Talk:Beauty/Archives/2023/November

Request for Articles on Russian Beauties, Mexican beauties, etc.

Last night, George Clooney was asked on CNN about failing to claim the title Sexiest man alive (apparently People magazine?) There is general consensus on what each culture or conutry views as ideals for beauty. France has its Marianne announcements, chosen as a real life woman. What about separate articles for each?

Flowers

Eventually, we'll have an article on beauty here. Apparently, flowers are beautiful.

Flowers, perhaps as a bridge to anti-beauty?

ummm. yeah. in all of the motley senses of "beauty", including the ones in which this page is notably deficient. An advocate of "heirloom roses" (old, less-genetically modified/cross-bred stocks) referred to the modern "tea rose" (shown) as "black spot on a stick." This refers, of course, to the difficulty of actually producing a beautiful tea rose due to its genetic forcing of "beauty above all" and its subsequent near-total susceptibility to common plant diseases and parasites.

It does seem that it is difficult to get a good jumping off place amidst all of the oxygen-deprivation of unadulterated "beauty of the whole world". The flower-thing might work (complete with Shakespeare "Rose is a rose" quote--much unwanted good (and evil) has been done behind the cultural shield of the play-right man).

That might not be a bad entre' to add balance and some depth to the page without simply raining on everyone's parade. We probably won't gain much by mounting a full-frontal assault on everything that is unreflexivly beautiful, and nice. It wouldn't be entirely accurate, either. (But perhaps a bit of fun!)

Someone could reference the "baby doll beauty pageants" backlash (ala' JonBenet), the "stage mother" phenomenon, and even the "slimmer until you die" ethic of the current epitome' of beauty in fashion, the size 0 runway super-anorexic.

The dark side of beauty (jealousy, possessiveness, envy, murder) has been a historic theme, extending at least as far back as the stories in the Torah and in Babylon. The Gilgamesh epic records the very bad behavior of the beautiful and unopposed god-man-king Gilgamesh (claiming the virginity of all the land's brides on their wedding night because no one could stop him), and the antidote to this destructive behavior in the creation of his anti-hero, Inkadu. When he hears of this creation of the goddess--perhaps a match or someone equal enough to be a friend--in a fit of good thinking Gilgamesh sends an irresistibly beautiful priestess/prostitute to seduce Inkadu, where he romps among the animals. His resulting loss of the beauty of the wild is replaced by the civilizing effects of sex--the substitution of constructed beauty for the wild variety.

Oh, and the death of Inkadu as a result of a fit of jealousy by a beautiful but not pleasant goddess who he refused to bed says much about the destructive power of beauty. We would believe that the Goddess would never be attracted to him if he weren't so, well, beautiful (Forgive me if I misspelled or misremembered, it's been awhile. . .).

Beauty and Ugly and Power

Disney even took the jealousy of the evil-but-beautiful Queen for Sleeping Beauty (my foggy and somewhat lazy recollection is that historically this wasn't always the entire story--or at least in the Disneyfication of the story the conflict of the evil-on-the-inside older woman and the "beautiful through-and-through young maiden" to a new high/low.) There is a dilemma here that might be instructive: How do you show an ugly-on-the-inside Queen who is beautiful? I mean, how ugly must the rest of the kingdom's women have been if the evil Queen-as-Disneyfied was never worse than the second most beautiful woman in the kingdom? (note for later tie: Dopey, Doc and crew as neotaneous, and thus as safe, figures)

(warning: even greater diversion ahead, leave now if you have better things to do!)

It might be interesting to contrast this approach with that of the recent "Narnia" Snow Queen/White witch. In this much the movie was faithful: In the Narnia series book "The Magician's Uncle" the Queen was actually the last survivor of Charn, a world destroyed in a battle centered on jealousy / refusal to share power with / weakness inherent in the goodness of her sister. The boy Digory (the professor of the movie) accidently resurrects her shortly before her world goes away. Even without her magic power (tied to her homeworld) she was still a commanding figure of terrible beauty in London, even wrenching a crosspiece off an iron lamppost with which to beat up the local constabulary before being yanked back (eventually) into Narnia. Interestingly, although she is beautiful and powerful in Charn, London and Narnia, in the "world between the worlds" she loses all her power and is no longer beautiful. All this is to point out that while C.S. Lewis could easily talk about a woman beautiful in her power in World War 2 (I never got the sense of her hiding her ugliness, but rather that she was beautiful-and-powerful-and-evil to Aslan's beautiful-and-powerful-and-good), it took Hollywood until the 21st century to cast a beautiful-in-a-disturbing-way actress in such a powerful role. I'm not sure the filmmakers have even quite found their way through the "terrible beauty/terrible goodness/beautiful evil questions with which C.S. Lewis wrestled.

Also somewhat played down in the movie version was the frequent references in the book to Aslan being good *and* terrible. The Beavers are frequently reminding Lucy "He's not a tame lion, you know!"

This juxtaposition of beauty/power/evil must have been a difficult concept to get around for the still war-weary countries who had made sense of WWI as a petty dispute that ended up a necessary evil, "the war to end all wars." How could the beautiful be "really bad" and how could the fierce be "really beautiful"?

Is it possible that this has something to do with the mixed-up sensibilities surrounding the Third Reich? Hitler and Mussolini were quite popular and respected in the US until shortly before the country entered the war (themes touched on in "Tea with Mussolini" and "Remains of the Day" among others). This was also the time frame in which Tolkien wrote much of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, with its range of beautiful-evil, ugly-evil, beautiful-good, ugly-good and powerful-but-ambivalent figures. You can't always tell the bad guys by looking (at least at first. . .come to think of it, you could make a case that one constant was that evil eventually made you look ugly even while he was saying in hundreds of different ways that long-time enemies who don't look ugly might really be mostly good inside, as with the dwarves and elves). Tolkien certainly had his share of powerful and beautiful women, and the cute, neotaneous Hobbits (more on neotany to come).

Point is, the Germans who surrounded themselves with great art, great music, wonderful polished oratory, excellent personal grooming, great heraldry and an obvious appreciation of "the good life" and who looked like the model sorts of people (however politically misguided) many in the Western world thought attractive at the time. How could the democratically elected leader of a modern European nation *lie* to the democratically elected prime minister of another modern European nation? Differences in policies and competition for resources was one thing, but real deception was hard to pin on such a well mannered modern leader.

Many have pointed out how differently the Americans treated the Germans and the Japanese. Was there a round up and mass imprisonment of German-Americans? For all the talk of "appeasement" of the Germans, there was apparently no hesitation to believe the worst of the Japanese. The editorial cartoons depicting the Japanese as monkeys are deeply disturbing now, and while there are clear and documented accounts of abuses on all sides of that terrible war (and probably all terrible wars) I believe it would be a difficult assignment to show the Japanese military establishment as substantially "more evil" than the Third Reich.

Could racism be anti-beauty? Just as beauty longs to be coupled with good, does some sort of cosmic balance require that non-beauty be linked with evil?

Come to think of it, this is the (somewhat turned around) theme of "Beauty and the Beast", and "Shrek may function as a corrective to "Cinderella" in that the twist of the story lies in the beautiful princess getting in touch with her inner ogress rather than the happy ending featuring the ever-after of restored beautiful people. Is beauty then in "being who you are, even if you are green" or is it rather that "beauty isn't everything?"

"Shrek 2" either interestingly blows open the comfortable ambiguities of the original or really messes things up, depending on your disposition. Unless I missed something critical amongst the fun of the closing wedding scenes of "Shrek" we were left with the ambiguity of Princess Fiona's pre-enchantment state. Perhaps the surprisingly sophisticated spell-curse was to make the Ogre Princess human half of the time?

In the sequel, however, we learn that Fiona's parents are quite respectable looking Caucasian European-Royalty types. Thus we get to relive the possibility that the likes will eventually find themselves together, "likes" being external beauty and not goodness per se. Yet Fiona's father the king seems to be of solid amphibian stock, which at least shares skin color with the ogres. This story seems to fall back on the stock "goodness will triumph in the end" theme while sacrificing the "beauty is the prize of the morally pure." So is this a question of beauty or not, or one of "inner/deep" beauty triumphing over "exterior/shallow" beauty? "Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone!"

Neotany

Hey, and this could lead to a connection to neotany, that semiotic/anthropological semantics concept that tries to account for why we all seem to love the baby forms of everything. Once in an unguarded moment I even caught myself thinking "even baby opossum are kinda cute." Right. But if we want adorable characters the first thing we do is round them out with baby fat, make their heads bigger, ditto for the eyes, and throw in a touch of helpless. There is comic value in the cigar-smoking baby toon in the opening scenes of "Roger Rabbit." Yosemite Sam, Elmer Fudd. . .tools of destruction are safest when safely in the hands of babes. Is it the same for all beauty? or is this a special case dealing more with safety than beauty?

