What is Beauty?

What is beauty?

There she stands, both strong and pure, with head held high and a furrowed pensive sneer plastered across her countenance hinting at strength of resolve; a symbol of quiet dignity and power of Will that strikes you like a slap in the face and reminds you of what is possible and not just an unapproachable ideal to be fantasized over or that can only be found in books and movie screens.

She is beautiful, a fact made all the more poignant by her complete innocence about it, her complete ignorance concerning her own force of presence.
She feels her power, sometimes, she perceives the effects of it on the world around her but she lacks the ego and the presumptuous nature to fully appreciate it.
Her pride is often misconstrued as arrogance and her nobility as snobbishness.

This is power in its purest form. It just exudes itself in genuine honesty and is not the product of imitation, inheritance or surrogacy.
A beautiful woman need not use makeup or dress in flamboyant, flattering garments to become so-she simply is- no more than a powerful woman needs to find authority through social positions of status or economic sway. The most pathetically weak individuals are often those that, when stripped of their labels, acquisitions and status, have nothing else left to be proud of.
Powerlessness can always be recognized by how it tries to acquire control through external sources where personal incapacity is filled by institutional or symbolic strength; the weaker the individual, the uglier the person, the simpler the mind, the more it looks for substitutions for inner power and beauty.
But she needs none of this, others just gravitate to her they sense her authenticity of spirit; they want to partake in it, rub against it, gain a bit of it through association or they fear it, loath it, despise its existence until they want to tear it down and defame it in public view. They feel threatened by it because it forces comparisons and its purity of force and ease of expression exasperates them.

But beauty can’t be completely defined or mathematically measured; we feel it first and then search for the reasons why; we first acknowledge it as such and then we attempt to intellectualize and conceptualize it so that we may try to reproduce it.
The ancients understood beauty and its power, they tried to capture it and reproduce it using its external manifestations.

But how do you capture intrinsic beauty, how do you symbolize spiritual symmetry, how do you grasp strength of Will?

You can only symbolize it using outer impressions that attempt to define inner forces.

What is beauty?

He walks into a room and makes no first impressions of note. He resembles the common man to the extent that he can blend into the throng and get lost in the multitude.

But spend enough time in his presence and he unfolds the wonderment of his being to you. Slowly but surely you begin deferring to him, you seek his approval, his agreement, his friendship, his love.
It happens unconsciously and while you are offering opinions on a multiplicity of subject matter and trying to resist him, your eyes drift his way, they seek out his, looking for reaction, looking for consent, looking for communion.

He doesn’t always speak honestly, often being bored by the simplicity of the world or the opinions trying to encompass it, but when he does he sets a standard to be reached and reveals a perspective that can be ignored and/or
opposed but not completely denied.

He is beautiful in the one way that matters, for a beautiful spirit can result in symmetry of form but symmetry of form doesn’t always hint at spirit.
He is threatening, even though he may be oblivious to it most of the time. He sucks energy out of a room until there’s little left-over to be shared; he draws attention unexpectedly, when at first he is ignored, and even those that despise him for it, unwillingly measure themselves against him and unconsciously try to flatter themselves by tearing him down.

The shadows are his preference, from here he can be himself, but the spotlight is often his unavoidable and uncomfortable destiny.

What is beauty?

I’ve caught a glimpse of it in dying sunlight or through canopied forest paths, when the shadows are cast just right, or in gentle early-morning snowfalls right before the dawn.

I’ve caught a passing resonance of it in euphonious melody and in the angry tension of a driving tune or in the vocal reverberations of someone dear to me, that lingers long after they are gone, or in the unexpected rising of a summer breeze rustling through the grass after a spring shower.

I’ve caught a hint of it through the gentle traces of a tender caress, in the smooth aftertaste of wine and a loving genuine kiss or in a subtle scent wafted up from hidden sources that brings back a memory of a time, a place or a person you’ve forgotten.

In those moments, of perceptive clarity, I’ve enjoyed the transcending truth of my existence and I’ve rejoiced, lost for a while in sensation, with the soft strumming of intuition upon my mind.

But there are two types of beauty, as there are two types of power:
One is attained through artificial means; it is inherited and adorned like finery but never truly possessed.
Like a policeman out of uniform, a priest with no collar, a wealthy man made suddenly poor again or a beauty-queen cleansed from all the exaggerating affects of wardrobe, paint and shadowing, their power/beauty rests on external sources and facades of institutional symbolism and well crafted imaging. They are usually the ones that, when talking about themselves, always
talk about things and objects and symbols; they distract you from the self with external attire and all the stuff they wrap themselves in and hide behind.

