which we can judge them while we do have such a presupposition when it comes to human beings. I find this weird in more than one respect.  --Lambiam 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If "dependent" is a mistranslation, we should correct it where it appears in the article. "Dependent" is used in ref [10] of the article but "adherent" is used in the paper I mentioned above.

As for Kant's argument, I don't believe it stands up to the existence of wilted roses. Nevertheless, Kant's view's on free vs. adherent beauty are notable, which I think makes an illustration of them a better candidate for a opening image than one which WP users find beautiful, for the same reasons as given by User:Lambiam on 26 Feb above. I find Malevich's Black Square striking but not beautiful, by the way. Rather than defining beauty as an opposite of chaos, it resembles the chaos/void before creation, as discussed by Browne and similarly depicted by Robert Fludd. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Kant himself writes "anhängende Schönheit (pulchritudo adhaerens)".^[6] The German equivalent of dependent is abhängend, while anhängend is translated by Wiktionary (and Google Translate) as attached.  --Lambiam 11:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

<later edit> 'Sticky beauty', then, as in adhesive.[7] (CC BY-SA 3.0) MinorProphet (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, they have a sticker attached on which is written, Notice. This object is beautiful. Regards, Humanity.  --Lambiam 16:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sumo wrestlers: beautiful bodies in beautiful slow-motion?

adherent seems to be a common translation so I've gone with that.

Back to images, if we disagree with Kant, what about taking guidance from Guy Sircello?

"...the characteristic artifacts of our time— like the airplane and the freeway interchange—are among the most beautiful the world has ever known; that a characteristic religion-surrogate of our time—spectator sport —idolizes beautiful bodies in beautiful motion"

or

For just consider the range of objects to which beauty can be attributed: people, rocks, snakes, daisies, horses, trees, mountains, rivers, paintings, symphonies, buildings, spoons, books, chairs, bats

Quotes from New Theory of Beauty - Guy Sircello - Google Livres AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lest we lose ourselves in definitions, the challenge is to find a consensus for a suitable image/images (or none) for the lede of the 'Beauty' article. How about a mosaic of the objects which Sircello mentions? I'll have a look at the book. There's always mathematical or physical beauty (ie concerning physics)... MinorProphet (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)