Maybe someone from Japan can shed some light on this entire "Pokemon" (and many iterations)? I just can't get how we mix up cute and gladiatorial. . .

Extra points for a reasonable explanation of why even adults in Japan get mushy over "Hello Kitty". . . bonus if you don't use "culturally monolithic".

Nature, art and beauty

It does seem that the broad panoramas of nature in bloom, especially with some combination of water and against a backdrop of a majestic mountain or two, strikes a chord across many cultures. I'm thinking not only of the Rockies/Andes/Alps, obvious candidates, but also the almost reverential awe afforded mountains in Africa, Australia, and especially Central Asia. This of course touches on the basic questions of Aesthetics as philosophy.

From "Song of Solomon/Song of Songs" to the "Poetics" of the Hellenistic Greeks, to the praises of Cleopatra and Helen of Troy there do seem to be recurring themes of beauty although the specifics differ. Most contemporary North American/European women would probably not take kindly to having their breasts compared to a couple of wild deer. . . and (to swipe a technique of the great categorizer) is beauty in bright blooms of Spring, in the sudden spring of the wild hart, in the vibrant colors of Autumn, in the ideal human form, in a majestic musical composition, in the mother's cooing, and in the young lovers' eyes one thing, two things or many things?

I'm enough of an anthropologist to know there are many anthropologies of beauty in different societies, but not enough of one to be able to think of any right now. I suppose we should mention the frequently reappearing claims of universal mathematical formula for what constitutes beauty in women. We owe it to our readers to point out, however, that it is not an easy task to get good information about the measurements of women thought beautiful even in Medieval times. I also am suspicious that some cultures (e.g., most of the Polynesian families) are given a miss because their emphasis on bigger-is-healthy-and-wealthy-and-therefore-better" don't 'a priori' fit the premise).

This should be enough of a case-in-point warning for us, however, to watch carefully how tightly we couple "beauty" with "sexual desirability." Not all cultures link them as tightly as do many cultures from the Hellenist/Roman traditions. Beyond the too-frequently cited examples of body disfiguring practiced on both sexes in some cultures (perhaps our anorexia isn't so "special" after all?) we just might discover that "beautiful" is relative--what is desirable in a young person is odious in an older person. If beauty is not linked to desirability, then what is it? Is it likely that we would see something as beautiful that we would not want?

In its crudest form this is "beauty in the eye of the beholder." Yet the challenging issues of aesthetics ask "is beauty inherent in the thing thought beautiful, the eye of the one thinking it beautiful, or in some combination involving other factors?" Plato believed that the closer you got to the "reality" of the pure forms, the more beautiful the things. To some extent he begged the question by also asserting that people came in different degrees of separation from the ideal. Thus the poet who is closer to the ideal than is the soldier will better recognize the beauty of poetry (which is created, conveniently, by the poet).

Is this so different, though, than some who proclaim modern (or postmodern) art, beautiful? Isn't the contemporary parallel to Plato's tautology is that the true lovers of art decide what *is* art, and what is merely decoration? Isn't this partly why each incident of a child's scrawlings, or an elephant's "finger painting" being anonymously submitted to some modern art contest and winning the prize so lovingly repeated and recycled among those who don't see the beauty or the value in apparently random colors and shapes?

So there is much more to art than beauty. Yet isn't this to shortchange "beauty" by reducing it to the merely decorative, to "eye candy?" Is the question, then, truly one of "what is art?" rather than "what is beauty?" Or rather, could we not just as easily reframe the art question as one of different kinds of beauty rather than dismissing the aesthetic as primitive? If we can say "that is a beautiful person" even with Cyrano's nose, and if you can't see the beauty that is there you don't really know beauty," can we not also say "all art is beautiful. If you take the time and invest the effort to understand what lies below the skin you too can see the beauty instead of the unusually proportioned feature?"

Is it possible that we are using "beauty" in very different ways when looking at people (or neotanous caricatures of people) and when looking at other things? Do "beauty words" even mean the same in these different situations? If not, "beauty" just became even more complex, and perhaps a lot more interesting.

"Lovers" Graffiti space?

Perhaps it might also be a good place to place a 'Graffiti' space so all those starry-eyed pre-teen nerds can try to impress their crushes with their "hacking" ability. Anyone else tired of the frequent vandalism of the "eternal love" variety?

I don't know if this has ever been done in a Wiki page, but it does seem to make some sense--in the "put more trashcans around and you'll get less garbage on the street" sort of way. We could even give it a veneer of respectability by introducing it with a reference to the collision of "in the eye of the beholder," "everyone is beautiful to someone" and "the chase is much better than the catch" paradoxes.

Sort of "Wiki performance art." sort of. It could be a living, ongoing (and if done well) persuasive exploration of the real diversity of what we take to be beautiful, at least in potential romantic connections. Is it really the case that everyone really *wants* the same small group of potential mates, and that most of us just put up with the best we think we can get? Is romantic love the handmaiden of beauty? Do we see as beautiful that which we grow to love?

Worth thinking about? Maybe worth pursuing in the "love" and "eternity" and any other categories oft-taken with this sort of thing. It won't, of course, stop the "insert inane profanity here" vandals, but it might deter much of the "I do it to show you how much I care" types.

This rant has really rambled on way longer than it had any right to. Once I started, I just couldn't put it down, and once I finished, the Wiki pillar of "be bold" stayed my finger from the delete key. (Blame someone else, huh, and if no one is near, blame the policy!) I am truly sorry if I've abused anyone in this "essay." I suppose if there is any good to it it might be in inspiring someone else to really run with the "beauty isn't always what it appears" theme.

Yet something like this is really needed in this article.

Perhaps I might be capable of instigating someone more skilled than I (whether be through inspiration of idea or revulsion of how I have botched it, over and over and over) to take the beauty topic far beyond where it is now. . .it should be apparent that I am not schooled in aesthetics (and never confused for one of the "beautiful people". . .) I have done what I could do, at least, beautiful or not.

Roy 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub

I put the word stub in the article so that it will turn up during a search engine query on "stub". It doesn't hurt the (empty and worthless anyway) article, and it makes them easier to find later.

Ah, that makes sense. Well, "stub" is here now. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert

You know, Stephen, this is the 7th change on this article so far, and we still haven't managed to put any actual content in. Sad, really. MB

Moved here from main article. Replaced with a stub.

Definition

A definition for someone to use as inspiration for an article

---

1. the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest). 2. a beautiful person, esp. a woman. 3. a beautiful thing, as a work of art or a building. 4. Often, beauties. something that is beautiful in nature or in some natural or artificial environment. 5. an individually pleasing or beautiful quality; grace; charm: a vivid blue area that is the one real beauty of the painting.

Also beauty and love, the philosophy of beauty... hmmmm... what else?
Possibly a useful link: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/love.htm

---

Some research has pointed out that symmetry and golden ratio are major factors in the average person's perception of what beauty is. For example, persons with facial features that are symmetric and follow the golden ratio are more likely to be viewed as beautiful.

---

I think the part about the "millihelen" really belongs in the jokes file. Besides, Terry Pratchett might object. -- April

--- An alternative version built on the original ( for concideration)...

Beauty is a sensual perception of the real world concerning all sensorial organs and by all means absolutely subjective to the mentality of each culture, region, and era or even individual. However many attempts have been taken place for the understanding of the nature and meaning of beauty since it is one of the key themes in the philosophical discipline known as aesthetics.

philosophy, aesthetics

The earliest theory of beauty can be found in the works of Greek philosophers from the pre-Socratic period, like Pythagoras. The extant writings attributed to Pythagoras reveal that the Pythagorean School, if not Pythagoras himself, saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. In particular, they noted that objects proportioned according to the golden ratio seemed more attractive. Some modern researches seem to confirm this, insofar as persons with facial features that are symmetric and proportioned according to the golden ratio are consistently ranked as more attractive than those whose faces are not. Moreover these same theories have confirmed that this symmetry of the facial structure is arousing the ?mating instincts? of women towards men. The organism is succeeding this by evoking the production of pertinent to mating female hormones, such as estrogens, when a female is in the presence of a ?beautiful? male.

Another connection between mathematics and beauty which played a prominent role in Pythagoras's philosophy was the way in which musical tones can be arranged in mathematical sequences, which repeat at regular intervals called octaves. This ?model? has been used everywhere throughout the past millennia and continues finding field of application nowadays and it will, most probably, carry on for unlimited time to come. It is what is known as Harmony and Melody, two terms derived from the regularity in which the universe is constructed, and being representing in the reproduction of the natural rhythm, with other words in music.

Beauty contests claim to be able to judge beauty. The ?millihelen? is sometimes jokingly defined as the scientific unit of human beauty. This derives from the legend of Helen of Troy as presented in Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, in which her beauty was said to have launched a thousand ships. The ?millihelen? is therefore the amount of beauty that could launch one ship!

pain of redundant work?

