Beauty

[Barking Pumpkin]

again i strongly disagree. beauty is as i have stated, a societally-corrupted ideal. i maintain that the original and true meaning of the idea is unrelated to what it has now come to signify to the masses.

Well.....I'm not sure. It seems that there would be a difference between beauty in the context of people as a whole over history and beauty in the eyes of the romaticized works of philosophers and artists.......or something.

Another example being the romanticism associated with the "enlightment" period, while the enlightment period was really a period of "enlightenment," but simply where there were enlightened individuals who came up with new ideas, which seems pretty much like any other time period to me. And some might say that culture has degraded since then......but it doesn't really seem like it to me in the sense of "people being enlightened." Because Bach certainly wasn't around "englightened" people......

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Maybe the shift is that the cheapness of "beauty" in a good deal of society has become more obvious over time, with wider mainstream things like magazines, television, billboards, etc. The same thing occured with music, being a shift from a time when only people who were upperclass or devoted their lives to music were making it, to it being a commodity.

 

[Kenneth R.]

my point, put as concisely as possible, is that beauty is far more than the shape of one's body.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

I agree, but society's interpretation of it is different. Then what I thought you were saying was that it has been degraded over time.......and I was saying that I think there's a different between what it has been in society and what it has been to romanticized artists and philosophers.