one can call a woman, a building, a piano piece, a fragrance, a pissoire, even a geometry proof beautiful. but do we know what is beauty, anyway? as a matter of fact, even philosophers seem to be challenged by the volatile concept of beauty, and in spite of all the efforts they fail to give valuable guidance to the public
in that attempts analytic theorists came up with the questionable idea of reducing beauty to a list of some attributes:
- fitness of the parts to some design (like rhymes do in a sonnet)
- variety in as many ways as possible (forms, subjects, texture, colors in an underwater picture)
- uniformity, regularity or symmetry, helping to preserve the character of fitness (an abstract painting)
- simplicity or distinctness, which gives pleasure to the eye to enjoy variety with ease (light and shadow effects in a black and white photograph)
- intricacy, which provides the imagination with the power of leading perception (iconic landscape in a north american national park)
- quantity or magnitude, which draws our attention and produces admiration, awe, and fear (giant panoramic color print of man-made spaces or events)
a great list of criteria like this one might be quite practical, it promptly translates into rules and recipes that one can repeat and use to produce "beauty" and "art" for yourself or for the consumer
however, the criteria based approaches of accepting something as beautiful provoke and amplify the aversions towards any "standard" of art or the "itemized" beautiful. this kind of academic thinking fueled the beauty abusing renegades and made those movements appear like dada a century ago
cut the crap!
let's play fair and real!
let's praise uglyness!