---

Ouch! Some days ago I have been redirected here looking for a military decoration. The page has already been created, but I think some disambiguation is needed to separate beauty, personal decoration (not always related with beauty, especially in some cultures), interior decoration, civil decoration, military decoration, and others. Thanks.-- The Warlock 11:05 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

"...people whose facial features are symmetric and proportioned according the golden ratio are consistently ranked as more attractive..."

I believe this needs clarification. I remember reading a long time ago about experiements that seemed to show that perfect symmetry in facial features was inferior to a slight asymmetry. --Jose Ramos 06:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Venus is the Roman goddess of love, not beauty. Any idea which is the Roman god/goddess of beauty ? Jay 11:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Waist to hip ratio?

Reading One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all [!!!] cultures is a waist-to-hip ratio of about 75%. The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) theory was discovered by psychologist Dr. Devendra Singh of the University of Texas at Austin. Physiologists have shown that this ratio accurately indicates most women's fertility. Traditionally, in premodern ages when food was more scarce, fat people were judged more attractive than slender. my eyebrowes jumped over my glasses. I live in China and know a bit about this "third of the world", that apparently this Dr. Singh never heard about. Women here certainly don't share the same "WHR"... Invisible waist and breast, white and "half-sick looking" skin has been and still is the Chinese beauty standard, with only few historical exceptions. And fertility doesn't seem to have ever been a problem here, as everybody knows... I'll move this pseudo-scientific "aesthetic" studies to a dedicated page, or simply remove.

I'm not found of relativism and I'm sure that beauty is also universal, but "beauty standards" are awfully cultural. gbog 03:26, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

According to The Evolution of Human Sociality by Stephen K. Sanderson, studies have confirmed male preferences for women with low WHRs "in at least seven different cultures or ethnic populations," including the United States, England, Germany, India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Guinea-Bissau. He repeatedly mentions a WHR of 0.70. He gives many reasons for this. He says, "Girls with lower WHRs show earlier pubertal endocrine activity, and married women with higher WHRs have more difficulty getting pregnant and give birth to their first child at a later age." If anyone would like me to do so, I could post the relevant two pages. ShadowDragon 05:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please do post these links, so I can see the degree of accuracy of those studies. (But any statistical studies will not change facts, and the fact here is that Chinese women don't have the same "hourglass" shapes as Westerners, nor do they share the same beauty standards.) gbog 08:07, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

This page contains much but not all of the info contained in the book. Do a search for Devendra Singh and you'll find the relevant info. ShadowDragon 06:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, this article looks like a pamphlet against a very few "queer theorists", that's my first impression. I didn't see (I have to read it in detail) any solid argument in favour of our topic here-- which is : is this "Waist to hip ratio" something that should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article, and should it be mentioned this way, forgetting a third of the world (what is sadly not uncommon) ?

Hm. I do not live in China, but in a part of the world where that waist-hip-ratio thing clearly is considered a beauty standard. And results in eating disorders being a major problem among young women. However, I never have thought it something else than a matter of culture. You learn it by pictures, by tv, by barbie dolls, and even by soft drink bottles. There may be some "universal" shape of beautiful beneath, but if so you sure couldn't find out about it because of the dominating cultural influence.

Maybe we can keep something meaningful if we substitute

"One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all cultures..."

with

"One peculiar feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women at least in Hollywood-style movies and TV commercials..."

Besides, i think it a bit odd to link food scarcity only to "premodern ages", even for Austin, Texas, standards. --Stupid girl 11:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed

I've suggested a brief discussion of the consideration of fashion culture, including historical factors, in the view of beauty a couple of sections down. I consider it a valid point.LessHeard vanU 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

gorgeous

Well done everyone that had a hand in this page

I expected it to be a real mess - but it is one of the most elegant wiki pages ive seen for ages. it takes a lot of effort to keep a definition so clear and simple without falling into the trap of only discussing the obvious. in this case i thought it would be all about women, or rather a particular adolescent american view of women - it isnt. Its quite beautiful.

Ok so now the criticism...

in this section

Symmetry may be important because it is evidence that the person grew up in a healthy way, from without visible genetic defects. One traditional, subtle feature that is considered an indication of beautiful women in all cultures is a waist-to-hip ratio of about 70% (waist circumference that is 70% of the hips circumference). The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) theory was discovered by psychologist Dr. Devendra Singh of the University of Texas at Austin. Physiologists have shown that this ratio accurately indicates most women's fertility. Traditionally, in premodern ages when food was more scarce, plump people were judged more attractive than thin ones.

I was about to alter this reference by removing the sentence about plumpness as it seems to have nothing to do with symmetry, then realised that the research on symmetry is itself an american perspective.

Well, in the Austin area at least - so to give the entry a cross cultural ballance i will add the "In the US it has been found that". and remove the slightly condescending "Traditionally, in premodern ages..." Plumpness isnt just for premodern ages, I have personal experience of plumpness being highly desirable, in preference to thin-ness. especially of the stomach, in both Egypt and India.

DavidP 22:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Beuys?

Why on earth has someone added a link to an interview with Joseph Beuys? I cannot recall any specific mention of beauty as an issue in the sculptors extensive works, it doesnt even really merit a link here under the basis of being a theory of aesthetics, which would be stretching the point anyway. It is well known that J.B. was very metaphorical in the language that he used for interviews, and most other documentation, but I think that an interview where neither the word 'Beauty' or the word 'shoenheit' is mentioned really is a usefull link here. I will remove it

DavidP 20:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beauty and intelligence

I just added a reference to this study. Personally, I consider the study logically flawed and methodologically suspect. It does, however, appear to have been peer reviewed and published. That makes it verifiable even if I don't like the content. I could not find a published rebuttal or critique. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"(the reason for which is probably that most well-known mythologies were conceived of and standardised by heterosexual men)" ... was removed. It is opinion, speculation, however you want to parse it. What it is not is established fact or a well-attested theory.

Coordination of content

The content here and in Sexual attraction and Physical attractiveness is very similar. Hopefully some coordination can be achieved, in line with Wikipedia's no duplicate content rule. Thanks! --Dpr 07:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Beauty

BEAUTY is function. Its intensity is proportional to the increase in PERPETUATION caused.

Yesselman 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge this with aesthetics

Merge this with aesthetics and redirect ugly, uglyness, and beauty there. And why isn't there a table of contents in this discussion area...oh, it's down there... -Barry- 21:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't beauty and aesthetics 2 different things (the latter being more specific)? Nonprof. Frinkus 06:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Giggle

Ok, so why does Fugly redirect here? :-) Bastie 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Plotinus on Beauty

In the section "Theories of Beauty" I believe it would be very helpful, if not necessary, to add something of Plotinus. Plotinus's section on "Beauty" in the Ennead is one of the classic literatures on the topic of beauty (as a matter of fact it is one of the classic writings in philosophy).

Helpful to defining beauty would be the sensation that one feels when beholding beauty, in Plotinus's words: "when the soul beholds beauty it thrills with an immediate delight" (Plotinus).

Remembering that this should go under the section of theories, I believe it would be helpful to include the concept which Plotinus (and many other philosophers) held that "there are loftier beauties than these [beauties of the realm of sense]" (Plotinus). According to many philosophers if one focuses only on the sensual he or she is missing out on much of what beauty really is. Also an explenation on the source of beauty would be helpful.

--Frederick0511 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Beauty in Change

I found the artice overall very interesting and informative, but in one respect I disagree.

Stated: "According to an ancient Indian definition, the beautiful is that which from moment to moment is always new. That is to say, it removes the mind from the world in which things grow old. But considering that the visual system allows us to see by extracting the stable, rather than changing, features of the environment on a momentary basis, this ancient definition seems hard to support."

The truth is, although we live in the moment, our perception is often based on relation to past and future. When we are used to a routine, it is given less focus. This can be easily observed in Food, where a favorite food will not taste as good to us if we eat it all the time. The difference, the surprise, this has a profound effect on our perception of the world. In a personal example, I used to think that the ocean was so beautiful until I moved to Florida. Then I found myself so used to the area, that I went a whole year without once going to the beach. When I moved back into the Mountains of the North, they suddenly had a fresh new appeal which also in time became less attractive. When I moved to Canada, even though it was in the dead of winter and very cold, there was just something about the change of scenery that made me appreciate the world more.

If you saw a Rose for the first time in a while, you might stop to admire it. But if roses were everywhere, would you pay each one the same attention? Or would you be more attracted to the flower beside it that you normally wouldn't see? (some people would like to see many Roses, such as in a Rose Garden, but the attraction here is still that they otherwise may not be as exposed to this. If they saw it every day it would certainly loose value) Why else would, say, the sight of a rare bird excite a bird watcher so much more than a common? Would the same appreciation be felt if they were everywhere?

