Originally Posted by flowcharts
yawn....devation from conventional beauty & fashion standards =/= ugly.
Oh God. Really? An aesthetic relativist.... bigger YAWN.
Get off your high horse. We all have standards of beauty. Whether we agree on what they are, and whether or not there is an objective standard of beauty is a different subject. So to pretend to be so enlightened so as to be above the judgement of others.... now THAT is boring. If you have ever judged someone else's looks you are a hypocrite.
More important than just being boring, this vapid perspective reduces any conversation about aesthetics and taste to nothing. The conversation is utterly meaningless. Without standards we cannot even say that Beethoven's pastoral symphony is better than Who Let the Dogs Out? by the Baja Men. So, do you really want to have this discussion?
I suggest you do a basic study regarding aesthetics and aesthetic standards. You will find your position to be untenable. It shouldn't take a reasonable person much time at all to discover the limits of moral and aesthetic relativism. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are reasonable - meaning, capable of using reasoning.
Quite frankly, I am stunned at the ignorance displayed on this thread from SOME members thus far. I am beginning to suspect that those of you with low brow taste suffer from ignorance of basic logic and aesthetic principals and dilemmas. This is quite inexcusable considering how easily such information is attained via the internet.
Lesson one: A statement is not an argument. "Deviation from conventional beauty & fashion standards =/= ugly." This is nothing. It's just a statement of opinion. I can do it too... ahem... "The moon is made of cheese." Again - basic logic. Asserting something is not arguing.
And let us take your statement that deviation from conventional beauty and fashion standards =/= ugly. Well, what is "ugly?" I assert that when we say "ugly" we mean that which is unpleasant or repulsive. You seem to have it completely backwards. You assume that classic standards of beauty are arbitrary - they don't correspond with that which is pleasing and alluring to the senses. Well if this is the case, then you are right. A deviation from beauty standards would not necessarily mean something is unpleasant or repulsive, because the standards do not correspond with what is pleasing and alluring to the senses. If however beauty standards DO correspond with what is pleasing and alluring to the senses, then ugly would in fact be a deviation from these standards. BUT, you must understand that aesthetic standards are simply there to define and clarify that which already exists - the standards do not CAUSE pleasantness. The standards reflect that which is naturally appealing. I assert the latter is the case. Aesthetic and classic standards exist because great artists and clothiers of the past attempted to outline and clarify just what it was that made something beautiful. Now, you can certainly argue whether or not such standards were successful in capturing the spectrum of what is pleasing to the human senses. Perhaps it is erroneous to assume that there is a universal aesthetic standard for ALL people. Perhaps there is a genetic component? Who knows. I would submit to you though that the CONSUMMATE and GREATEST works of art and beauty in the history of the world were created by Western master's from the Renaissance to the early 20th century (up to the modernist movement). And make no mistake, the Mozart's, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Carravagio's, etc. ALL had very strict aesthetic standards that they adhered to.
So if you are going to assert that conventional beauty standards do not correspond to a basic and inherent sense of aesthetic pleasure, well... you are pissing in the wind of history amigo. Doesn't mean you are ultimately wrong. You just have no proof on your side, and all the proof is on mine.
Oh... wait... that DOES mean you are wrong. My apologies.
You are dismissed.
Edited by TheBatman - 7/29/16 at 11:27pm