The
Origins of Beauty
Beauty in
Classical and Medieval Thought
Pre-Platonic
Priming
In Classical Times in Western Culture
there was thought to be an affinity (if not an identity) among three
concepts: Truth, Goodness and Beauty.
– Probably it’s
much broader than Western Culture.
– In all cultures
Heroic characters are generally presented as beautiful.
We can take even our own Folktales and
Myths as examples:
– The gods (except
the comic or monstrous ones) were breathtakingly beautiful.
– The “Evil Witch”
is an ugly old crone.
– Good Fairies are
beautiful.
– Monsters were
the result of moral corruption.
– Even vampires
are ugly once Buffy stakes them.
So predating Plato, there is a tradition
to thinking of beauty, goodness and truth as related, signs of one another. Or perhaps in some mystical way, these three
are identical. There may be biological
hardwiring for this. Scientists have
long documented the “Halo Effect”
Halo Effect:
•
The
halo effect occurs when a person's (or product’s, etc.) positive or negative traits
"spill over" from one area of their personality to another in others'
perceptions of them.
•
This
can manifest in pretty people be thought more honest; ugly people being thought
more devious or less trustworthy.
Edward L. Thorndike, for instance, documents
that when soldiers were asked to rate their commanding officers, he found high
cross-correlation between all positive and all negative traits. People seem to rarely think of each other in
mixed terms; instead we seem to see individuals as universally roughly good or
roughly bad across all categories of measurement.[1] [2]
Another common example of the halo
effect is that good-looking schoolchildren (or a good looking person versus a
more plain looking person) are perceived to be more clever even when they
present no evidence of this. In
marketing, a halo effect is one where the perceived positive features of a
particular item extend to a broader brand.
• It has been used
to describe how the IPod has had positive effects on perceptions of Apple
Computer's other products.
• This is related
to another well documented phenomenon- The Beauty Bias[3]:
The
Beauty Bias:
We tend to pay more attention to
good-looking people.
·
Douglas
T Kenrick’s eye-tracking research has shown that both men and women spend more
time looking at beautiful women (cultural norm) than at less attractive women.[4]
·
Babies
as young as 8-months-old will stare at an attractive female face of any race
longer than they will at an average-looking or unattractive female face.[5]
·
Certain
human traits appear to be universally recognized as beautiful:
1. symmetry (bilateral- not radial :-))
2. regularity in the shape and size of
the features
3. smooth skin
4. big eyes
5. thick lips
6. (for women, and an hourglass figure)
–perhaps a cognitive association with fertility.
Researchers suggest that Men have
evolved to select for these featured as they are associated with health and
reproductive fitness.
Nancy Etcoff, author of Survival
of the Prettiest[6],
claims that Women’s responses are more cognitively complex. She claims that
Women stare at beautiful female faces out of aesthetic appreciation, to look
for potential tips—and because a beautiful woman could be a rival worth
monitoring
·
There
are numerous studies that demonstrate that physical attractiveness affects our
perception of a person’s morality and truthfulness. While this operates largely at the
unconscious level, we even have evidence of it happening at the (nearly)
conscious level.
Ted Bundy:
·
I
remember looking at the cover of a paperback account of the life and crimes of
serial killer Ted Bundy.
·
I
recall staring at the photo of this very handsome man, looking for the monster-
confident that there had to be some sort of telltale sign- maybe in the eyes-
But why?
·
Maybe
because there is something contradictory about a beautiful evil (ugliness).
All this is say that, not only has there
been a cultural conceptual link between Beauty, Truth and Moral Goodness, there
may even be a biological explanation for this.
Plato formalized the notion common to
many (if not all) cultures that Beauty was tied to Truth and to Goodness.
– Much of Platonic
Philosophy deals with distinguishing between reality and appearance.
– Just as not
everything that appears true is true, nor is everything that appears
good in fact good, so too…Not everything that appears beautiful is
beautiful.
– For Plato then,
Beauty is divorced from “Appearance." That something has a pleasant
appearance tells you nothing about whether it is
beautiful or not.
