Is there such thing as objective beauty? Or is beauty in the eyes of the beholder?
>>1088604
I think its a bit of both.
There are certain things that a majority will always find attractive, but humans have individual personalities, likes, and dislikes, which leads to minority opinions on beauty.
>>1088604
eyes of the beholder
>Source: An anon who finds things attractive that causes nightmares in some people.
>>1088613
>There are certain things that a majority will always find attractive
Objective beauty is true.
Different individuals have different capability when in comes to recognizing it.
>>1088616
But if just one guy likes, let's say, watching people getting murdered, it doesn't make the act beautiful
Just because the appreciation of art is a subjective experience, it does not mean that there are no objective aesthetic values.
>>1088619
My ass.
>>1088631
It does to that person.
So how can you say it isn't
what can you say that proves him wrong
>Inb4 muh emotion
That depends. Is a small flaccid penis more appealing to the eyes of whores than large erect 12 inch cocks?
>>1088619
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK200980/
>>1088638
While is see that ass and will say it is nice, I can say some will describe it as not fat enough.
>>1088643
Three things
1:Pic related
2:Humans aren't bees m8. Pheromones are a vestigial relic some can't even notice, if any. deus ex lied to you
3: shit that smells like flowers still disgusts me
>>1088641
One thing is argumentum ad populum, the other is understanding that the fact 99,999999...% of people do not find it beauty in this act is something to be studied. That one guy who does probably has some psych perturbations.
For example, eating shit is not tasty, but I'm pretty surr that there are some sick people out there who like doing it. That doesn't make shit a tasty meal. It shows that these people have some problem.
>>1088657
That is only from the "regular perception"
I do not believe in argumentum ad populum. I see it as a bad argument to make, especially for something as subjective as beauty
>>1088646
T H I C C
I would say beauty would lie on the halfway point.
To take >>1088631 's example of a person being murdered, while most will not appreciate the aesthetic of taking a life, that isn't to say it is devoid of beauty.
I think the issue of asking about beauty, is that we assume beauty is derivative of some prime quality.
So pretty much what >>1088636 said.
>>1088667
You make quite the compelling argument sir
>>1088684
Memes.
>>1088689
We can go further.
>>1088694
isn't that Pedoerasty?
Male beauty is objective because the same values of strength and power are universally attractive. Female beauty is in the eye of the beholder because the views of what makes a woman valuable is always fluctuating in society.
I personally have never found those old chubby women statues beautiful.
>>1088709
Beauty is only objective if it is universal.
Many males do not find men beautiful and I know guys that will cave your nose in if you suggest otherwise.
I'm not one of them but you get it.
>>1088619
Fat acceptance movement go and stay go
is there an objective standard of beauty akin to Plato's forms? Probably not. Is there an extremely consistent bellcurve of beauty from the human subjective perspective? Yes, the fact we even have to debate this is silly. Attractive people are pretty universally considered attractive The human mind has an objective criterion for beauty, especially beauty as it concerns other humans.
>>1088709
David has a small dick though
>>1088684
In my case, I mean to use the word aesthetic in the sense of aesthetic experience, which I am afraid I cannot provide a pinpoint definition for.
The best I could describe it as would be our state of mind in the instance we think "That is beautiful" and our psychological state of affairs is noticeably different, which is also when the subjective element of beauty comes in.
What do you think about the beauty of this hungry skellington?
>>1088721
Objective human perception is different from objective beauty and you are wrong both times.
I (and I would assume others) do not find busty blond haired babes with no waist attractive. If you suggest that its more "the body shape" then I would point you torward the early 19 and late 18th century where Thiccer women were considered more attractive due to their "health"
>>1088709
What constitutes "beauty" for women is far more consistent for women than men. Women are mated with for their reproductive ability, not their resource acquisition, so their beauty has to do with that- child birthing hips, nice fat distribution, etc. Men are attractive because of their resource acquisition, not so much their bodies- which is why women are far more attracted to confidence, money, and power.
Rubenesque fat women have never, never been attractive.
>>1088732
So you admit that beauty is more subjective than objective?
>>1088733
I've never liked those cave man brows some white women seem to have
>>1088733
Cute face, not starving, and not an overweight hambeast.
8/10 its alright
>>1088740
The "thicker women" meme is a meme, my friend. Marilyn Monroe's dress size was a 12, because their 12 is our 2.
