I think I said that beauty is a concept, meaning a state of mind. I don't think I am guilty, again, of Cheerskep's "gotcha" moonbeam.
All this talk about the marketability of movie stars and who seemed to look best on the silver screen, and from what angle, and at what size, and as a result of a particular advertising campaign (an uncle was a Hollywood agent and I recall he put a lot of faith in creating buzz, even in the 1940s). Maybe the same really is true of philosophical beauty. It needs a good agent and lots of press. Of course, some Hollywood types are actually skilled actors and maybe that counts for their "beauty". A bona-fide well-known movie/stage actor came to my studio last week. Yes, he is handsome and I can see why he's popular. But if I saw him on the street, I'd probably not notice. And I think he's a good and versatile actor. The point is that off screen, beyond the lens, the beautiful, perfect people are less extraordinary and more human-like. Alberti was probably the most influential art theorist after antiquity until the 19C. His measurement ideas came from Vitruvius. These are people not to be easily dismissed by models, movie people, and Cheerskep. WC 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."