A scientist will mention his credentials in the attempt to gain the intellectual credibility and respect he lacks in personally, a police officer will use his uniform and gun to achieve institutional empowerment to compensate for personal feebleness, a wealthy man will use his acquisitions and monetary sway to achieve distinction and a sense of well-being out of reach from him in every other way, a woman may use surgical enhancements, good grooming or the
illusory effects of clothing and cosmetics to hide her plainness or inner ugliness, a man will use large muscles and a well defined physique to overcompensate for intellectual or psychological weakness, a priest will use his collar and station to insinuate piety and spirituality where there is none, a common man may use his career and his social position of authority and community ties to excuse his own simplicity of thought and total conformity with and commitment to the norms.

The second type is derived from the very essence of a persons being. It isn’t bought or learned it is the very fabric of its existence, expressed naturally and with little effort and so with even less conscious awareness, just like a beautiful sunset.
This is why it is detestable to the many, awe inspiring to the few and threatening to the insecure and fearful.

What is beauty?

It has been said that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and that it is an evolutionary process by which the mind, through psychology and genetic predisposition, recognizes what is worthy of its attentions and how one distinguishes the healthy from the ill.
It has also been said that beauty is power -although it could, more accurately, be restated that it is power that is beauty- as it is an inexorable manifestation of a notable convergence of strength and health within a single entity/phenomenon in space/time.

Even if it is so, this still does not take away from the profound impact it has on human thought. Nobody can ignore the effects of harmony, symmetry and order upon the human mind; no amount of deconstruction and rationalization can minimize its influence. In a universe with so little of it, every instance draws us to it and imposes itself into our reality. We look for it, we covet and envy it and we aspire to and are inspired by it.
I don’t know what beauty is, the closest I’ve come to defining it is as an expression of order and harmony in a universe of chaos and disharmony that comes across as eloquence, symmetry and grace that leaves us breathless.

We all want to know that when we lie on our deathbed and we prepare to be taken back to the oblivion that birthed us, we might have, for at least once in our lives, perceived a particle of it so that we can hold onto its memory, as we drift away; a memory to savor in the void, a singular instance of definitiveness in a universe of uncertainty and then, perhaps, our lives would not have been all in vain.

If her "beauty" presents/contains impossible questions, then does his beauty unwrap/release possible answers? Is the gift in the question or answer?

perpetualburn wrote:

If her "beauty" presents/contains impossible questions, then does his beauty unwrap/release possible answers?  Is the gift in the question or answer?

Beauty is in the promise....her towards.
She opens up the potentials in your actions, or closes them off.
She is carried away by his intent....and he own possibilities become invested in his.

Satyr wrote:

It just exudes itself in genuine honesty and is not the product of imitation, inheritance or surrogacy.

Satyr wrote:

the weaker the individual, the uglier the person, the simpler the mind, the more it looks for substitutions for inner power and beauty.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''The perception of that which is beautiful is strictly objective because it is the observation of that which is in accord with the symmetry of the Universe.
A beautiful Nordic face is beautiful because it is the product of the Universe itself in its most refined state and we humans are ourselves the Universe.
Certain traits in particular are aesthetically pleasing because they are linked to larger cranial capacity and therefore intelligence, not to mention intrinsic nobility, wisdom, and other nonphysical traits.
All Human beauty is judged by how similar or dissimilar it is to the Nordic ideal -- this is true for all races.
One will find that those Africans or African Americans which are commonly seen as exceptionally beautiful are just lucky enough to have a profile with some similarity to a true Nordic-Germanic person; this proves that Nordic-Germanic beauty is Universal in appeal.
Those who wish to argue otherwise and show deviation from this perception and wish to make beauty too radically subjective are psychologically unstable and have some fetishism for diluted gene pools.
This then proves they are out of balance with the order of the Universe!''


Beauty in correlation with consciousness and strength?

Depends on what exactly is meant by "Nordic."  

Quote :

All Human beauty is judged by how similar or dissimilar it is to the Nordic ideal -- this is true for all races.

Are we talking about the physical ideal here?  Scandinavians?