This might even hold true in Human Beauty. If you saw the same kind of face every day, regardless of how well proportion it is, and then a new face of a different "type" just as Beautiful in every perceptive sense (that is, according to how the viewer sees beauty) But has features unusual, be it as simple as a stray frekle, an eye color, a hair style, or a nationality, one might find this face much more attractive simply because it is different to the viewer. This may even be a basic cause of dying relationships, affairs, and why in afairs one may do things less inclined to do with dedicated partner, and why acts that stimulate difference or the exotic can rekindle the spark that has died.Because we see Beauty less in the Norm, and more in the face of change.

Therefore, I have to conclude, that it is very easy to support the concept of Beauty - Natural, Poetic, or Human - being that which is new.

Signed, Gwaeraurond@yahoo.com

--Gwaeraurond 4:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese proverb

Why do we need a chinese proverb in the opening paragraph? I say remove it. Shandolad 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• At least it wasn't the usual Shakespear one - although that one appears later in the body of the article. I say keep it, since beauty is a cross cultural consideration and it reflects the scope of the article. Also, a quote is as relevant as a photograph or chart, both of which appear in opening paragraphs of other articles.LessHeard vanU 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• I also see it as out of place and that it should be removed. Philosophy is not a realm for political correctness such as aiming at representing all cultures regardless of the content. Of course, chinese materialism and practical wisdom may be as rightful as any other approach to life but that particular proverb seems dull and especially simplistic in the implications that women therefore would lack wisdom or at least that if you weren't beautiful as a woman you may not be wise (btw, I'm a man). --Lucian 17:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I read it as "why do we need a chinese proverb...?" If it had been asked, "why do we need a proverb...?" then only the latter part of my response would have sufficed. I'm not over enthusiastic about it myself but "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!. If there is another proverb which is more apt, rather than from a particular culture or age, then substitute that.LessHeard vanU 19:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And I wrote it the way I did to clarify beyond all doubt what I was referring to. "Why do we need a chinese proverb?". This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias do not start articles with poetry. I prefer a chinese proverb over an old Shakespearian one (no criticism of Shakespeare) any day.Shandolad 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Beauty is the wisdom of women. Wisdom is the beauty of men." - Ancient Chinese proverb

Keeping code on this page for further discussion. A reader coming to Wikipedia's Beauty-page is probably not looking for poetry. It does not belong in the opening, only (maybe) to exemplify something. Shandolad 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe poetry certainly belongs in an article dealing with the term Beauty. It is such a poetic word. Poetry can be found in any text - in your previous posts even. I percieve a well structured sentance to be poetry, no matter what the context. --Tapsell 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural considerations of beauty

Without creating contraversies on racial features and the such, I think it may be worthwhile to consider how culture, both indigenous and "fashion", can determine considerations of beauty. With indigenous there might be a brief discussion of scarrification, tattooing, neck rings, lip and ear plates and other body modification. Within "fashion" I am particulary thinking of matters such as voluptuousness against the current ultraslim preferences. Historically cultures (including Western early/mid 20th Century) put a premium on the display of wealth/success by means of the fuller figure. In the latter half of the century, as food consumption (if not nutrition values) rose, the preference for the "skinny" and/or "gaunt" ideal became apparent. Whilst source material for the former type of cultural ideals may be abundent I think there may be difficulty in obtaining any good data on the latter. If I find any compelling material then I will start on it.LessHeard vanU 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

= I see the latter consideration to have been discussed at length here. I will stick to researching material for the cultural/body modification aspect.LessHeard vanU 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image discrepancy

I'm not sure I quite understand why one of the featured images is the cover of Nabokov's Lolita. Are we meant to understand that the legs of a 12-year old girl are generally accepted as beautiful? The image bears no explanatory caption and no mention is made of the novel in the body of the article. So, I think that some other image might be more germain to the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.226 (talk • contribs)

NPOV?

The first paragraph on what beauty is seems to be beholden to a specific school of beauty.

It's a word that's difficult to define, and you'll find a great many who will disagree with that definition.

Some philosophers have suggested that we quit using the word alltogether in intellectual discussion, because of the utter lack of an effective definition. The current wiki definition has some problems, and I've no idea where it came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie Garkey (talk • contribs)

Hinduism = mythology?

I just noticed this in the article and I think it should be corrected:

'* Lakshmi - Hindu mythology'

Considering that Hinduism is still very much a practised relgion, is it right to describe it as 'mythology'?

Merging from Ugliness

Please go to the Ugliness Talk page to view what has been previously said. Lsjzl 16:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirection problem

Why does 'hideous' redirect here? It's all small thing but shouldn't hideous at least redirect to 'ugly'?

Nomination for image of Sharbat Gula to be reincluded

Image:Sharbat Gula.png
Photograph of an Afghan girl (Sharbat Gula) is regarded as among the world's most iconic and compelling images for its plain and vivid reflection of human beauty within a context of conflict and suffering. It remains a well-recognized symbol for the cause of human rights.]] The image "Sharbat Gula" is hidden. I feel that image is notable enough within the context of beauty to be included. It is consider the most compelling cover photo on National Geographic and is also, as stated in the caption: "regarded as among the world's most iconic and compelling images. Its plain and vivid reflection of human beauty within a context of conflict and suffering remains a well-recognized symbol for the cause of human rights". Therefore it it is fair use, WP:FUC. Valoem ^talk 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that that category makes it qualify, alas. WP guidelines only allow free-use images where there's no alternatives that'd give the same effect. It might just about be OK to illustrate an article on the artist or the subject, though. Pseudomonas 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As the guy who included the Sharbat photo and wrote the caption, Im a bit partial to it, and would naturally argue that its inclusion is not violating or at least can be overlooked in special cases. However I'm not closed to the idea of listing a gallery of candidate photos, and picking the best of these to use. More than one can be rotated once a week or so. -Ste|vertigo 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From a Lover of Beauty

What is perfect beauty? --That is, what is that "beauty bare" that Edna St. Vincent Millay could only write in a glance of Euler's eye?

Can there be a perfect beauty?

On my user page, one can read the following quotation of Sir Francis Bacon:

"There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."

One can also read my own reformulation of Bacon's work there:

"Beauty is only possible in imperfection."

What is perfection other than that which no beauty can ever be?

And why, ignoring my own best reason, do I long for a perfect beauty? I don't really spend much time doing anything else.

Tastyummy 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New photo

File:Ilyssa4.jpg

While I think it's a nice photo, I don't think it's necessary for this page. I'm firmly against censorship (and will readily defend the illustrative photos on pages such as Penis and Vagina. However, there's already an image representing the female as a symbol of beauty here. There's already a bevy of misguided Romeo's trying to get their girlfriend's name in this article; I could imagine the same thing happening with photos. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of the high volume of vandalism on this page (re: There's already a bevy of misguided Romeo's trying to get their girlfriend's name in this article), I wonder if it should be blocked.

Just my silly opinion on the use of the photo here … because it is a photo it can capture the inherent part of nature (realism) that is profoundly a part of beauty … so I thought a tactful use of this photograph could have been a good thing. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

beauty respond from shanece.

beauty is a emotinal feeling within someone's mine and within the way they tihnk and feel and their physical beauty.

semi-protect?

Of late there's been an apparent increase in the number of anon edits to this page doing nothing but adding the name of their inamorata. Might it be appropriate to semi-protect? Has this been tried before, and with what result? Pseudomonas 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Toward a better definition

Here is the current definition of beauty:

Beauty is an innate and emotional perception of life's affirmative and meaningful aspects within objects in the perceived world – e.g. vitality, fertility, health, happiness, and love.

Stating that beauty is part of the perceived world is redundant because it's already been described as a perception. Also, what exactly is an innate perception? Perception is the mind's interpretation of experience. How is that innate? If we mean to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, surely there is a clearer way of saying it. Finally, the definition is a bit narrow, emphasizing affirmation and meaning, as opposed to the usual, sensory way that many people think about beauty. How about something like this instead:

Beauty is the perception of a person, object, place, or idea that provides an experience of pleasure, affirmation, meaning or goodness.

That seems a bit clearer, but I'm not sure it's significantly better. There is a philosophical issue here. Is beauty merely a perception? Isn't there something about the object itself that brings us to the conclusion that it is beautiful? If not, then we really can't say that a work of art, for example, is beautiful. We can only say that we feel beauty looking at it. In an attempt to save the practical usage of the word in language, how about this:

Beauty is an attribute of a person, object, place, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, affirmation, meaning, or goodness.

