William writes: > "I reject Cheerskep's answer. It is sexist and banal." > I agree that the idea the "prettiest" is not always felt to be the sexiest is banal. But it's not sexist in the nasty sense. In fact it was first articulated to me by a woman. She was a model, often in the company of "flawless" male models -- who left her cold.
What I claim is less banal are the implications of the parallel between excitations of sexual response and the excitation of "aesthetic" response. I noted that what works for one contemplator may not work for another. I noted that classical "flawless beauty" is not enough to do the job. In Hollywood, studio chiefs were baffled by celebrated "sexiness" of such "unhandsome" men as Humphrey Bogart, Jean Gabin, Jean Belmondo, and others. In Italy, "beauty" was not a word applied much to Anna Magnani, but she was found sizzlingly sexy. But many of the extollers of these stars would celebrate their "beauty", somewhat the way William celebrates the "beauty" "of" the Goyas. I take to be weak William's attempt to save some absolute presence of "beauty" in the Goyas by saying it is in what's left out. But his position highlights the variety of notions in people who talk of "beauty". I remember as a young man man saying what a "beautiful" boxer Sugar Ray Robinson was, and having a smart woman in the room being horrified that I could ever say that. There is no absolute "beauty" that is somehow in an object -- either organic or inorganic. I'm afraid I also take as fatuous Alberti's definition of true beauty as "that in which nothing can be altered except for the worse". Jennifer Grey (Joel's daughter) was briefly made a star by her role in the movie "Dirty Dancing" with Patrick Swayze. For whatever reason, she thereafter got her nose "fixed". Her new upturned nose matched Hollywood's idea of "beautiful" -- and her face immediately turned from "interesting" to blah. She dropped off all the charts. Alberti's measuring techniques simply could not take into account the many unmeasurable elements that somehow make a person "interesting", attractive, sexy. Indeed, it was said that much of Belmondo's "atractiveness" derived from his broken nose. Alberti would have trouble explaining that. His definition is far sillier than Anselm's blunderous attempt to define God as "That being greater than which I can think of no other." > Beauty in art cannot be a matter of degrees as in > Cheerskep's rough analogy comparing greater or lesser > beauty to the attractiveness of women. Beauty is a > concept that engages our sensibility and responses to > artworks or things, like people, who can be regarded, > at best, as faulty metaphors of that concept. > (Although Alberti, the great art theorist of the > Renaissance claimed that nothing can match true > beauty, which he defined as "that in which nothing can > be altered except for the worse". He advocated taking > mean measurements of humans to arrive at the best > possible -- imperfect-- beauty). Beauty deserves a > proper hearing. The concept is still enticing and > vexing, and Derek is callous to propose abandoning it. > I am dedicated to beauty. As was Goya > WC. > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Yet aesthetics persists with the idea that > > 'beauty' is somehow central to > > > all art. > > > > > Maybe there is something roughy comparable in the > > response of sexual > > attraction or excitation. I think it is a common > > for men -- and women too -- to be > > more sexually drawn to someone who is not generally > > accepted as the most > > "beautiful" person in the room. I have Hollywood > > friends who have remarked on the > > "flawless beauty" of Nicole Kidman, but agree she is > > not as sexually exciting as > > many "less perfect looking" women out there. > > > > In other words, just as mere "beauty" does not cause > > the most sexual arousal, > > it does not necessarily cause the strongest > > "aesthetic experience". > > Similarly, the responses vary from one sensibility > > to another. That is, it's misleading > > to claim anyone is in some absolute way "sexy", and > > a second person is not. > > Agreed -- this does not seem to apply to the most > > unfortunate examples of > > either people or "works of art". There are some that > > would seem to be unable to > > stir any excitation at all. > > > > (I'll cite my refraining from jumping on the > > vulnerable language of Derek's > > remark. Similarly I hope listers will look past my > > deliberately kitchen-table > > English to the idea it is obviously trying to > > examine.) > > > > ************** Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