The manifestation of beauty in outer-appearance is for an important part a indicator of the strength one has to keep him/herself in health.
Selfish-genes, replicating yourself, negroids love some of the characteristics of their own women; but the attraction towards the White-Caucasian ideal, is obvious.
It might have to do to some extent with recent history (White colonial powers, slavery), power - or simply wanting to fuck the White man's women; but besides, there is this attraction towards Caucasian features without the connection of power/intelligence.

And yes, north-Germanic, Scandinavian..



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

''The January l986 issue of the journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, "Skin Color Preference, Sexual Dimorphism and Sexual Selection: a case of Gene-Culture Co-evolution?" by Peter Frost and Pierre Van der Herghe, stated that in any given race, the women tend to have lighter complexions than the men. Using standard ethnographic files from 51 societies on five continents which have recorded their preference for human skin color, the study found that 30 preferred lighter women and 14 preferred lighter women and lighter men. The cultures of India, China, Brazil and Bali, as well as the Arabs and Negroes regard the lightest women as the most beautiful. --perpetuating the aesthetic appeal of the ivory-skinned, rosy-cheeked, blue-eyed, blond "nordic ideal" of feminine beauty- -even though they themselves do not possess the genetic capacity to reproduce such an organism. Over time, the study said, the upper classes of all races have become lighter-skinned than their fellow countrymen because they have repeatedly skimmed off fairer women from the lower classes.

Scientific research on what constitutes human beauty, in which 300 judges of various backgrounds were shown portrait photos and asked to rate the beauty of the individual's face, has revealed that Nordic Whites are universally recognized as the most attractive, even by Blacks. The judges were instructed to evaluate the faces solely on his or her "personal standards of beauty." The results of the study "Age, Sex, Race and the Perception of Facial Beauty." Developmental Psychology, 5, Nov, 1971.''


''Charles Darwin wrote that he saw a Hottentot woman, who was considered a beauty; the rear
end of her body was so huge, that sitting on level ground, this woman could not stand, and had to crawl on her haunches to the nearest incline. The men of this tribe, choosing women for themselves, stood them in a row, and preferred the one whose [buttocks] stood out most from the rear. According to the remarks of the scientist, nothing could be more disgusting to the Negro, than an opposite form of the body.''



“It is unlikely that we will succeed in [making] the typical form of beauty for each race; what touches on the “eternal canons of beauty,” as applied for each case, is that each agrees that they do not exist; every knows that the Negro considers his Negress to be so good, the Kalmyk his Kalmyk woman to be very beautiful, and the European adores the women in Raphael’s paintings. A look at the population of the whole world shows us that everywhere, young men strive to possess girls, even in those races, where the girls arouse disgust in us at their very appearance, even in their blossoming years. This unavoidably leads us to the conclusion that the ideal of beauty in different peoples should be highly varied and different.”



In the animal world, beauty is to attract a mating partner, as simple as that; what we, by human judgment, also consider to be beautiful in animals - danger. The beautiful colour manifestation of certain snakes for example. Some who are not venomous however, imitate the beauty of those who are - colours as an indicator of danger..

Beauty is symmetry.

But beauty is also rarity.

Beauty offers potentiality and possibility.

Most of these are covered already, symmetry and potential. But rarity is another factor of beauty, missed out and neglected by the posts here. It is one thing to be symmetrical, like a rubber ball. A sphere is symmetrical. A square, an isosceles triangle, a hexagon. Simple shapes with perfect symmetry. So symmetry alone is not enough.

Beauty, commonly referred to female beauty, a gorgeous face and sexy body, specifically represents genetic potential and most immediately and readily, good breeding. Beauty is the result of the most intelligent and choosy breeding. Most beauty is derived from purebred, thoroughbred humans. Mixed breed "mudbloods" are usually less beautiful or ugly. The most mixed and common breeding, is ugliest. At the bottom levels of beauty, representing ugliness, there is almost no discrimination that goes into breeding. The low life scum, the homeless and bums of the world, will have sex, with whomever, at the first chance. And the sluts and whores of the bottom rung of society are happy to oblige, in exchange for a handful of greasy cash. Wasn't your mother a whore selling her sex on the street corner? In this way, yes, most human life is an "accident", unplanned, and unwanted.

Nihilism is wrought from the whore's womb. The nihilists who scream how meaningless life is, and how hateful existence is, mostly come from this lowly source of reproduction. Reproduction without choice, purpose, planning. And most especially, without beauty, rarity, worth, and value. These nihilists are justified. Their life is shit. They are shit. They are almost worth a pile of shit, almost. They're not lying when they hate life, call it ugly, accidental, meaningless, without worth and value. These are mere reflections of their inner spirit and disposition.