Jcbutler 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"This leads to a psychological state of attraction and positive emotions." -Seems like it needs work. We can deal neutrally with the concept of perception, but we cant state that perception is solely in the domain of psychology. Its late, so no more for now. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a horrible article. I can't think of much that can save it except

Maybe turn Beauty into a redirect into the Aesthetics article, and salvage whatever (little) good material we have on this article and add it to one of the articles on human attractiveness. Seriously, so much in this article is subjective and made up by editors, and belongs in an essay, not an informative encyclopedia article that's supposed to be about facts. Blueaster 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though simply calling it horrible is unlikely to help much. I've been doing a series of edits, replacing information that was deleted at some point in the history of the article, and reducing information that is more POV. --Jcbutler 07:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmerkley1103.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sehar.h.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RaeBruce, Teresachiyannebeamon. Peer reviewers: Mychelles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Object and Subject

I changed the phrase "object of beauty" to "subject of beauty" in the introduction because the paragraph in question regards subjective experiences and interpretations of beauty. The philosophy term "subject" is more appropriate here, as it deals with a thing inside of the mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyQuixote (talk • contribs) 04:32, December 3, 2008‎

article deletion/merge

It makes no sense to delete ugliness and leave this one. What the hell gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.84 (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much focus on female beauty

On the "Human Beauty" section, the only cited form of male beauty is the "Bishonen" concept from Japan, meaning beautiful youth. It describes and ansthetic that can be found in East Asia. A young man who's beauty and sexual appeal transcends the boundary of sexual orientation.It's clearly a biased section, because it completely ignores the people (including myself) who find typically masculine features attractive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraus (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugliness

Why is it when I google ugliness I'm taken straight to this article? Someone should probably fix that *AHEM*.

Talk about taboo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.155.78 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seriously, what is the reasoning behind a redirect to 'beauty?' This makes no sense. 'Ugliness' deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.182.66 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start a new article if someone could tell me how ... am sort of new at this wiki thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.82.12 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I too think there really needs to be a page on Ugliness seperately, also this page on beauty is not great either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.135.38 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

why does hideous redirect to this article? 84.161.251.249 09:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed temporarily. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because opposites attract;). Gooogen 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugliness needs its own article. It's just as developed of a concept as beauty. I was really surprised when it redirected here. That's ridiculous, considering the amount of obscure facts and trivia on Wikipedia. I never edit or discuss on Wikipedia but come on folks. "Intelligence" and "Stupidity" have separate articles. Beauty/Ugliness is a very similar idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.133.167 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it looks like there is enough consensus here to start the article. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the alleged consensus here was largely, if not completely, from IP address editors who were not even familiar enough with Wikipedia policies to sign their names. That doesn't make them unintelligent or disqualify them from voicing an opinion, but it raises some concerns as to whether they understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up, Wing? That statement should have no bearing on people's decision making. I'm a casual user/noob still getting used to wikipedia but that in no way implies you or anyone else here knows more about the subject than me and same back. An article on ugliness is completely within wikis scope. Ugliness is simply the polar opposite to beauty and deserves its own article. If you consider a subject like ugliness unworthy of its own section then perhaps you should consider having this whole section on beauty completely removed or merged with physical attractivness. Unless you have a good non-biased reason to say otherwise, or a good reason behind your bias. There is plenty to say on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.147.154 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Angela Barnes In June 2013 the comedian Angela Barnes became noted for an article in The Guardian, in it she spoke about how she felt society treated people deemed ugly and her feelings as someone who self-identified as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.177.122 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no article on Ugliness, but there is one on Unattractiveness. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatra

by modern standards, Queen Cleopatra would not be considered beautiful. Her charm lied in her personality, intelligence, ability in the bedroom. Thus, to include her in beauty is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.168.162 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Beauty

Hi, i'm new to all this, so am happy to receive advice on making edits. I made some changes to 'history of beauty' yesterday. These were reverted so i've revised them and included some explanatory notes -

Re: symetry may be ... - trimmed to avoid weasel words Re: some researchers... - as above Re: symetry, golden ratio and youth - Rhode's citation is left but the paragraph is shortened to avoid repetition, the type of research (meta-analysis) is not relevant as we are not comparing research methodologies. Re: The bluest eyes - questionable relevance. Difficulties in achieving beauty ideals are worth including and are mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Detailed examples would be more relevant in an articles on stigma or dysmorphic body perception.

I'm not sure why there are 2 articles - physical attractiveness and beauty but expect that the former is a more biological / sociological point of view where as later is more existensial. With this in mind the 'History of Beauty' section serves little purpose, especially since only the first paragraph discusses historical ideas of beauty.

It seems to be a good article and is worth keeping informative, clear and concise. I hope I can help to do this. Nernst (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can there be more diversity? For example, it mentions Japanese aesthetics and completely leaves out Wabi Sabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.162.184 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Body Weight

The article stated that the one notable exception to otherwise historical stability of standards of beauty was female body weight...yet standards for male body weight are equally unstable; compare the hefty seventeenth century Germanic burghers to the almost worryingly slender nineteenth century English gentlemen to the obese Tahitian men to current Western standard, which seems to once again have returned to the Greco-Roman standard. Hence, I have removed the qualifier "female". JDS2005 07:23, 7 January, 2007 (UTC)

Scientific foundations for human beauty

I very clearly remember some sort of documentary that included the information I've distilled into this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beauty&diff=99056216&oldid=99053502

However, I can't remember WHAT the documentary was, hence this information requires citation, seeing as it adds a lot to the article, but does not stand well as a simple assertion without citation. JDS2005 07:44, 7 January, 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific?": not possible

Elmo is the coolest thing on earth! back to buisness.

The scientific method is pretty much a requirement for "doing" science. . . all of the studies I've seen to date about universal standards of beauty fail the "rolling eyes test." Just chat with an anthropologist sometime and figure out what concepts you could employ that would port so easily across cultural boundaries.

Just for example: US, Europe, India, Hong Kong, Australia, Taiwan. . .what do all these places share? They don't call it "Bollywood" (or "Baliwood) for nothing! Many of the same production values (and stereotypes) that "contaminate" cultures make any sort of statement about universality suspect. (remember, we're working from an anthropological perspective here--if you want to make any sort of universalist claim, you need to demonstrate cultural isolation. If the kids all read the same textbooks, listen to the same music, watch the same movies, whatever you have isn't universal!)

I just read that the chief of one of the "primitive" tribes in Amazonia just announced to (yet another) TV documentary producer "I think I need a tummy tuck--I look too fat!" Sorry, but there is no concept of tummy tuck indigenous to the native people's of Brasil (if these tribes are really the native people, fodder for another speculative trail).

Now let's look at how our variables will be operationalized: If you are measuring "desirability to men" you fail, already. Who says that "beauty" has anything to do with sexual desire ? What about the old and equally heinous, but cleaned up for this forum "there's the girls you date and the girls you marry." So according to our operationization of the variable "beauty" we now have "beauty" as a characterization of objectivization. Would you argue that men would choose to marry those they found less beautiful? Perhaps, but now we are way out of the ballpark of any "scientific method."

Since we are talking about anthropology, let's consider time span. How long have Homo Sapiens been answering surveys about what they believe is desirable? How long have Homo Sapiens been coupling for recreation and procreation? Would science allow us to make a generalization of Time T1 to T10,000 based on data exclusively from Time T9,995? Nope.

So taking a seque from anthropology to statistics (since we are relying on a sampling of a very large population to allow us to ascribe characteristics to those members of the population we have not actually tested). Does each and every member of the population "all people everywhere for all time" have a known probability of being included in our sample?" um, no. Scientific research does not allow you to measure some characteristic of an animal A1, combine it with data from A4, A399, A39300, and A4 million and claim that your findings have validity *unless you can demonstrate that each of these A Animals are the same thing? Disparate things, no findings.

Moving to Anthropological Linguistics. . . Are we able to ascertain that the words used in each culture are linguistically identical? If not identical, can we ascertain exactly how they are different? Let's see, compare lots of American English words for "beauty" and assume they will linguistically map? (speaking of phonemes, here, the linguist *knows* there is no credible semantic mapping even within a language group with a rather minor geographic distribution--which drives the semanticists crazy) If it is not phonemes you are taking for your data, what are you using? You can demonstrate that two sounds are more or less identical, but if you are making all sorts of assumptions about meanings crossing language groups (and this, in turn, drives the linguists nuts) you really don't have "data" you can defend in a scientific sense. If a respondent answers "That is one bad woman!" does it mean that the picture of the woman is considered beautiful or ugly? Do you have to know their location to tell the difference? Perhaps even rely upon the data collector's judgment? Apples and oranges. Not science.