Beauty ≠ Pleasant Appearing
Plato makes a similar point about
“goodness.” He notes that not everything
that tastes good is good (for you). There is an important difference between the
cook and the dietician, the beautician and the physical therapist. His view on beauty is importantly different
from the view of beauty that most people have today (i.e. That “X is beautiful.” = “X is visually
pleasing (to me.”). The wise person must
distinguish between:
– apparent goodness and real
goodness,
– apparent truth and real
truth, and
– apparent beauty (glamour) and REAL
BEAUTY.
Hence
the branches of Philosophy: Epistemology, Ethics and Aesthetics
In the
Symposium Plato presents his view on the proper way to learn to love
beauty:
1.
Begin at an early age
2.
First be taught to love one beautiful body (a human body).
3.
Notice that the first body shares beauty with other beautiful
bodies. (provides a basis for loving all beautiful bodies)
4.
Realize that the beauty of souls is superior to the beauty of bodies.
After
the physical is transcended, then the second spiritual stage begins;
5. Learn
to love beautiful practices and customs.
6.
Recognize their common beauty (i.e. their “form”)
7.
Recognize the beauty in the various kinds of knowledge.
8.
Experience “Beauty” itself (not embodied in anything, physical or
spiritual.)
Note: Knowledge rises through increasingly
abstract levels.
•
Culminates
in the ultimate abstraction.
•
When
we truly know what we love, (what we truly love) we know it to be the
pure abstract Form of Beauty. It was
this Form that was shining through all the lower objects and ideas along the
way.
•
While
we call things beautiful, it is only because the Form of Beauty shines through
them that we love and value them (and should love and value them).
•
Therefore,
it is the Form of Beauty that is the source of value and prompts our
admiration.[7]
Note: As is characteristic of Platonic
Thought, Knowledge rises through increasingly abstract levels.
Plato's treatment of beauty here is an
example of his theory of the Forms. (Note
especially Aesthetic Implications to Plato’s Metaphysics)
Plato barrows heavily from Pythagoras:
– We have a priori
knowledge of pure forms which are constant and unchanging.
– In order to
explain every real thing, everything with “Being” –Ontos- you need to talk
about two “Realms”
“The Realm of Being”
“The Realm of Becoming”
For Plato, “Beauty” seems to name a
conceptual primitive or atomic concept.
Beauty cannot be defined in more simple terms. However, Plato does note some characteristics
of beautiful things of the world of sense, (though somewhat ambivalent) and
suggest that there are properties that all beautiful things have in common.
Two kinds of beautiful things:
1. Simple beautiful
things. (e.g., pure tones and single colors),
2. Complex
beautiful things.
Simple things have “unity” in that they
are simple.
Complex things have measure and
proportion of parts and by means of this, achieve sort of unity as well. Later aestheticians refer to a “Unity in Difference.”
But Plato does not mean to identify
beauty with unity. It is simply a
discoverable fact (allegedly) that all beautiful things are unified.
Plato on “Beauty”
Seems to believe that beauty is a
simple, un-analyze-able property, (which means that the term cannot be defined
at all) and that we can learn only by direct experience.
Nevertheless, his emphasis on measure
and proportion set an important precedent for all subsequent philosophers.
Beauty After
Plato
Some thought of beauty as an object that
does not exist in the world of sense. (Neo-Platonists)
Others identified beauty with measure
and proportion as we find it in our sensuous experience (Aristotelians).[8]
Important result of the theory of Plato
was the establishment of the notion of contemplation as a central idea in the
theory of beauty and, consequently, in the theory of aesthetic experience. (a kind of meditation, awareness some
non-sensuous entity). Likewise is the
notion that beauty brings to us a kind of “awareness” of an objective
truth. Thus, for those following in the
Platonic tradition, the experience of beauty is a cognition of an intelligence
or rational order. This is very
different from a mere pleasurable affective response (i.e. the sensuously
agreeable).
