Beauty in the eye...
Hey ya'll
here's that proper blog post that has been rather long overdue, but anyway, I'm sure most of you are familliar with the following cli-che'; that beauty is only what we make of it, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In that sense, while long necks supported by multiple gold rings may be considered beautiful in some cultures, it could very well in fact, be considered quite unnatractive in others. Nothing special there really, rather, yet another one of the numerous (yet surprisingly overlooked) examples of how human beings relate to common concepts through rather varying and diverse factors hence the subjective nature of almost everything you could care to name.
To use the classic example of Beauty and the Beast, this would be more of a case where Beauty looked at the Beasts' monstrous countenance and found it attractive.
But humour me a little while more and consider this following phrase; that the true nature of beauty and being beautiful is in fact not within the eye of the beholder but that of the beheld. Basically; "beauty is in the eye of the beheld."
Now, the interesting thing about this concept on beauty is that, unlike the common conception of beauty, that is individual's perception of and object and what is considered a set of aesthetic values which gives and object its level of beauty, this approach to beauty focuses instead upon the object whose beauty is being considered itself and therefore, in that sense, beauty is only possible if the object itself (assuming, in this case that the object is in fact a human or an animal) believes that it possesses what it considers to be sufficient standards of aesthetic value.
This scenario, of course would show the Beast (yes, we're back to Beauty and the Beast) looking at himself in the mirror and finding himself attractive regardless of how monstrous and savage the rest of the world regarded him to be.
Of course, the main difference between the two is simply that while the first could (and most often is) dealing with physical aesthetic values (physical beauty), the second one almost exclusively deals with that elusive little thing called "inner beauty" that we know oh, so little about. But that is for another blog post.
Beauty and the Beast on the cover of Vogue
PEACE OUT
Hey ya'll
here's that proper blog post that has been rather long overdue, but anyway, I'm sure most of you are familliar with the following cli-che'; that beauty is only what we make of it, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In that sense, while long necks supported by multiple gold rings may be considered beautiful in some cultures, it could very well in fact, be considered quite unnatractive in others. Nothing special there really, rather, yet another one of the numerous (yet surprisingly overlooked) examples of how human beings relate to common concepts through rather varying and diverse factors hence the subjective nature of almost everything you could care to name.
To use the classic example of Beauty and the Beast, this would be more of a case where Beauty looked at the Beasts' monstrous countenance and found it attractive.
But humour me a little while more and consider this following phrase; that the true nature of beauty and being beautiful is in fact not within the eye of the beholder but that of the beheld. Basically; "beauty is in the eye of the beheld."
Now, the interesting thing about this concept on beauty is that, unlike the common conception of beauty, that is individual's perception of and object and what is considered a set of aesthetic values which gives and object its level of beauty, this approach to beauty focuses instead upon the object whose beauty is being considered itself and therefore, in that sense, beauty is only possible if the object itself (assuming, in this case that the object is in fact a human or an animal) believes that it possesses what it considers to be sufficient standards of aesthetic value.
This scenario, of course would show the Beast (yes, we're back to Beauty and the Beast) looking at himself in the mirror and finding himself attractive regardless of how monstrous and savage the rest of the world regarded him to be.
Of course, the main difference between the two is simply that while the first could (and most often is) dealing with physical aesthetic values (physical beauty), the second one almost exclusively deals with that elusive little thing called "inner beauty" that we know oh, so little about. But that is for another blog post.
Beauty and the Beast on the cover of VoguePEACE OUT