Now let's look at population ecology, epidemiology, and several related disciplines. These folks are willing to let a lot of the data particulars slide, but they really do depend on strict operational synchronization. The way I understand it (and we are moving way far from my fields) they are willing to admit some sloppiness in their data, as long as it is the same sloppiness everywhere. That is, you can count different factors in different places as alike, but you have to maintain data collection in a context-aware fashion. You can lump owls and arctic foxes together as Level 3 predators in this biome, and hawks and red foxes (I'm making these examples up, can you tell?) together in this other biome, but you have to demonstrate that the foxes in both biomes occupy similar niches in their respective biomes. That is, you can't lump together all foxes, without careful regard to their position in their environment. So, if we are headed this way in our attempt to group data from different ecologies, we simply must show that the same factors are relevant in each. Do the populations in each location have the same level of stability in their food supply? Does the representative stimuli (presumably pictures of women revealing enough to at least tell what their real body measurements are) occupy similar niches in their respective ecologies? That is, do young unmarried females in one cultural setting represent an economic blessing to their family, and a hardship to another? Are beautiful women considered in terms of household expenses to maintain, or are they expected to be self-sustaining or even contributing to the subject male's economic setting? If they function in one capacity in one society and in a quite different capacity in another society, any context-based discipline will disallow them as similar: No matter what you might call them.

I'm not even going to venture into semiotics, talking about how signs and symbols create our worlds through a variety of complex and always changing processes that constrain our choices in ways we can't (by definition) even know. I believe the point is as clear as I can make it.

There are many other perspectives, of course. I am not even suggesting that there is a particular science that needs to be followed. But there are many, many more studies produced in universities than are considered to be credible to those committed to the scientific method.

It may be that instead of "science" these researchers are working within an established discipline that maintains some other standards. Boldly I would say that the large majority of the "genetic story" sorts of studies are not accepted by geneticists, by social scientists, or by anyone else. Speculating that some gene worked in some way through the millenia is tautologically not provable. That does not mean that it should be excluded from intellectual debate, but that if it starts by claiming the scientistic (from "scientism" rather than "scientific" from "science") ground of the finality of data.

This probably sounds more harsh than I intended. But this is a topic that has done a lot of harm to a lot of people, especially those who are led to believe that their own options or self-worth are bounded by their genes. It is quite likely that any discussion about "beauty" is going to rest on philosophy, popular culture, and "the meaning of life".

To put it another way, we can be very specific and sure about something really vague, or we can be vague about something so specific it has little value in a discussion of something like "beauty." Let's not oversimplify the topic.

One last caution: There's "peer-reviewed" and then there is "Peer-reviewed." In a system where everyone has to publish in peer-reviewed journals or lose their job, wouldn't you expect to see a lot of peer-reviewed journals? Some disciplines have only a few, but other disciplines have tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journals. If six of us meet at a conference, we can set up a web site and have a peer-reviewed journal. We are all peers, after all.

Most universities have rather complicated "tiers" of journals in which the lower-tiered journals are deeply discounted (often capped at the number of points journals of this tier can be counted for promotion and tenure decisions. Problem is, with so many thousands of journals in a field (let alone the journals that are interdisciplinary) it is increasingly that anyone else in your department will be reading the same journals you read. How can a university even know which journals are "hot" this year? Discovery and understanding is not a linear thing.

Just to make things even more confusing: Even the most highly regarded journals send through "way out there" pieces every now and then. It keeps folks from becoming too comfortable and sometimes (even) it represents payback for some past slight, real or imagined, or a tender spot for some developing area of research.

Nothing should be taken as "settled" or even "known" until it shows up as prevailing against attacks and counter-theories. Even then you never can tell. While Wikipedia is not "perfect" let's not stake too much on a single study. If there is a body of literature out there representing a variety of opinions and perspectives, then it surely should be added (with other supporting or disconfirming citations as well).

Roy 18:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be shy, Roy. Tell us what you think. ;) I don't believe anything about the article claims to have scientific proof, so I think your criticism is somewhat misplaced. There is a fairly substantial empirical literature on physical attractiveness, however, which I would argue is one facet of beauty. I think the real problem is that beauty is an incredibly difficult concept to get ahold of, making this article extremely difficult to write. The section you tagged is rather incoherent and disorganized, and tends to conflates ancient history and evolutionary psychology under the vague title of "beauty and culture." These points should probably be separated out into their own sections where they will be much easier to address. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find a citation or two. --Jcbutler 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've added several references and done some reorganizing. I think the theme of symmetry may help to unify some very different ideas, such as the ancient Greek view of beauty and the evolution of attractive faces. This is definitely a work in progress. --Jcbutler 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Beauty pageant winner image revert

Miss Virginia Teen (2006) – physical attractiveness, such as beauty, is an important part of human bonding.

It seems that User:Jcbutler has reverted the addition of an image of a "beauty" pageant winner in an encyclopedia article on "beauty"? I find that ironic. Possibly JC can explain himself or herself here. --Sadi Carnot 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sadi. I deleted the image for two reasons. This article is about beauty in a general, social and philosophical sense. A picture of a beauty contest winner would seem to be a better fit for the article on beauty contests. My second, more substantial reason is that the image is blurry and of poor quality, having been cropped and magnified from a larger photograph.

That said, I'm not entirely averse to a beauty pageant picture on this page. I think we could find a better one, and maybe place it under its own heading or perhaps "effects on society", rather than aesthetics. Any other opinions? --Jcbutler 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As to your first objection, more than 3/4th of the page is devoted to a discussion of measurements of physical beauty in people, e.g. waist-to-hip ratio, clear complexion, large eyes, symmetry, the golden ratio of facial features, averageness, lack of blemishes, a perfect nose shape, plastic surgery, taller height, eating disorders, muscular development, sexual dimorphism, etc. Need I go on? A person who wins a beauty contest, typically, possesses physical features indicative of these traits. The other half of beauty, in human life, relates to neurological development in such areas as virtues, e.g. mother Teresa, Mozart, etc.

As to your second objection, the list of free beauty pageant images available to use is here. If you find a better one, please suggest it.

Some books you might want to read on the subject of beauty, as you seem to be interested, are Nancy Etcoff’s 1999 Survival of the Prettiest – the Science of Beauty, Gillian Rhodes and Leslie Zebrowitz’s 2002 Facial Attractiveness – Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives, and Brian Bates and John Cleese’s 2001 The Human Face. In the latter book, for example, chapter four is on beauty. Beauty, according to this chapter, "lies in a blend of Greek philosophy, evolutionary biology, mathematical formulae, babies, sex, and personal chemistry." The pictures they use in the opening page of this chapter, to represent beauty, are actors George Clooney and Brad Pitt, model Iman, and violinist Vanessa-Mae. I hope this clarifies my position. --Sadi Carnot 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Picture Edit

I removed a picture that was oddly protruding out of one of the first sections in this article. It was awkward, and really didn't contribute to the article that much. 24.145.221.25 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why only Human Beauty?

Why are we focused on human beauty? For a general wiki, you think this would include things about all types of beauty, in nature, art, animals, etc. Can someone please include some fact about these subjects? 69.80.163.152 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, right in the first paragraph, the articles states that "Beauty is a quality present in a thing or person" and that beauty "is a quality of a person, object, or idea..." (emphasis mine). The article then goes on to mention beauty in plants, nature/landscapes, buildings/architecture, music, and proportions in general (not just the human kind), among other non-human aspects. The article doesn't even focus on the human aspect of beauty until the tenth paragraph, which discusses symmetry.

Of course, if you still think this article would benefit from sections dedicated to other-than-human beauty, please be bold and write them! --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with this idea, I changed the human nouns and pronouns in the introduction to more generic terms such as "entity." This appears more appropriate for general terms, which is what introductions are for.

This is part of Sociology

The beauty-related topic in philosophy is call "Aesthetics," not this! There's not even a Stanford encyclopedia entry on this. "Physical Appearance" is a related topic WP Sexuality should work on, not this!

WP Sociology should handle this article. Thank you.141.155.149.184

Aesthetics is not the study of beauty and actually has very little to do with beauty these days. Instead, postmodern thought largely dismisses beauty as having anything to do with aesthetics and art. Rather, it is preoccupied with concepts such as taste and expression. Beauty is a philosophical concept. Its relationship to sociology, if any, is a matter of philosophical debate (within the branch of aesthetics). While current consensus seems to be that beauty is a social construct, that does not mean that beauty is a "part of sociology". Soldarnal 06:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How Can We Make The Pictures Non-Objective...

Attractive to everyone?

Thanks, DarkestMoonlight (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The obvious choice is to have no picture of the girl you happen to like. Weregerbil (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Human beauty

User:Xenonvision insists on adding this image [1] of Gisele Bündchen as an example of Western idea of beauty. I think Bündchen looks mannish and is not facially attractive. What's worse, the pic Xenonvision prefers is truly awful, which I think even her fans would agree with (I think it was removed from the Gisele Bündchen article when someone tried to add it).

I'd replace the pic with this one [2] of Monica Bellucci, but I'd accept a compromise, like the Nefertiti bust [3] that was in the article until removed by Xenonvision.