Something of the Platonic sense of
“Contemplation” remains in modern aesthetic theories. George Dickie argues that this is
responsible for the solemn and pompous attitude toward art and beauty that some
persons display.[9] But, he points out, many of our experiences
of art and nature are NOT contemplative in Plato’s sense. For what it’s worth, I do not agree with Dickie
here.[10] I think the solemnity we adopt when in the
presence of things of great beauty arises from the conviction that we are in
the presence of something of real value.
This conviction I take to be an integral part of the beauty/sublime
experience.
The “Objectivist” account of Beauty hung
on for quite some time. Eventually it
lost ground to its ancient rival, Subjectivism.
“De
gustibus non disputandum est.”
But this was a long time coming.
St. Augustine (A.D. 354 430)
- An important philosopher and theologian
- Perpetuated the Platonic theory of beauty as well as other Platonic doctrines with in the Orthodox Christian World View.
- Must not confuse “Things to be Used” with “Things to be Enjoyed”
- The value of anything, things of beauty included, was its usefulness in leading us to the REAL thing of value, indeed the bestower of value, God. (Note how very similar this is in outline and in spirit to Plato.)
On Christian
Doctrine[11]
- Begun in about 396 and completed in 426.
- Reflects not only the early direction of the Christian Church, but the phenomenal influence of Plato and Neo-Platonists
- Considered to have straddled the Ancient and Medieval Epocs
On Christian Doctrine
I
Two things necessary to the treatment of the Scriptures
1. A way of discovering those things which are to be understood
2. A way of teaching what we have learned.
Discovery:
- great and arduous work
- difficult to sustain
- such a work lies in Him
Augustine notes that all things of value issue from the source of values –not the Form of the Good in this case, but rather “God.”
On Christian Doctrine
II
Makes the distinction between signs and things.
On Christian Doctrine
III
Distinguishes among:
- things to be enjoyed (make us blessed)
- things to be use (sustain us as we move toward blessedness)
- things to be enjoyed and used.
If we enjoy (and cling to with love) those things which should be used, our course (to blessedness) will be impeded and sometimes deflected.
“shackled by an inferior love”
On Christian Doctrine
IV
- To enjoy something is to cling to it with love for its own sake.
- To use something, however, is to employ it in obtaining that which you love, provided that it is worthy of your love.
- An illicit use should be called rather a waste or an abuse.
“But if the amenities of the journey and the motion of the vehicles itself delighted us, and we were led to enjoy those things which we should use, we should not wish to end our journey quickly, and, entangled in a perverse sweetness, we should he alienated from our country, whose sweetness would make us, blessed.”
Mortal life must not become “wandering from God”
On Christian Doctrine
V
The (only) things which are to be (genuinely) enjoyed are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a single Trinity, (a certain supreme thing common to all who enjoy it)
On Christian Doctrine
VI
“I feel that I have done nothing but wish to speak”
This is the ineffable nature of the Divine.
But even calling God ineffable is problematic, as Augustine points out, because you are still “effing.”
“This contradiction is to be passed over in silence rather than re solved verbally.”
On Christian Doctrine
XXXV
The end of the Law and of all the sacred Scriptures is the love of a Being which is to be enjoyed.
(one might add, of all things that are to be used- Art/Beauty)
These next three I put in just because I thought they show a more ecumenical side to Augustine.
On Christian Doctrine
XXXVI
“Whoever, therefore, thinks that he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand it at all.”
“Whoever finds a lesson there useful to the building of charity, even though he has not said what the author may be shown to have intended in that place, has not been deceived, nor is he lying in any way.”
On Christian Doctrine
XXXVI
“However, as I began to explain, if he is deceived in an interpretation which builds up charity, which is the end of the commandments, he is deceived in the same way as a man who leaves a road by mistake but passes through a field to the same place toward which the road itself leads. But he is to be corrected and shown that it is more useful not to leave the road, lest the habit of deviating force him to take a crossroad or a perverse way.”