Scum and shit, poorly bred, mass manufactured, the future of humanity.


So potential and possibility defers back to choice, discrimination, and exclusion. The most beautiful types of women exclude the greatest amount of men. She will not fuck you. She is disgusted by you. She wants to be away from you. And if you approach her, then you are guilty of sexual harassment and rape. Because the law specifically, originally, protects this woman first. The most beautiful woman. All human laws are made for her first, and then all other females second and last. A most beautiful woman. A rarest woman. Specific breeding. One thousand years of kings and queens blood was poured and filtered into this woman.

A queen's rebirth. A high caste. A pureblood. A true beauty. The rarest rarity.

Rarity reflects and represents choice, sexual choice. 99.99% males on the planet are excluded from beauty. You are not welcome to it, not entitled, it is not your right. Lower your gaze, now, and divert your eyes. This level of beauty was never meant for mortals to partake in.

Because one sight of this beauty will penetrate your mind and your deepest memories. You will not forget, her. You will not forget, beauty. You will recognize, immediately, rarity of nature. Not even a diamond, precious stone, gold bars, can represent the rarity of some humans, some females. Because some humans are rarer than gems and jewels, material treasures.

The noble castes, the Aryan race.

OhFortunae is correct, the Scandinavian Nordic, golden blonde, clear blue eyes, pale white skin, is the highest human beauty. And nobody can deny it. They can try, but, easy to see through the lies of turd worlders, negros and brown skins, who claim they are not moved and swayed by blonde beauty. But once they see one, in real life, watch them fall to their knees, and they do. It's too feeble of a lie.

Quote :

Scientific research on what constitutes human beauty, in which 300 judges of various backgrounds were shown portrait photos and asked to rate the beauty of the individual's face, has revealed that Nordic Whites are universally recognized as the most attractive, even by Blacks. The judges were instructed to evaluate the faces solely on his or her "personal standards of beauty." The results of the study "Age, Sex, Race and the Perception of Facial Beauty." Developmental Psychology, 5, Nov, 1971.''

But should we be concerned with what is "universally recognized as the most attractive"? That a black, Indian or Chinese person considers the Nordic look to be most ideal, should have no ultimate bearing on our assessment on the ideal of beauty

If you're literally talking about those ethnic Scandinavians being most beautiful... then I agree that on average they might be...But if you're going to find the best examples of European beauty, then you're going to come up with a dispersed collection of people from various countries.

I think those Iranian Aryans with green eyes are quite rare and beautiful. Blonde hair blue eyes is a bit overrated.

It hurts doesn't it.

You convinced yourself that you love your brown hair, brown eye girlfriend. You convince yourself, and possibly her, that she's the most beautiful woman in the world. Is she? Or, haven't you, settled for far, far less than the best? You could have chosen a different mate, couldn't you? But you settled down. Don't feel bad, you weren't her first choice either. There's a certain solace in this fact, isn't there?

Who is whose first choice?

I can confidently and safely say, now, that nothing less than blonde, clear blue eyes, pale white skin, is worth fighting for. Why should I risk my life, and pay, for a lesser woman? Why should I pay a stack of money, my hard earned time and sacrifice, to access a lowly, slovenly, slutty woman? Why settle for less, why scratch the bottom of the barrel, when you don't have to? When you're not forced to?

And after you learn the truth?

Not all humans are worth fighting for. So if you sacrifice your life, why not sacrifice it for a highest ideal? If you are prone to suicide, self hatred, nihilism, why not, at least, give yourself to a higher principle, value, virtue, morality?

A highest beauty, an Aryan woman? Golden blonde hair, crystal blue eyes, pale white skin shining brighter than snow.

mannequin wrote:

I think those Iranian Aryans with green eyes are quite rare and beautiful.

Such traits are, however, the remnants of their past; pre-mongrelization.

Maybe a clarification should be made between awe and aesthetic appreciation.

The rare can cause awe, even if it is ugly.

Why not a spontaneous appreciation of what is ugly?
Not to consider the ugly beautiful, but to appreciate the ugly "for its own sake," not for your own.