I think today's female models often have peculiar, masculine faces, which many people (heterosexual males in particular) do not find attractive. Actresses like Bellucci fit the conventional idea of beauty in Western culture a lot better.

In any case it's bizarre to say that Bündchen as seen in that hideous pic represent the Western idea of beauty. If shown only that picture, how many people would say that she's beautiful? If there needs to be a picture at that point of the article at all, it should be something less controversial. Victor Chmara (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll never get consensus on a single female that everyone thinks is beautiful (especially contemporary models). I think the Cleopatra bust (or some other artwork symbolizing beauty) is better. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• A photo of an individual should have a reliable source attached to it. But even then, its inclusion will most likely be subject to recurring, heated debate and since sources calling any given notable model or actor/actress "beautiful" are easily found, people will probably continue to insert an image more to their liking, which is definitely a bad idea. Reyling on schematic drawings, and examples from the arts are far better suited to explain rather than decorate the article content. dorftrottel (talk)

File:MMONROE1.jpg

Marilyn Monroe

I think that a Marilyn Monroe picture would be better. She's a true beauty icon. Xenonvision (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I second the Marilyn Monroe suggestion. Victor Chmara (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe is noticeably known for her beauty. She also had inner beauty, and a loving heart. She would be a great addition to this page.

Question: Why isn't inner beauty in its own category? I see that it is bolded and written below, but why not make it a category? Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkscarbro (talk •

Not sure how much inner beauty she had, she died of drugs and had a sex-filled life (including the president, JFK). Inner beauty doesn't have a category because it means what exactly? Good morals? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be a picture of a beautiful man as well. Humans include males and women consider some men to be beautiful. John Barrowman is an example of a beautiful young man. John Barrowman by Gage Skidmore.jpg. He is at the bloom of youth I.e., 30s and 40s, not bald, brown hair. He s beardless so, that makes him the pederastic or twink type of beauty if viewed from a gay audience. His youthful beauty is played out in his characters. However, beards and stubble are the standard of male beauty as they are adult traits in males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.25.127 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

for pictures

i think there should be pictures of bar refaeli and anna kournikova they are considred very actractive by most people in western societies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmartone (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Small correction for the greek references in the article

In the following text:

The classical Greek adjective beautiful was καλλός. The Koine Greek word for beautiful was "ὡραῖος",<ref>Matthew 23:27, Acts 3:10, Flavius Josephus, 12.65</ref> an adjective etymologically coming from the word "ὥρα" meaning hour. In Koine Greek, beauty was thus associated with "being of one's hour". A ripe fruit (of its time) was considered beautiful, whereas a young woman trying to appear older or an older woman trying to appear younger would not be considered beautiful. ὡραῖος in Attic Greek had many meanings, including youthful and ripe old age.<ref>Euripides, ''Alcestis'' 515.</ref>

A comment should be added to the effect that, in the Koine period, although ὡραῖος was in use to mean beautiful, the adjective καλλός was STILL in use to mean beautiful in the Koine period (including in biblical literature).

Source: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (BDAG)...Revised and Edited by: Frederick William Danker...Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der Fruhchristlichen Literatur, Sixth Edition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.39.252 (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was no consensus, so we will (I hope) keep the template. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Why is there an image of Joanna Krupa in the article, without any explanation related to the article subject in the caption nor any mention about her in the article? Chamal ^talk 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chamal_N., The article is about human physical beauty and sex appeal. Joanna was voted "sexiest women in the world" and “sexiest top model in the world.” Magazines worldwide list Joanna as one of the sexiest celebrities in the world. US Playboy named her "the sexiest swimsuit model in the world, and she was featured as one of the worlds sexiest women for the "Sexiest People" series on E! channel. All this would be too much to include in a caption and would require citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The image of Joanna Krupa is there because she conforms to society's prejudice and stereotypical image of the beautful woman, that is very thin, blond and young, no older than 30, more like late teens or early 20s. There is beauty in every size, hair colour and age! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 21:28, January 24, 2009‎

Isabel Allende is also a very beautiful woman! Why not her picture instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 21:29, January 24, 2009‎

Human beauty is diverse! It is not confined to youth!!!

I put in the picture of Isabel Allende, as beauty is found in all hair colours and ages. Not only young or blond women are beautiful. It is only societies prejudice against older women or those with darker hair! Beauty have nothing to do with youth or youthfulness! Some elderly women can be very beautiful as well as some young women can be quite ugly. Beauty is relative, it has nothing to do with age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Beauty is an opinion, so you cannot say it is "only societies prejudice." Sure, a lot of people find older women beautiful, but most people like younger people or people their age instead, and its mostly biological. I don't think we are debating here whether or not people over 30 can be beautiful.72.199.100.223 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove Joanna Krupa Image

Why is an image of her placed on this page? She was ranked as the most sexually attractive woman, but this does not mean the most beautiful and secondly, I don't think that the image represents a worldwide human view of beauty. Don't the rest of the images suffice? Quarkde (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I would classify the inclusion as original research. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted a change that swapped her for somebody else. I didn't find that the one that replaced her was verifiably considered beautiful, but I make no claim that Joanna Krupa is either, but it was at least a more stable article position. I would prefer somebody that is generally considered beautiful to be used instead of Joanna.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Inner Beauty Checklist (?)

How about creating an inner beauty checklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.82.234 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This was situated in a garbage section I removed, but I'm not sure if this was an attempt to be constructive or not, so I'll leave it here under a new section. — Fuebar (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Beauty|p003k9hf}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Why feminine beauty?

Why only feminine beauty? Why not masculine beauty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.163.95 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the article focuses excessively on female beauty. This should be corrected as right now the text is disappointingly gynocentric. --190.19.100.143 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea whatever happened to WP:NPOV. Us beautiful males need some attention too.LogicalFinance33 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. Let's get a pretty man to round out the article. SlightSmile 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Where's Ricky Martin when you need him? LogicalFinance33 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Arrrr he's a pretty one. SlightSmile 16:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Beauty is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction. ^{[citation needed]}

Is this really neccersary? I mean it's sort of obvious. 86.130.171.162 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There exist several problems with this definition of beauty. First, John Ruskin cleaved the notion of pleasure from beauty when he discussed "the sublime." Ruskin asserts that what is sublime need not necessarily be pleasing: for example, a grotesque or horrible piece of art may nonetheless qualify as sublime. Obvious instances include Goya's "Disasters of War" which are certainly unpleasant to view and depict horrible atrocities, but are nonetheless widely recognized as sublime -- the epitome of great art. Other examples include Picasso's "Women of Avignon" which depicts whores as grotesque figures with the heads of distorted African masks -- yet this painting gets widely cited as a great classic of modern art, and many art critics judge it sublime. Agan, Picasso's painting Guernica is horrible to look at and quite disturbing, yet it's clearly a great painting and gets widely cited an example of sublime modern art. In music, the mere equation of pleasure with beauty has long since gotten debunked. Many highly-regarded Western compositions have few, if any, pleasing tone combinations, yet are almost universally regarded as great compositions. Examples here include Iannis Xenakis' Pithoprakta, Eontes, Kraanerg, Krystztof Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, De Natura Sonuram, and Gyorgy Ligeti's Atmospheres. Considerable sections of Bach's organ works consist of intense dissonances whose resolution gets prolonged for quite a while, and almost all of Wagner's music consists of various suspensions of different kinds of acoustically rough tone-combinations whose resolution gets delayed so long that when they arrive, they barely qualify as resolutions. In literature we may cite many examples of ugly or unpleasant or outright horrible events depicted in brutal and terrifying language, which nonetheless have earned near-universal acclaim as superb literature. Examples from literature include Solzhenitsyn's A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch and The Gulag Archipelago, Celine's The Balcony, Shelley's poem Prometheus Unbound, Dante's Inferno, Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, George Orwell (nee Eric Blair)'s novel 1984, among many others. All these books or plays or poems prove disturbing and often unpleasant, yet elicit a feeling of transcendence or exaltation. All are today recognized as great literature.

The second problem involves the sourcing of discussions of "the sublime." The text of this article defines the source of discussion of the sublime in the arts in the late 18th century as Edmund Burke, but by far the best-known writer on aesthetics to tackle the issue was John Ruskin in the 19th century. However, Ruskin takes up his discussion of "the sublime" from the starting point of the late-18th-century poet Heinrich Schiller, who earlier (Schiller's letter to Körner of February 23, 1793, which is entitled, "Freedom in the appearance is one with beauty") discusses the sublime and defines it. "An object is perfect, when everything manifold in it accords with the unity of its concept; it is beautiful, when its perfection appears as nature." [op. cit.] So Schiller's definition of "the sublime" involves unity and nature.

