This is the crux for me. Knowing beauty vs. feeling it. It intrigues me.I think we can develop an intellectual understanding of beauty that we can recognize even if it doesn't trigger a pleasure response.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is the crux for me. Knowing beauty vs. feeling it. It intrigues me.I think we can develop an intellectual understanding of beauty that we can recognize even if it doesn't trigger a pleasure response.
Beauty is but one aspect of the arts. Not all pieces are aiming for beauty. Art can be interesting, challenging, provocative, shocking, questioning, amusing...and hopefully authentic.
Art from a long time ago has the easy comfort of familiarity. Nothing from 1700 is going to shock us, because we've seen it all for 300 years.
It rewards us with pleasure for something that generates life. Think of the chemicals released in sex.
Indeed.But it is still eliciting some feeling from you. If you like the feeling, you buy the art.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is a saying from Naples, Italy: every beetle is beautiful to its mother.The chemicals don't create the perception of Beauty. They are the response to it, like the rusting feathers on are bird are the response to Wind.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but beauty is still beauty.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is a saying from Naples, Italy: every beetle is beautiful to its mother.
Ciao
- viole
tautologically, Like jkahsdchadsj is still jkahsdchadsj.Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but beauty is still beauty.
No it's not. It's more than that. Beauty is a thing that is part of evolution. It plays a part in sexual selection, for one role it plays. It doesn't matter if one creature sees another as not beautiful. It's the one that do, that the existence of beauty is what it is for, and why it is. It communicates meaning. It's still Beauty. Regardless if you or I think so or not.tautologically, Like jkahsdchadsj is still jkahsdchadsj.
Ciao
- viole
Yes, in the eye of the beholder. As I said. I do not find male beetles particularly sexy, but I am sure some female beetle does.No it's not. It's more than that. Beauty is a thing that is part of evolution. It plays a part in sexual selection, for one role it plays. It doesn't matter if one creature sees another as not beautiful. It's the one that do, that the existence of beauty is what it is. It's still Beauty. Regardless if you or I think so or not.
That of course, does not diminish anything I originally said.Yes, in the eye of the beholder. As I said.
Ciao
- viole
No, it just confirms what I said at the beginning. Repetita Iuvant, I guess.That of course, does not diminish anything I originally said.
or you create the art. Or appreciate the art because purchase is not the sole measure of the value of any given piece of art.But it is still eliciting some feeling from you. If you like the feeling, you buy the art.
And all of these are emotional responses -- and emotional responses are the output of the algorithms that make us what we are. They are all, therefore, 100% subjective, and because they are subjective, they are all subject to change -- what we may find beautiful, or shocking or amusing on one day we might respond to differently on another day.Beauty is but one aspect of the arts. Not all pieces are aiming for beauty. Art can be interesting, challenging, provocative, shocking, questioning, amusing...and hopefully authentic.
Where have I seen that from?
I wonder how it would come across if those chemicals were unrespondent? Would the beauty become altered?The chemicals don't create the perception of Beauty. They are the response to it, like the rusting feathers on are bird are the response to Wind.
I think Medusa is more sexy and beautiful.View attachment 48268
Grandad!
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but beauty is still beauty.
Where have I seen that from?