Malleability

A diamond is rare in nature. But its value is relative until it is cut by a jeweler. Uncut it is just a rock, to most. And most will neither value it nor distinguish it from other rocks. So there are two types of rarity. There is the "stone itself", the diamond, which is rare. And the second type of rarity is its cutting into a shape. Some shapes are much more difficlt and intricate to cut, than others. Some jewelers are less skilled than others.

It is one thing to talk about a rare piece of poop, curled and spiraled in a peculiar way. But comparing poop to diamonds is inappropriate. There is rarity of type and rarity of shape.

The shaping of the material is malleability.


How easy is a human open to suggestion and manipulation? Take two women, the first is ugly, but hard to manipulate. She disagrees, fights, scratches, argues, spits. Nobody pushes her around. The second is beautiful, but gullible, trusting, stupid, follows the whims of all around her, easily confused. Easy to manipulate.

Which has more value? A beautiful, but malleable mate, or an ugly, but a strong and stringent one?

There is a hardness of the mind, the brain, that gets lost in the midst of beauty. Beauty is one thing, manipulation of beauty is another. The shaper is the artificer, the one who can cut beauty, hone it to its maximum potential. What is a beautiful face when she doesn't wash herself, eats greasy food, doesn't get enough sleep, doesn't it turn haggard and worn, with acne and scars?

What is beauty without maintenance? What is beauty without the best breeding?

The diamond represents nature.
The cutting of the diamond represents nurture.

There is the material and then the artificer, the subject who manipulates the object.

Æon wrote:

It hurts doesn't it.

You convinced yourself that you love your brown hair, brown eye girlfriend.  You convince yourself, and possibly her, that she's the most beautiful woman in the world.  Is she?  Or, haven't you, settled for far, far less than the best?  You could have chosen a different mate, couldn't you?  But you settled down.  Don't feel bad, you weren't her first choice either.  There's a certain solace in this fact, isn't there?

Who is whose first choice?

I can confidently and safely say, now, that nothing less than blonde, clear blue eyes, pale white skin, is worth fighting for.  Why should I risk my life, and pay, for a lesser woman?  Why should I pay a stack of money, my hard earned time and sacrifice, to access a lowly, slovenly, slutty woman?  Why settle for less, why scratch the bottom of the barrel, when you don't have to?  When you're not forced to?

And after you learn the truth?

Not all humans are worth fighting for.  So if you sacrifice your life, why not sacrifice it for a highest ideal?  If you are prone to suicide, self hatred, nihilism, why not, at least, give yourself to a higher principle, value, virtue, morality?

A highest beauty, an Aryan woman?  Golden blonde hair, crystal blue eyes, pale white skin shining brighter than snow.

Is there a punch line somewhere in there?

perpetualburn wrote:

Is there a punch line somewhere in there?

Maybe here?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Very beautiful, she is your ideal woman?

What is your reaction to these photos?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Why settle for less, why scratch the bottom of the barrel, when you don't have to? When you're not forced to?

So anything other than Nordic is "bottom of the barrel"?

Do I have to pull from any of the countless thousands of pictures of attractive non-Nordic European woman to prove the obvious.

Æon wrote:

Malleability

A diamond is rare in nature.  But its value is relative until it is cut by a jeweler.  Uncut it is just a rock, to most.  And most will neither value it nor distinguish it from other rocks.  So there are two types of rarity.  There is the "stone itself", the diamond, which is rare.  And the second type of rarity is its cutting into a shape.  Some shapes are much more difficlt and intricate to cut, than others.  Some jewelers are less skilled than others.

It is one thing to talk about a rare piece of poop, curled and spiraled in a peculiar way.  But comparing poop to diamonds is inappropriate.  There is rarity of type and rarity of shape.

The shaping of the material is malleability.


How easy is a human open to suggestion and manipulation?  Take two women, the first is ugly, but hard to manipulate.  She disagrees, fights, scratches, argues, spits.  Nobody pushes her around.  The second is beautiful, but gullible, trusting, stupid, follows the whims of all around her, easily confused.  Easy to manipulate.

Which has more value?  A beautiful, but malleable mate, or an ugly, but a strong and stringent one?

There is a hardness of the mind, the brain, that gets lost in the midst of beauty.  Beauty is one thing, manipulation of beauty is another.  The shaper is the artificer, the one who can cut beauty, hone it to its maximum potential.  What is a beautiful face when she doesn't wash herself, eats greasy food, doesn't get enough sleep, doesn't it turn haggard and worn, with acne and scars?