On Christian Doctrine
XXX
“Indeed, if faith staggers, charity itself languishes. And if anyone should fall from faith, it follows that he falls also from charity, for a man cannot love that which he does not believe to exist. On the other hand, a man who both believes and loves, by doing well and by obeying the rules of good customs, may bring it about that he may hope to arrive at that which he loves. Thus there are these three things for which all knowledge and prophecy struggle: faith, hope, and charity.”
On Christian Doctrine XXXVIII
“Between temporal and eternal things there is this difference: a temporal thing is loved more before we have it, and it begins to grow worthless when we gain it, for it does not satisfy the soul, whose true and certain rest is eternity; but the eternal is more ardently loved when it is acquired than when it is merely desired.”[12]
Boethius b 480; died at
- Wrote this when imprisoned, before being executed by King Theodoric.
- Learned man who tradition hold was a martyr for the Christian faith.
- Curiously, his most famous work makes no mention nor use of Christian doctrine, but relies on "natural reason" alone.
- We see in his condemnation of “poetry” the Platonic criticism of art in general, but not a criticism of genuine (intellectual) beauty, for the latter, in is good (healthful) and true.
The Consolation of Philosophy
“When she saw that the Muses of poetry were present by my couch giving words to my lamenting, she was stirred a while; her eyes flashed fiercely as she said: “Who has suffered these seducing mummers to approach this sick man? Never have they nursed his sorrowings with any remedies, but rather fostered them with poisonous sweets. These are they who stifle the fruit-bearing harvest of reason with the barren briars of the passions; they do not free the minds of men from disease but accustom them thereto.
“I would think it less grievous if your allurements drew away from me some common man like those of the vulgar herd, seeing that in such a one my labors would be harmed not at all. But this man has been nurtured in the lore of Eleatics and Academics. Away with you, sirens, seductive even to perdition, and leave him to my Muses to be cared for and healed!”
We see what will become an institutional censoring, very similar to what Plato prescribed in the Republic, of Art and all things “beautiful” should the fall short of the “test” of true beauty.
(Also inherited is Plato suspicion of Theatre as Deliberate Deception.)
St. Thomas Aquinas
(A.D. 1225 1274)
- Influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (384 322 B.C.), supplemented/ transformed Plato's influence on Christian thinkers.
- Aristotle had rejected the Platonic view that the Forms transcend the world of experience and exist in their own distinct realm.
- For Aristotle, Forms are embodied in nature as we experience it and have no independent existence. There are not two worlds (as Plato held), but only one, and it is perfectly intelligible.
- Therefore there is a basis for an interest in the phenomena of both nature and art.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy expresses this empirical mindset.
Aquinas's Conception of Beauty
- Not an unworldly one;
- Defines "beauty" as:
a) "that which pleases when seen.'
b)"the beautiful is that which calms the desire, by being seen or known."
Thus related to desire.
- Goes on to isolate the properties of the objects that do please and calm desire.
Suggests three (objective) conditions:
1. perfection or unimpairedness
2. proportion or harmony
3. brightness or clarity
Suggest a (subjective) condition as well:
- Calms the desires by being seen or known
He combines both objective and subjective aspects.
- Conditions of beauty are objective features.
- The idea of pleasing is a subjective element. (Being pleased is a property of a subject)
But note that he combines both objective and subjective aspects. While the conditions of beauty are objective features, the idea of pleasing is a subjective element. (Being pleased is a property of a subject) This represents a significant step away from the objective Platonic conception of beauty toward a subjective conception.
Note further that “calming the desires” is an objectively verifiable effect of subjective experience.
Stresses the cognitive (knowing) aspect of the experience of beauty.
According to Aquinas, in the experience of beauty, the mind grasps a Form that is embodied in the object of the experience. Mind grasps or abstracts the form that causes an object to be what it is. Thus the mind gains knowledge though the experience of beauty. (He is not Locke.)
But the grasping of a Form is not the only thing involved in the cognition of beauty.
This suggests that there may be no single Form or property of beauty that it is common to all beautiful things the possession of which makes them beautiful. Therefore, contra Plato, the object of such a cognitive experience is NOT the Form of Beauty.
