3 ms·

Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing. I'm fascinated by how our br

Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing. I'm fascinated by how our brains get from "A beautiful woman" (feel free to modify according to gender and sexuality) to "A beautiful building." Beautiful humans - whose attributes aren't necessarily physical - are mostly just high quality potential mating partners. A beautiful building will have proportion, texture, and rhythm. But it's quite a reach to get from one to the other, even if you start from "symmetrical faces are attractive." Somehow the experience became abstracted. Or certain features did. And then you get music, which is even more abstract. How does all of this work? I have no idea. It's fascinating, but hugely under-researched.

mbivert 3y ago
> Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing. By that logic, isn't everything subjective? I mean, everything we experience triggers a subjective sensation on which we put labels. The notion of beauty can be rationalized to some degree: that's the goal of composition. Let me give you one notable example: unity in diversity. Clouds, flowers, trees (vegetation really), mountains, all follow this rule, and are generally subjects considered pleasant. The principle can be used to give a strong identity to an artwork, while keeping it interesting. I let you ponder about how this principle manifests itself in music. That's to say, I don't think it's under-researched. Instead, I think that the "everything goes" mentality we've had for a while now, especially in visual arts, has concealed the idea of the existence of such principles from everyday people. But they're still well-known, at least as soon as we demand strong technical skills from artists.

mbivert 3y ago

> Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing. By that logic, isn't everything subjective? I mean, everything we experience triggers a subjective sensation on which we put labels. The notion of beauty can be rationalized to some degree: that's the goal of composition. Let me give you one notable example: unity in diversity. Clouds, flowers, trees (vegetation really), mountains, all follow this rule, and are generally subjects considered pleasant. The principle can be used to give a strong identity to an artwork, while keeping it interesting. I let you ponder about how this principle manifests itself in music. That's to say, I don't think it's under-researched. Instead, I think that the "everything goes" mentality we've had for a while now, especially in visual arts, has concealed the idea of the existence of such principles from everyday people. But they're still well-known, at least as soon as we demand strong technical skills from artists.