If twenty people agree that the rose is beautiful then it is very likely that the beauty is not just in the eye of that beholder but in the qualities of the rose.
Exactly. If twenty independent strangers agree, it’s not just “in the eye” – it’s in the rose. The eye can be trained or dulled, but it can’t conjure beauty out of nothing.
Even with fashion and herd effects, that level of convergence usually points to real qualities in the thing itself.
Concerning beauty, let’s take the relativist’s position. They often interject with “eye of the beholder” nonsense, not as true leveling in both directions, which leveling would be, but as armor for the ugly. A raising of their status. A lowering of the high in return. They fail to understand the game they play is inappropriate, that relativity betrays them. For they believe the statements negate the portioners of this nectar, this ichor, that their adorations are deserving of the demos. But it’s the wrong game. If their tenets hold, as they truly believe, then the adoration for the few and revilement for the others is not awash. It is on firmer ground still. For the beauty, if in the eye alone, is in that case very real, undoubtedly real. And so too must the be the profane. No amount of appeals of any nature can sway what is then a matter of momentary taste. For if taste is the measure, then taste in the moment is perfect. Fixed. God like.
A good analogy is music. Certain sequences of notes are naturally melodious to us, and predictably so based on mathematical relationships. But another intelligent species would not have the same perception.
My view is a triad: beauty is objective, its perception is subjective (mediated through our sensibility), and its measure is relative (contextual).
Aesthetics is bound up with perception itself: we don’t create beauty, we encounter it, though our senses and assumptions can distort what we register.
So yes, the eye matters. But it matters because it’s looking at something real.
Neuroscience has recently shown that these ratios, geometric figures and symmetries are built into the brain/body of animals, and not only primates. Emotions also play a large part in judging beauty.
Have never believed beauty was entirely in the eyes of the beholder. People hate that, but there’s so much truth to it. It scares people because it introduces the idea of a hierarchy, that there’s such a thing as “good” and “bad” art. (Which I would argue, there is). This is why the most brilliant artists of all time never settled. They knew what they created was never fully good enough, so they were in constant pursuit of an unattainable perfection.
If twenty people agree that the rose is beautiful then it is very likely that the beauty is not just in the eye of that beholder but in the qualities of the rose.
Exactly. If twenty independent strangers agree, it’s not just “in the eye” – it’s in the rose. The eye can be trained or dulled, but it can’t conjure beauty out of nothing.
Even with fashion and herd effects, that level of convergence usually points to real qualities in the thing itself.
Concerning beauty, let’s take the relativist’s position. They often interject with “eye of the beholder” nonsense, not as true leveling in both directions, which leveling would be, but as armor for the ugly. A raising of their status. A lowering of the high in return. They fail to understand the game they play is inappropriate, that relativity betrays them. For they believe the statements negate the portioners of this nectar, this ichor, that their adorations are deserving of the demos. But it’s the wrong game. If their tenets hold, as they truly believe, then the adoration for the few and revilement for the others is not awash. It is on firmer ground still. For the beauty, if in the eye alone, is in that case very real, undoubtedly real. And so too must the be the profane. No amount of appeals of any nature can sway what is then a matter of momentary taste. For if taste is the measure, then taste in the moment is perfect. Fixed. God like.
Sharp rejoinder.
Look up "rule of thirds" for photography.
It's essential for good composition, and so simple to do, with a little attention.
Beauty is objective
No question
There IS accounting for taste.
But it has to be learned, acquired.
And teachability is a form of humility.
A good analogy is music. Certain sequences of notes are naturally melodious to us, and predictably so based on mathematical relationships. But another intelligent species would not have the same perception.
Mathematicians dispute claims that the 'golden ratio' is a natural blueprint for beauty
Experts blast 'myth that refuses to go away', saying that sums alone cannot define which faces are easy on the eye.
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mathematicians-dispute-claims-that-the-golden-ratio-is-a-natural-blueprint-for-beauty-10204354.html
Beauty is a principle. It is absolute and ideal. There is no objective or subjective to it. That is the human, material misunderstanding of Beauty.
My view is a triad: beauty is objective, its perception is subjective (mediated through our sensibility), and its measure is relative (contextual).
Aesthetics is bound up with perception itself: we don’t create beauty, we encounter it, though our senses and assumptions can distort what we register.
So yes, the eye matters. But it matters because it’s looking at something real.
Neuroscience has recently shown that these ratios, geometric figures and symmetries are built into the brain/body of animals, and not only primates. Emotions also play a large part in judging beauty.
Have never believed beauty was entirely in the eyes of the beholder. People hate that, but there’s so much truth to it. It scares people because it introduces the idea of a hierarchy, that there’s such a thing as “good” and “bad” art. (Which I would argue, there is). This is why the most brilliant artists of all time never settled. They knew what they created was never fully good enough, so they were in constant pursuit of an unattainable perfection.