What is beauty without maintenance?  What is beauty without the best breeding?

1.
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of sensibilities; one cares for the overall perfection, the overall picture and beauty; and one cares for the minor details, the clarity in the fulcrums around which things turn.

The former may not mind the imperfections and the noise in the details as much as a beauty in the overall outcome, and the latter may not mind the imperfect appearance as much as it is conscious of the cleanliness, pristineness or perfection in the details.

Apollonian sensibility responds to overall harmony and strict lines and definitive-ness, while the Dionysian responds to communicability and how it carries itself in the whole.
The former is solid, the latter fluid.
The former puts the onus on the object, demanding of it proportions; the latter puts the onus on the subject, taking it upon itself to adjust perception, to adjust by pushing somethings to the background and bringing somethings to the foreground and enframing it meaningfully. The latter sees itself as that self-lover in the artist who wants to create things from scratch for itself and refuses to indulge in beauty ready-made and simply being given to it.



2.
When we speak of Endurance or Durability - long-lasting Order, on the one hand, there are ancient earthquake-proof buildings, in ancient Italy, for example that has weathered time till date and is an architectural marvel, and on the other hand, we have unbreakable china glass that is mass-produced.
In terms of utility value, they are both the same - they both are capable of enduring for years.
Yet, one has more aesthetic value. Its the difference in capacity to resist replication. Today's technology can imitate it, replicate it. Today's L.A. can boast of a replica of a whole Venice or some such, an almost exact imitation of a world within a world, appearing just as beautiful.
So here, is why Danto explains using the example of Duchamp's Urinal, how interpretation sets the criteria. We ask what was the originator's intent and not how We interpret the object;

Danto wrote:

"Duchamp's Fountain is, as everyone knows, to all outward appearances a urinal - it was a urinal until it became a work of art and acquired such further properties as works of art possess in excess of those possessed by mere real things like urinals. In his own view he chose this particular object for what he hoped was its aesthetic neutrally. Or pretended that this what he hoped. For urinals have too strong a cultural, not to say a moral, identity quite to allow themselves to be without affect. They are objects to begin with, highly sexualized through the fact that women are anatomically barred from employing them in their primary function, at least without awkwardness. So they show their arrogant exclusivity through their form. (The fear of equal access to all johns was a major factor, it will be remembered, in the defeat of the ERA.) They are, moreover, given the cultural realities, objects associated with privacy (though less so than stools) and with dirt. But with any object lies at the intersection of sex and secretion is too obviously charged by the moral boundaries it presupposes simply to stand as a culturally neural object picked out just for its aesthetic neutrality. Duchamp was being disingenuous when he asked: "A urinal - who would be interested in that?"

But then what is the conceptual fulcrum of this still controversial work? My view is that it lies in the question it poses, namely why - referring to itself - should this be an artwork when something else exactly like this, name that - referring now to the class of unredeemed urinals - are just pieces of industrial plumbing? It took genius to raise the question in this form, since nothing like it had been raised before though from Plato (sharpy) downward the question of what is art had been raised and unimaginately answered on the basis of the accepted art world of the time. Duchamp did not merely raise the question hat is Art? but rather Why is something a work of art when something exactly like is it not?

I believe we cannot be deeply wrong if we suppose that the correct interpretation of object-as-artwork is the one which coincides most closely with the artist's own interpretation. Coinciding interpretations put us in different posture with regard to artists than undertaking to discover what their intentions may have been, nor is it as a thesis subject to the sorts of objections Susan Sontag raises against interpretation generally. For the interpretations she impugns only begin or can begin when the work of art is in place, established as such, and the interpreter begins to ponder what the artist is "really" doing or what the work "really" means.

Hers is against a notion of interpretation which makes the artwork as an explanadum - as a symptom, for example. My theory of interpretation is instead constitutive, for an object is an artwork at all only in relation to an interpretation. We may bring this out in a somewhat logical way. Interpretation in my sense is transfigurative. It transforms objects into works of art, and depends upon the "is" of artistic identification. Her interpretations, which are explanatory, use instead the "is" of ordinary identity. Her despised interpreters see works as signs, symptoms, expressions of ulterior or subjacent realities, states of which are what the artwork "really" refers to, and which requires the interpreter to be master of one or another kind of code: psychoanalytical, culture-graphic, semiotical, or whatever. In effect, her interpreters address the work in the sir it of science, and it may vey well be that the endlessness of textual interpretation derives from the endlessness of scientific perspectives under which a work may be viewed. We know too little of man, really, to pretend that no new or fresh insights into art may not open up in human sciences of the future. In this sense, the artist can scarcely be any more conscious of these interpretations then we. We need not therefore know much about the artists at all when we seek to confirm these interpretations. Sontag then is arguing agent Literaturwissenschaft, in effect: she is saying, and perhaps is right in saying, that it will not necessarily make literature more available to us nor make us better readers. She is being anti-intellectual and swing: the work gives you everything you need to know about it if what you want is literary experience: pay attention to It. With those sorts of interpretations, the artists is certainly in no privileged position.

