Beauty

[pjme]

Since we all swoon over art Nouveau / Symbolist Art.....Mme.Rock, les cheveux en chignon....

[karlhenning]

As Janacek said, 'what do I care for the borrowed attributes 'beautiful' or 'ugly'? '

He need not;  that is the key.  Freedom is the necessary precondition for great art.  This is not to say that freedom is all that matters, nor that this freedom is anything like a guarantee of greatness in art.

Therefore, those artists who find it artistically fruitful to concentrate on a narrower idea of Beauty, also must have the freedom (not that it's a freedom anyone is likely to seek to remove from them) to pursue that.  Sure, there is a lot of artistic twaddle committed in the name of pale notions of "beauty" (Thomas Kincade, anyone?);  but the fault there is not in the artists' stars, but in themselves.

One of the problems (which we have seen neighbors as diverse as Eric and Saul try to wield as bludgeons, and — let it be remarked — as signally unbeautiful bludgeons, at that) is when it is not a matter of an artist carving out a philosophy as an environment for his own work (which is one thing), but the matter of anyone trying to impose some sort of "beauty test" as a prescriptive restriction.

Lastly for now:  I've said that (let's roll the videotape) Freedom is the necessary precondition for great art.  What of Shostakovich?  Does this mean that his work after a certain date, when his freedom was to some degree or other curtailed, ceased to be great (if ever it was)?  Two points to this question.

1. Music by its nature is more abstract, less susceptible to specific "meaning";  of its essence, it is one of the very freest of artistic disciplines.  The willow bends in a storm which breaks the oak;  Shostakovich met the forces of oppression which bore down upon him, with a remarkable suppleness of artistry.

2. How much freedom is the 'necessary quotient' of freedom? — in countless instances, the great artist takes the limitations of the moment, of the situation, as in fact a kind of creative stimulus.  But yes, it takes a great artist to do this.  Free your mind, and your corporeal self will follow.

[pjme]

A perfect illustration of the fact that formal beauty in itself is worth nothing.

...but it may appeal to the animal in us.

[karlhenning]

...but it may appeal to the animal in us.

Be-have!

[Sergeant Rock]

Female beauty : "OUR PERCEPTION IS DISTORTED".....not all beauties are as solid as a (mrs.) Rock....

Since we all swoon over art Nouveau / Symbolist Art.....Mme.Rock, les cheveux en chignon....

Lovely

[pjme]

Be-have!

I wont!

Yesterday, after work, my bedroom!!

[karlhenning]

Oh, to be sure, a lovely mural for the bedroom, Peter! 

[orbital]

Lovely indeed; and in this photo, sort of like a Jn Wm Waterhouse subject, Sarge.

Exactly what I was thinking too. The color palette should be a bit more like this though:

[pjme]

Oh, to be sure, a lovely mural for the bedroom, Peter! 

[Szykneij]

The Wubba Wubba which can be explained is not the true Wubba Wubba 

A faux Wubba Wubba is better than no Wubba Wubba.

It is better to have Wubba Wubba'ed and lost than to have never Wubba Wubba'ed at all.

[Ephemerid]

A faux Wubba Wubba is better than no Wubba Wubba.

It is better to have Wubba Wubba'ed and lost than to have never Wubba Wubba'ed at all.

Just don't Wubba me the wong way, all wight? 

[karlhenning]

Don't sleep in the Wubba Wubba, darlin' . . . .

[MN Dave]

Beauty, eh?

[Szykneij]

Don't sleep in the Wubba Wubba, darlin' . . . .

Don't stand in the Wubba Wubba rain ...  ?

[Brian]

You guys do realize that Laura Bush read a children's book called "Wubba Wubba Wubba" on Sesame Street once, right? 

[MN Dave]

You guys do realize that Laura Bush read a children's book called "Wubba Wubba Wubba" on Sesame Street once, right? 

Did she read it to George?

[Brian]

[after being directed to Immanuel Kant's famous examination of beauty]
The link shows nothing...

[Brian]

Beauty is to love, and be loved.

So very true, sir. 

[marvinbrown]

My question about the aids virus is the following: People tend to compare this with the medieval pestilence. The problem: People around me simply don't want to suffer from HIV. According to the pestilence comparison, people aound me should already be dead. Not a single one that I know of in the years since HIV came up. And don't tell me they all keep it secret.
Is this a first class disease? I mean, no one cares if people die from typical things like cancer or heart attacks. But AIDS, in western countries, is the mother of diseases. Why? Is it because it's threatening the proposed "party and fuck around" western lifestyle standard (which only a few live)? Or Africa hypocrisy?
Why is it the mother of diseases? Why don't other more likely diseases win the importance crown?

  AIDS (or HIV the virus that causes AIDS) is quite different from the  other diseases you mention in your post in the sense that with cancer you have chemotherapy and surgery God forbid as treatment, also early detection can save a life. As dreadful as cancer is there is always hope. People can live with cancer for years.  Heart attacks are a piece of cake- avoid saturated fats and cholesterol and you're home free- read Dr. Ornish's book on preventing and reversing heart disease and you'll see what I am talking about.  The problem with HIV is just that- there is no cure, the clock starts to tick after infection, the uncertainty I would image to be unbearable and should the virus become active (full blown AIDS) death is almost certain. In addition it has thwarted any medical attempts to find a vaccine for it.  It really is a terrible virus- there is nothing beautiful about it- it is pure ugliness!

marvin

[Haffner]

Took this one yesterday.