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-1434475https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRwhttps://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.
I have about 30 college credits in art history,
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/aboutConservatives 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.
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 ?