Mine is a theory which is not in the spirit of science but of philosophy. If interpretations are what constitute works, there are no works without them and works are mis-constittuted when interpretation is wrong. And knowing the artist;s interpretation is in effect identifying what he or she has made. The interpretation is not something outside the work: whorl and interpretation arise together in aesthetic consciousness. As interpretation is inseparable from work, it is inseparable from the artist if it is the artist's work.

How close is my interpretation in the case of Fountain to Duchamp's? Close enough, I suppose, and in any case the work I have sought to constitute could be the work he made. The possible interpretations are constrained by the artist's location in the world, by when and where he lived, by what experiences he could have had. An object indiscernible from the one I have been discussing could have come about in many ways at many times and be the work it is. There is a truth to interpretation and a stability to works of art which are not relative to all." [The Disenfranchisement of Art]

3.
Rarity and purity need not necessarily go together. Be it in race or any other.

Utter purity becomes soft - like gold, and needs a ratio of impurity, to be alloyed, to yield itself as a useful form for crafting.

mannequin wrote:

I think those Iranian Aryans with green eyes are quite rare and beautiful. Blonde hair blue eyes is a bit overrated.

But look deep into their eyes...


Let me tell you how rare and beautiful those with blonde hair and blue eyes are.

Do you really know how honest and noble Swedish people are?

I don't know how things are in Sweden nowadays, but not that long time ago, you could go there to a very busy restaurant, go to the toilet/bathroom to wash your hands, leave your jewellery and a watch with diamonds on the sink, come back a few hours later, and your shiny things would be there waiting for you.

True story.
That's exactly what happened to my aunt. ( Yes, that's how loopy she is.   )


Where else in the world can you meet such beautiful people?

Thirsty wrote:

Where else in the world can you meet such beautiful people?

Saudi?

I've met people who use to live there and they told me you can go to sleep at night with your door unlocked and nobody would dare steal anything from you..

mannequin wrote:

Thirsty wrote:

Where else in the world can you meet such beautiful people?

Saudi?

I've met people who use to live there and they told me you can go to sleep at night with your door unlocked and nobody would dare steal anything from you..

Shari'ah, the consequences for theft are more costly than in the West - people are less likely to steal when one of your hands will be cut off in a land already prosperous enough to live without thieving.
During the daily prayers; the malls and markets are empty with all of the goods left behind in the stores with open doors, free to take what ever you want, if one would dare.

What would happen if you would replace Shari'ah in Saudi-Arabia with secular-humanist laws such as that of countries as Sweden or Norway - same people, different authority.

mannequin wrote:

Thirsty wrote:

Where else in the world can you meet such beautiful people?

Saudi?

I've met people who use to live there and they told me you can go to sleep at night with your door unlocked and nobody would dare steal anything from you..

Well, it's possible. Especially if they were in a village or a small town.
I know someone from Dubai (I think he's Muslim but I never asked) and he's one of the most honest and noble people I've ever met.

I've only met one guy who worked in Saudi (a British guy who went there to teach so-called 'business English'), and he had a bit different story to tell. Apparently it is a very unsafe place for a white guy.



How about door left unlocked in shops, so if you come to the village at night you can just walk in, get food, candles, etc. and leave money in the till?

I'm not saying that's how things are now, but that's what Nordic Europeans were like a few decades ago.
I know this only because my grandfather used to tell me stories how he was just about to marry a Finnish girl.



p.s.
BTW, Congratulations, mannequin. 
You and your soldiers won the battle in the UK. You naughty, you...