Marsillio Ficino (1433-1499)
- Italian Neo-Platonist philosopher
- Translated into Latin the works of Plato and Plotinus making these accessible during the Renaissance.
- Fascinated with classical mythology and magic.
- Promoted a synthesis of Neo-Platonic thought with the doctrines of Christianity.
For Ficino the visual arts were especially important. Their function was to remind the soul of its origin in the divine world by creating, through art, resemblances to that world. Ficino's insistence on the importance of this with respect to painting has been credited with raising the status of the painter in Florentine society to that nearer the poet (rather than that of the carpenter, where it had been previously).
Plato asserted that in all things there is one truth, that is the light of the One itself, the light of Deity, which is poured into all minds and forms, presenting the forms to the minds and joining the minds to the forms. Whoever wishes to profess the study of Plato should therefore honour the one truth, which is the single ray of the one Deity.
This ray passes through angels, souls, the heavens and other bodies ... its splendour shines in every individual thing according to its nature and is called grace and beauty; and where it shines more clearly, it especially attracts the man who is watching, stimulates him who thinks, and catches and possesses him who draws near to it.
This ray compels him to revere its splendour more than all else, as if it were a divine spirit, and, once his former nature has been cast aside, to strive for nothing else but to become this splendour.
- The image of painting is Ficino's most frequent metaphor.
- He was on close terms with the Pollaiuolo brothers and closely directed the painting of Botticelli's Primavera.
In the Platonic Theology he describes the first impulse in the creation of a painting.
He writes:
'The whole field appeared in a single moment to Apelles and aroused in him the desire to paint.‘[13]
(Note the echo of Plato’s assertion that artistic creativity comes as a sort of “Divine Madness” and not an acquired, rational, skill.)
Sandro Botticelli and Renaissance Florence
“The morality of art is in its very beauty.”
-Gustave Flaubert to Louis BonEnfant
Sandro Botticelli (c. 1445 – 1510) works embody the spirit of the Renaissance. By this point in Western history, traditional Medieval Christianity and its renunciation of the worldly (pleasures, interests, concerns) had lost much of its appeal, perhaps due in part to the disappointment of the 1st millennium and later the Crusades. The Ancient pagan ideals of beauty and “the good life” began to reassert themselves. Consider Primavera; this is a thoroughly Pagan picture, an exuberant revival of embodied natural forces in an era of total control by the Church. The style is reminiscent classical styles of art, similar is style to roman frescos.
- Botticelli was permitted to paint such images (when previous artists could not) because of Ficino's philosophy/theology.
- Ficino argues that the "celestial Venus" and the Virgin Mary were expressions of "Divine Love"
- He spoke of “emanations” from (of?) God into the Noetic world.
- With this philosophy in mind, Botticelli’s pagan gods are seen in a new, sanctified context.
- The pagan gods are representations of the ideals of Christianity.
- Thus Ficino seemed to offer the perfect solution to the dilemma of the Renaissance.
Girolamo Savonarola
- But later in life, Botticelli came under the influence of Girolamo Savonarola
- In 1494 Savonarola began preaching for religious reform and denouncing the reborn pagan ideals.
- He developed a sizable following among the ordinary Florentines
- Once under his influence the effect on Botticelli's artwork was enormous.
- Fearful of going to hell for his sin, Botticelli destroyed many of his pagan pieces.
- Thereafter, his works reflect obvious moralizing.
Calumny (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Sandro_Botticelli_021.jpg)
- Botticelli painted Calumny just before 1500.
- That year he abandoned painting altogether.
- Interestingly, the year 1500 marks the date at which Savonarola declared that the world would come to an end, and the God’s “Last Judgment” would occur.
- Savonarola
himself never saw his prediction fail, for in 1498, he was tried for
heresy and burned alive in the public
The Spell of Plato
Even with
Even into contemporary times we see those who suppose “beauty” is a window to a different “higher” realm of reality.