Peter Paul Rubens drew fat chicks because the man had a fetish; I don't have the infographic but if someone else does pls post. The vast majority of beautiful women have been portrayed as young, slim, and hourglass shaped.
As far as your own preference for non busty women, there of course is some wiggle room, but nobody would find a rascal-riding land whale attractive. Beauty lies within a small distribution
>>1088745
You are a human and you honest to god believe that? While yes "in General" you have a point, humans are not like that in real life. Women become more attractive to males if they have a large array of skills (a 5/10 chick is sexier if she is an athlete/very intelligent) and women can be and are attracted a lot of the time to a guy solely for their looks.
And thats a very generalized argument I made, not going into the intricate detail of attractiveness and fetishes
>>1088760
>but nobody would find a rascal-riding land whale attractive.
Are you new?
/d/ is one click away, prove yourself wrong
>>1088721
bellcurve of beauty is probably the best way I've heard it described
>>1088779
>Fringe fetishes destroy any claim to consistency.
Totally man, bell curves are hard.
>>1088746
I admit experience is subjective, but I still think that does not count out the concept of objective beauty.
I don't think that objective beauty would elicit objective responses from those who would experience it.
>>1088733
Why do women touch their feet so much?
Seems Yoga is popular with women for that reason alone.
>>1088786
Objective means universal
For something to be objectively beautiful it would have to be true for everyone
>>1088772
As a man, I can confirm that intelligence and athletic ability are attractive, but I can also confirm that I (and pretty much all men) would date a simple 10/10 before a brilliant 6/10.
Women would be the opposite, on average (cannot stress 'average' enough) You never see young casanovas hanging off of the carly fiorinis of the world, but its not uncommon to see anna nicole smiths hanging off of walking corpses. if the corpses have enough money, that is.
>>1088784
>Muh bell curves
Well it ain't fucking objective then isn't it?
Majority consensus does not equal true m8
>>1088804
I already said in my first post that I don't believe in an eternal platonic ideal of beauty, but that i do believe in a biologically set ideal of beauty.
Consensus =/= true in and of itself, but if the consistency is inherently part of man (through DNA) then its about as objective as humanity can get.
>>1088801
I cant stress how wrong you are objectively.
a retarded 10/10 would piss me off and most men with brains while women would be miserable with a disgusting man that only has fame and a lot of money barring trying to sap the sucker out of everything he has
>>1088817
Not that anon, and I agree with you on a generalized bell curve of beauty but if the question is "is there objective beauty" and your answer is "at best there's a close facsimile of objective beauty" than the answer is no, there's no objective beauty.
>>1088796
I would disagree in the sense of human agency.
I am arguing that human experience may be flawed, so we cannot truly experience objective beauty.
To try to illustrate, suppose a person is unshakable in the belief that 2+2 = 6. While we may say, objectively speaking, the correct answer is four, however, this will not change the fact said person believes the correct response to be six.
So, while something may be true for everyone, experience or belief muddies the waters to the point where we can't just rely on a person's rapport.
My main point is, while you can't point out exactly what is beauty, it seems to me that something is still there, though vague.
>>1088831
Fair point. I use objective because it better approximates my perspective than "subjective," or even relativist. It isn't a consensus, but an inherent part of the human perspective. So its a sort of objective aspect of our subjective existence.
But yeah, you're right
>>1088844
Beauty is a human conception and therefore humanly subjective
>>1088619
topkek
Anon was referring to how we are literally hardwired as humans. The majority of humans for example, like certain hip sizes on women because it means they are fit for carrying offspring.
>>1088604
There is objective beauty, but it's impossible to prove what it is.
>>1088850
What a useless answer
>>1088848
Yes, though while it is subjective to us, I still think that beauty may exist as a metaphysical property outside of human experience.
>>1088604
Hey look, buddy. I'm just an engineer, that means I solve practical problems.
Not problems like 'What is beauty?" because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
>>1088604
I always hated this. The head is too big for the body and the arms are too weak. Inferior to a true classic like this.
>>1088979
Doesn't have the godly abs though
>>1088654
It doesn't matter if your conscious mind notices them, your unconscious mind does.
>>1089009
>>1089018
kek
>>1088694
is this THIQQ enough?
>>1088604
There is, and his name's Antinous
>>1088979
The eyes look spooky too.