Berserker eyes/fated eyes (crazy/beautiful, beautifully crazy)... Divine wisdom channeled into to beautiful forms... point where violence and beauty harmonize... envy/fear/ressentiment in other races as not just being unable to approach but restricted(by nature) from approaching.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In reality people are riddled with all their glorious imperfections, how comic they are and yet how tragic. We sugar coat the truth, to tell it like the poet, for those who would not want to be troubled by anything as harsh as reality, to keep it........ beautiful.   In fact what seems ugly, can be a complete  metamorphose, if faced with an open mind, even passion at times has to contain a certain type of ugliness to allow its purest and absolute truth to be revealed.

Beauty in art:

Not art as a representation of reality...but art as a creation of reality.

Not symbolizing, but constructing.

And so art imitating art...where nature, is excluded.
Human solipsism.
Man as the center of the universe....man as what creates the world he emerges within.
Self-referential.

Anything a man does is good....noble, perfect, beautiful.
He is not subject to nature, he is nature's god.

Existence precedes the experience of it.
Experience emerges within existence....the conscious mind discovers existence, it does not create it.

One begins from the negative: ignorant, weak, dependent...and proceeds towards gnosis, strength, independence....
One begins within the real and proceeds towards the ideal.

The ideal is always a projection, constructed using experience/knowledge, as it has accumulated in the past.
Genes, and memes, are accumulated experience/knowledge, passed on as a determining factor.

Entropy means increasing chaos, randomness.
This is the linear conception of Flux. Fluidity, I call it to differentiate it from the multi-dimesional, multi-directional, Flux.

Life is only possible in this fluidity, as a reaction to increasing entropy...an ordering within the disordering.
When a man wades into a river....he is standing still and still spending energy to maintain his place.
Even if, for him, he is not going upstream, his resistance to the river's flow places a stress upon him. he expends energies simply to remain in place.
He thinks he is stable, comfortable, when he is under pressure...
If he decides to swim up-river, he must then multiply the energies expended in proportion to the flow of the water.
The stress increases exponentially.

An organism, a self-organizing, self-maintaining, self-replicating, emergent unity, does not emerge as a blank slate.
It inherits the order its parent have passed onto it, in the form of experience/knowledge contained in a code.
The genetic code.
A memetic code is an addition, a shell emerging from this genetic code. It does not erase the genetic code, it buries it within itself.

An iterating process...simplicity producing complexity...  
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Moooo hinted that there is no superior/inferior art.

But doesn't this run counter to the essence of art? Art is first a division, a discrimination, a difference between nature and artifice. Existence and essence. Noumenon and phenomenon. So to claim there is no superior nor inferior, is also to claim there is no difference of value. People do not value one or the other.

So Moooo is ignorant of what values are, where they come from, why they exist. Moooo doesn't know what a value is, or, how to value.

A child's scribbling is equal, no different, than a master's painting with oil on canvas. The random cuts of a pencil are equal, in value, to a tempered brushstroke. To the simple mind, of course they appear the same. Both are acts of drawing, painting, writing, inscribing. Therefore, both are equal. Any act of drawing is no different.

And the results of the inscription? Random. Whoops, I accidentally painted a masterpiece. Some people are just....lucky.


It is difficult to empathize with these manimals, like Moo. It is difficult to put yourself in their shoes and attempt to rationalize through their logic, or their lack of it. But with some effort, this can be done.

Whoopsy, I accidentally pained a Van Gogh, Monet, Rembrandt. 1 in a million shot. No planning.

The moment you take these fucks seriously you've already lost.

When an artist paints, sculpts, creates anything, he has already determined the value as being worth replicating, imitated, replicated.
He represents what parts he considers worthy of his talents and time.
He has already judged what elements he will depict...

He didn't create beauty he discovered it in the world.
He appreciated it.

The Moo, in the ChatBox - I also erased that - was trying to make the point that random fucking is best for humanity, because something wonderful might come from it.
The Moo thinks sex and natural selection is luck.  

But if you confront him with it he'll pretend that he did not mean it like that...

Promiscuity evolved in species as a method of compensating for inferior consciousness, and for environmental shifts.
Judgments, higher intelligence, streamlines this process by selecting using appearances to determine what is superior and what is inferior.

If the ideal is nihilistic, then the judgments selects using that standard.
If it is realistic then that standard is used.

An animal simply surrendered to impulse, programmed behaviors naturally selected.
Man can intervene, to contradict or to enhance.

No, Mo, Moo, Not all can be beautiful:

http:/
/ww
w.youtube.com/watch?v=6KaYzgofHjc