Bitcoin Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
Why Beauty Matters Roger Scruton

Great documentary.

An excellent documentary film, after watching it, received a positive charge, thought about some things and what meaning my life has, what I can do for this world.
Viewing these materials gives impetus to work, new forces appear, thank you.

Thank you so much....it did some fundamental shift in my mentality!!

That was a conservative version of what "beauty" is supposed to look like.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people like things to be ordered and uniform while others like chaotic.

People change over a lifetime with what they find beautiful.

https://static.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/rogner-bad-blumau-spa-hotel-friedensreich-hundertwasser-austria-designboom-X500.jpg


Beautiful or ugly ?

https://i.imgur.com/6rroJ0P.jpg

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a5947c6f421496e0f8b4bab-1136-568.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yS9zOMioRCQ/Uw97jOnd84I/AAAAAAAAXmU/VZEhUXFF5iw/s1600/Ugliest+architecture+Stalinist+blocks.JPG

Standards of beauty have pretty much stayed the same for the majority.  For instance, most consider Renaissance paintings beautiful, ancient Greek and Roman sculpture also.  Van Gogh wasn't understood at first, but within about five years after his death he became highly collected.  Obscene art has always been seen as obscene historically except for a few people who think they are smart for saying they like it.

Based on what research ? Physical beauty and what is desirable is learned. Fat was beautiful in Victorian times until skinny became popular. Physical beauty is geographical. A beautiful woman or handsome man in India is different to what is considered a handsome man or woman in Denmark. Even desirable characteristics are different.  My sister went to see the Mona Lisa recently. There were long queues so they skipped it and looked at all the other amazing less famous paintings that others were walking past without looking. Famous musicians have played in public without barely a person stopping to listen.

https://www.thoughtco.com/geography-of-beauty-1434475
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bell-curved/

It's just a simple observation that anyone can see in front of them.  One doesn't have to obscure it.  Also, people tend to combine things together and conflate the subject.  Because a person says something is "obscene" means X and Y.  Kind of a modern politically correct way to view things. I have about 30 college credits in art history, and have been writing on these topics since the 80s.  I'm glad the video I posted makes my points well enough. 

What I was trying to point out is that "beauty" is learned. It is what is taught in schools. Passed down from generations.


Which is exactly my point.

Roger Scruton is a Conservative - it doesn't make his views invalid but it does make his views biased.

His own website even states that : Roger Scruton specializes in aesthetics and political philosophy, particularly in the furtherance of traditionalist conservative views.
https://www.roger-scruton.com/about

Conservatives don't like change.

Simple observation is not a scientifically valid way to come to a conclusion. A subjective matter is observed differently by different people. People see what they want to see and look for justifications of their beliefs.

Beauty is also subjective to the setting:
For instance:

In the photo the picture frame is classical and quite beautiful when viewed by itself.
The background scenery is beautiful.
The frame is a man-made object obscuring beautiful natural scenery and in my opinion is horrific .
But some people will love it.

https://teara.govt.nz/files/large_images/p-14293-nzh.jpg

Classical lines are associated with antiques. Which are considered precious and valuable by society.
The frame is gilded - Gold is considered valuable by society.

In the past lots of historic buildings were demolished to make place for modern buildings in line with current trends. The same is happening now with buildings being demolished from the 60s, 70s and 80s.

I agree that beauty matters but I disagree with some of the examples that he has given.

There is more art being created than ever before.
Rightist art is about the aspiration to an ideal. Leftist art rejects that ideal.
Before photography art had a function to convey an accurate depiction. Art lost that practical function when photography was invented.

The definition of art is also subjective.

Is it art or is it craft ?

One of the reasons for that is that we like certain things. It can be taught but it can also be deep inside our nature. For instance, most people don't like very bright colours and prefer balanced pictures, shapes, buildings. There's even research on balance in people's faces and its influence on how we recognize beauty.
Beauty matters, but what really is beauty if not shapes and colours put in the right order?

People like bright colors in certain situations and not in others. Bright red and yellow are popular colors for cars and summer clothing.

Symmetry and order is mainy taught and appeal particularly to conservatives. Primitive societies and toddlers are not particularly concerned with order.

People like patterns as a way of making sense of the world. People often see patterns even where there are none.

Symmetry in terms of faces and human bodies indicate health.

People like order in terms of control and skill but people also like chaos. People like being independent, creative and adventurous.

Largely, there is no abstraction "people."  Some people like the opposite of what other people like. I would disagree with your last sentence.
Many do, but probably more don't. 

I watched part of the documentary. One take away I had was that art has evolved from showing beauty to "how things are today".

I think that our concept of "beauty" will change drastically going forward. I'd even go so far as to say that the perception of "beauty" will change exponentially as time goes on (Moore's law of aesthetics?? ) I do not think beauty will be less important, but rather our perception of it will change. After all, what makes a man or woman "fit" has changed as well. So, my argument would be that beauty is a clue as to what will pass on genes more effectively. Here me out before you balk, lol.
For example, wide hips, large breasts, ample lips, and symmetrical facial features on women are the hallmarks of feminine beauty at the moment. I'm a guy, so I'll pass on the description of beauty for men.

I guess, going forward what will make us more fit for both men and women is intelligence. Once gene manipulation is a "go", then we'll create more offspring with bigger brains, etc.. or we will create AI, and not get that far. Who knows. lol

Great documentary thanks for sharing it with us. It is true Beauty wins (and Mcdonald knows it) over brains. The only thing that wins over Beauty is money. And the beauty itself cand make tons of money. I believe that Graphic designers are trained to brainwash us through beauty

In Last photo it is Russia ))) I recognize these cars and street )))

The giant basket building truly is great.

"Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever"  ;)

Judith Sheindlin (Judge Judy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9JapLD5aQ
Sir Roger Scruton/Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: Apprehending the Transcendent

This video is a good appendix to the first.