In the space of few decades, renaissance italy with its population of 10 million produced the likes of Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael.
Now, with a population of 7 billion for the past 20 years our greatest artists are apparently Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin.
Why?
>>1088604
>Is there such thing as objective beauty? Or is beauty in the eyes of the beholder?
There are objective qualities that most human beings consider physically attractive in others, such as large breasts and hips, facial symmetry, and specific waist to hip ratios for women, and for men, being tall, having a square jaw, large shoulders, and big hamstrings.
If you don't have any of these physical traits, good luck finding a mate.
>>1092210
Because art went to shit with all the isms. And nowadays nobody cares about art enough so all girls want to be is
>princesses
>boats
>fat boats
>models
>forever young
And guys want to be
>youtube stars
>ecelebs
>boats
>strong boats
>indiana jones
what you find beautiful is a function of what you are, if you even have a conception of beautiful
like this cat
he doesn't know what you say when you talk about beauty
and he doesn't show any aesthetic appreciation
and he doesn't find all these ripped dudes or busty women attractive
because he's a cat
>>1092210
Photography.
Industrial revolution.
>>1092302
I don't like the way this cat is looking at me.
>>1092313
he's a qt patootie desu
>>1088642
During the Renaissance, yes.
>>1088631
I think something like that proves there's beauty in all things. There is beauty in creation, like a newborn, or budding plants of spring. There is also beauty in destruction, like decay of a ruin, or the dying plants of winter. It just takes different perspectives to see the beauty in each thing.
pretty sure some stuff is objective, like proportion, lighting/value, and color combinations
>>1088884
Then go back to /sci/, STEMfag.
>>1089104
No that isn't even close.
>>1094583
Lemme post more :^)
>>1088604
The only people that thinks that beauty in terms of art or aesthetics in general is subjective is objectively ugly/creates ugly art in an desperate attempt to sway other people into thinking that their ugly stuff is beatiful
>>1088604
theres a biologicaly inherent tendency to find certain combinations of form, collor, pattern, composition and ratio aesheticaly appealing, appreciation of human anatomy in various forms is also heavily biologicaly conditioned, but its all rather unspecific and the particular forms prefered in some time or place depend a lot on culture and lifestyle, generaly people dont like extremes and dont like deformations, other than that anything goes, within a range
>>1088704
whats that got to do with it?
MANSPREADING!!! WHITE CIS MALE!!!?!?!?
White man, the most beautiful thing ever? (NO HOMO)
>>1094901
beauty and art are two different things anon
besides how come you all have such a retardedly autistic wiew of art?
art as a word denotes a fuckton of different things, it practicaly has no real definition, any visual or musical artefact can be called art, decorative, comercial, realistic, religious, surreal, ideological, occult, conceptual, it can be anything, for any number of reasons conveying any number or notions or stimuly or approaches to this or that or forms of expression or whatewer
if a artist makes something 'beautiful' its for some concrete set of reasons of his own just the same as if he makes something 'ugly'
i mean the value of a work of art is realy not contingent on how nice it is, a portrait isnt good or bad depending on how young the subject is whether theres any puppies in it, like a movie isnt good based on whether if the actors look pretty
Hnnghnn
>>1095330
oh baby
>>1088604
Well look at it like this humans have some beauty standards that we look genetically. We just instinctually are attracted to them. This can be shaped by culture a lot. Also any other intelligence would have different ones.
>>1088604
Beatuty is subjective relative to health.
Someone who is sickly will genuinely find poop on canvas better than the finest sculptures. Just like casuals will prefer some trashy indie sidescroller to masterpieces such as Contra and Metal Slug.
> muh everything is subjective
> muh classical sculptures
Both sides are retarded here and category of beauty obviously transcends primitive notions of objective and subjective.
>>1092210
> Why?
Because of your ignorance. Names of geniuses of the past was fed to you by culture, academia and educations. But to find a geniuses of the present time you need to study art by yourself. Which was obviously harder than whining about there is no good art and such.
>>1095473
While I see where you are coming from, how exactly can you be sure Contra and Metal Slug are objectively masterpieces?
>no winged victory of samothrace
this place is dead
He is objectively beautiful.
>>1088619
What is evolutionary psychology?
>>1100270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtaRtqnR8PE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUljGNG5Cow
No, but the trend of modernism and such and such is less about art for beauty and more of a way that wealthy people throw their money away.
