I Deny That There Is An Objective Beauty

[Seven77]

In which case, all things man-made are beautiful to some basic extent, for even implements of war reveal man to himself. It may just be a portion of himself he does not always wish to see.

 

hmm...I think I meant "reveals man's dignity to himself"...

[Seven77]

Fyi, the picture I posted is totally family-friendly… it just wouldn't show up.  Just thought I should mention this…

[Chestertonian]

Any man who doesn't find Lucy Liu staggeringly beautiful is gay.

 

 

(There were better pictures, but Phatmass guidelines state that she has to be clothed)

 

 

checkmate

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Aha and yes what is beauty to women, a nice garden perhaps and decor inside the house. And a husband that helps with the housework perhaps. And a manicured rose more often than valentines day,with a card saying i love you.
 

I don't know any women, so my idea is probably the medias popular idea that i learnt from previous movie and t.v. indulgences. Chickas feel free to post what is it that you think represents beauty.

 

GodblesS.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Era Might]

Era, I would say that the Incarnation is the standard of objective beauty. And the Incarnation is a masterpiece of the Holy Spirit. Beauty can be found anywhere and everywhere the Holy Spirit hovers.

 

Was thinking about this this morning. I would say that the Life of Christ, certainly, and even more specifically, the person of Christ, is the most beautiful thing to appear or be conceived of in human history (and I don't think anything could ever surpass it). But I would keep the focus on the person of Christ, rather the "Incarnation," because I think that idea of Incarnation, as an artistic concept, is too abstract and too tied to Greek artistic values of the human body. That's one of the reasons why I dislike Christian art in Western Europe, its focus on the body and realistic depiction. Pope Francis recently mentioned the painting "The Calling of St. Matthew" in a homily recently, and I think it's a beautiful painting for the story it depicts. That, I think, is when Christian art is most beautiful, in the stories of the life of Christ that it attempts to represent, rather than in the art itself. I don't think the art itself is "objectively beautiful," but I think the life of Christ is supremely beautiful...if that makes sense, and art is only beautiful to the extent that it approaches this supreme beauty which is the life and person of Christ.

[ACS67]

I don't think the art itself is "objectively beautiful," but I think the life of Christ is supremely beautiful...if that makes sense, and art is only beautiful to the extent that it approaches this supreme beauty which is the life and person of Christ.

 

And that, Era, is a "beautiful" statement.  :)

Edited July 13, 2013 by ACS67

[Era Might]

Happened to read this interview with Evelyn Waugh, this passage struck me sharply, though I'd share:

 

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4537/the-art-of-fiction-no-30-evelyn-waugh

 

INTERVIEWER

It is evident that you reverence the authority of established institutions—the Catholic Church and the army. Would you agree that on one level both Brideshead Revisited and the army trilogy were celebrations of this reverence?

WAUGH

No, certainly not. I reverence the Catholic Church because it is true, not because it is established or an institution. Men at Arms was a kind of uncelebration, a history of Guy Crouchback's disillusion with the army. Guy has old-fashioned ideas of honor and illusions of chivalry; we see these being used up and destroyed by his encounters with the realities of army life.

INTERVIEWER

Would you say that there was any direct moral to the army trilogy?

WAUGH

Yes, I imply that there is a moral purpose, a chance of salvation, in every human life. Do you know the old Protestant hymn which goes: “Once to every man and nation / Comes the moment to decide”? Guy is offered this chance by making himself responsible for the upbringing of Trimmer's child, to see that he is not brought up by his dissolute mother. He is essentially an unselfish character.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Agreed. And Salma Hayek. And her...

 

(Kerry Washington)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hc916/3922155896/sizes/m/in/photolist-6YA5iw-6YAeGo-6YAfvE-6YPBwJ-6Znm56-78hJbz-7ahWZR-7ahYbg-7amKFf-7bwHGk-7bAv3W-7bAv7J-9d8ZSU-dLXvPW-8BYCVv-8BYCRD-8BYD1p-8R35AW-e1BraH-9d8AgF-9d8AaV-bJP8YD-8C2HVb-dJifvy-dy8S3Y-cdmyrm-8qgcaX-7yBfLB-f6HVdg-dWeFMi-7yF67d-dY2BD5-dqyZ4p-9DzDTX-8FdW6J-9GjUKS-8FaMwp-8FaLLc-8FaNcx-7WE5Z7-7WE5QE-7WARBr-7WE5Fj-eQnCjk-9G55jK-9G81b7-9G81wS-9G54Qr-9G57dP-9G7ZPN-9G7Zoh/

 

I think it is safe to say that the debate is over.

 

Eh, I was never really into black girls. I want to be, but I just don't find them attractive like I do other girls.

[4588686]

I don't find Lucy Liu particularly attractive.  

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

/thread

Edited July 13, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[PhuturePriest]

I don't find Lucy Liu particularly attractive.  

 

[Era Might]

 

/thread

 

Provocative.

[Seven77]

Was thinking about this this morning. I would say that the Life of Christ, certainly, and even more specifically, the person of Christ, is the most beautiful thing to appear or be conceived of in human history (and I don't think anything could ever surpass it). But I would keep the focus on the person of Christ, rather the "Incarnation," because I think that idea of Incarnation, as an artistic concept, is too abstract and too tied to Greek artistic values of the human body. That's one of the reasons why I dislike Christian art in Western Europe, its focus on the body and realistic depiction. Pope Francis recently mentioned the painting "The Calling of St. Matthew" in a homily recently, and I think it's a beautiful painting for the story it depicts. That, I think, is when Christian art is most beautiful, in the stories of the life of Christ that it attempts to represent, rather than in the art itself. I don't think the art itself is "objectively beautiful," but I think the life of Christ is supremely beautiful...if that makes sense, and art is only beautiful to the extent that it approaches this supreme beauty which is the life and person of Christ.

 

 

But wouldn't you say that artwork which "approaches this supreme beauty which is the life and person of Christ" is *objectively* beautiful? And, how can you understand the Incarnation as abstract? The Incarnation is Christ, The Word made Flesh. I'm not really a big fan of the style in which God the Father and Jesus Christ are depicted in the Sistine Chapel… but I do like the Iconography of the East in picturing Jesus, the Icon of the invisible God.

 

Edited July 15, 2013 by Seven77

[CrossCuT]

What kind of beauty are we talking about? Physical? Spiritual? Personality? Etc?

Maybe someone else touched on it...but I do think there is a standard that we all view as beautiful from a physcial sense. Can that standard change? It can, but I think there are some central things that dont.

 

My viewpoint on the purely physical aspect comes from a very natural and evolutionary point of view. What aspects lead a higher chance of reproduction? On a physical level, thats all the matters and I watched a documentary on this very thing which outlines what physical attributes are most attractive to both males and females in the opposite sex.