It's extremely important to distinguish beauty from the sublime. By the last third of the 18th century, the two had begun to split apart, largely as a result of the romantic movement. Early conceptions of beauty, viz., from the pre-Socratic philosophers, stressed the alleged importance of proper proportion. This casts beauty in purely rational terms. It also excludes disproportioned, asymmetric, grotesque, picaresuqe, bizarre, or malformed images or musical works or poems from the category of the beautiful. But as shown above in the various pieces of art and literature and music cited, many examples exist of art/music/literature which is disproportioned or asymmetric or grotesque or bizarre, yet unmistakably great.

A more important motive for splitting beauty from the sublime in the late 18th century came from the rise of Romanticism and the apotheosis of the non-rational. The late 18th century witnessed a move away from pure rationality as the criterion for beauty. Wordsworth's "thoughts that lie too deep for words" necessarily prove incompatible with a rational description of beauty. For this reason Ruskin takes Schiller's earlier concept of beauty and refines it. Schiller describes beauty as "freedom" and "nature": "An object is perfect, when everything manifold in it accords with the unity of its concept; it is beautiful, when its perfection appears as nature." [1793 letter, op. cit.] But this definition proves problematic for several reasons. First, many works of art or music or literature exhibit great freedom, but this does not necessarily lead to beauty -- for instance, the increasingly free modulation into various tonal centers we find in Wagner does not in and of itself constitute beauty. If that were the case, then Western music would become increasingly more beautiful as it increasingly modulated freely, leading to the logical conclusion that atonal serial music (which treats all 12 pitches of the octave with total freedom) is most beautiful of all. Audiences and critics have reached the opposite conclusion, rejecting serial atonal music, by and large. In the case of music, severe constraints appear to increase beauty: a regular rhythmic pulse, repeating phrases and repeated sections, a composer's choice to confine hi/rself to a single key, and so on. Freedom in music which would involve doing away with regular rhythms or a sense of key or repeated melodic phrases has been shown to generate a sense of lack of musical organization and overall disorder which most listeners find unpleasant.

Again, freedom in literature seems antithetical with beauty. The typical post-renaissance play uses a rigid three-act form with a variety of fixed rules: for example, we expect that the main characters will not all die in the first act, and when this kind of rule gets violated, the results are regarded as unaesthetic by the audience. Chekov's rule that "if a gun is shown on the mantelpiece in the first act, it must be fired in the third act" and so forth limit Western literature and drama with a variety of rigid conventions. It is clearly possible to write a book in which the main characters die in the first chapter (John Hershey's "Hiroshima"), or a play in which nothing of significance happens ("Waiting for Godot"), but these literary works have not proven to be crowd-pleasers. Freedom seems incompatible with beauty in Western literature to the extent that violating any of the many constraints imposed on Western novels and plays seems to generate displeasure among the audience.

Freedom in art once again appears antithetical to beauty. Probably the more free form of modern art are abstract expressionism, but these kinds of paintings have not proven nearly as popular with audiences as representational paintings. It seems doubtful that painters like de Kooning or Pollock with ever take the place in popular appeal of artists like Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci or Monet or Titian or the Greek sculptors -- all of whom were extremely limited in what they could depict because they stuck to observed objects in the real world.

Lastly, there appears no significant discussion in this article of the conflict twixt objective and subjective theories of beauty. The earliest pre-Socratic and Socratic theories of beauty stress its alleged objective existence. Empedocles, for instance, describes beauty as arising from due proportion ("Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, people whom wisdom has well taught their art -- they, when they have taken pigments of many colors with their hands, mix them in due proportion, more of some and less of others, and from them produce shapes like unto all things, making trees and men and women, beasts and birds and fishes that live in the waters, yea, and gods, that live long lives, and are highest ranking in honor -- so don't let the error prevail over your mind, that there is any other source of all the perishable creatures that appear in countless numbers. Know this for sure, for you have heard the tale from a goddess." -- Empedocles , fragment 23), a sentiment echoed by the Renaissance artists and architects and poets: "Art owes its origin to Nature herself... this beautiful creation, the world, supplied the first model, while the original teacher was that divine intelligence which has not only made us superior to the other animals, but like God Himself, if I may venture to say it." -- Giorgio Vasari. Socrates likewise defines beauty as the degree to which something approaches an ideal form outside of human reality as well as simplicity ("Beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may." -- Symposium, section 212; "Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity — I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only a euphemism for folly." -- The Republic, book 3), a sentiment echoed by Michelangelo ("The true work of art is a but a shadow of the divine perfection"). Aristotle claimed that beauty consists of virtue as well as proper proportion, which also echoes Plato's view: "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." Also: "Beauty is a matter of size and order” (Aristotle, Poetics, 1450b37). Perhaps the most extreme claim that beauty involves symmetry and proportion comes from Plotinus: "Almost everyone declares that symmetry of parts towards each other and towards a whole, with, besides, a certain charm of color, constitutes the beauty recognized by the eye, that in visible things, as indeed in all else, universally, the beautiful thing is essentially symmetrical, patterned” (Plotinus I.6.1). During the middle ages, Pseudo-Dionysus stressed the alleged importance of the divine in beauty: "Any thinking person realizes that the appearances of beauty are signs of an invisible loveliness” (The Celestial Hierarchy, I.3). St. Augustine combines both themes of approach the divine and proper proportion in his definition of beauty: “In all the arts it is symmetry [or proportion] that gives pleasure, preserving unity and making the whole beautiful” (Of True Religion, xxx. 55); “Everything is beautiful that is in due order” (Of True Religion, xli. 77). Moreover, Augustine says, “Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place” (City of God, XIX, xiii). Thomas Aquinas offered a variant of this logical positivist definition of beauty, describing beauty as having its origin in reason: "Beauty is essentially the object of intelligence, for what knows in the full meaning of the word is the mind, which alone is open to the infinity of being. The natural site of beauty is the intelligible world: thence it descends. But it falls in a way within the grasp of the senses, since the senses in the case of man serve the mind and can themselves rejoice in knowing: ‘the beautiful relates only to sight and hearing of all senses, because these two are maxime cognoscitivi’(Maritain, 23)."

All of these definitions of beauty stress its allegedly extrahuman origin, its supposed imitation of nature, its supposedly rational character, and its alleged origin in proper proportion.

But other writers and artists and musicians disagree, asserting that beauty is irrational, unpredictable, and entirely subjective. David Hume, for example, said: "Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity, where another is sensible of beauty; and every individual ought to acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of others." (Hume, David, 1757). Hume's view was strongly supported by Kant, who claimed that beauty was entirely subjective: "The judgment of taste is therefore not a judgment of cognition, and is consequently not logical but aesthetical, by which we understand that whose determining ground can be no other than subjective." When asked why numbers are beautiful, the mathematician Paul Erdős replied: "It’s like asking why is Ludwig van Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don't see why, someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is.” "I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful." -- John Constable (1776 - 1837). "Ugly is irrelevant. It is an immeasurable insult to a woman, and then supposedly the worst crime you can commit as a woman. But ugly, as beautiful, is an illusion." -- Margaret Cho, weblog, 01-27-04.

On the other hand, a number of writers claimed that beauty had nothing to do with proper proportion or logic or extrahuman approach to godliness or imitation of nature, but originates an abnormal and quirky or pathological disproportion. For example: "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion." -- Francis Bacon, in Essays (1625), "Of Beauty." Or Andre Breton: "Beauty will be convulsive or not at all," Nadja. Or Albert Camus: "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time," Notesbooks. Or Northrop Frye: "The pursuit of beauty is much more dangerous nonsense than the pursuit of truth or goodness, because it affords a greater temptation to the ego," Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (1957), "Mythical Phase: Symbol as Archetype." Or Théophile Gautier: "There is nothing truly beautiful but that which can never be of any use whatsoever; everything useful is ugly," Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835). Paradoxically, some have claimed that perfection qualifies as imperfection and destroys beauty: "The absence of flaw in beauty is itself a flaw." -- Havelock Ellis (1859 - 1939), Impressions and Comments (1914). "Rarely do great beauty and great virtue dwell together." -- Petrarch (1304 - 1374), De Remedies. All these views of beauty stress either its alleged dangerousness or its disproportion or its extreme convulsive quality or its uselessness - none of which qualify as virtues, and certainly none of which appear to arise from the imitation of nature or from anything divine.

The obvious problem with a complete relativist view of beauty is that it tends to undermine the meaning of the word. If beauty is entirely subjective, and anyone can find anything beautiful depending on their viewpoint, how can we discuss beauty at all? Moreover, this kind of wishy-washy totally relativist definition of beauty contradicts the observed reality that a large majority of people have found the same kinds of things beautiful throughout the ages -- Greek statues, Greek poetry and plays, Roman poetry and architecture, medieval cathedrals, gothic music, renaissance music of masters like Palestrina, the symphonies of Beethoven, the preludes and fugues of Bach, and so on. If beauty is completely subjective it seems an awfully big coincidence that so many people agree on the same group of composers and writers and architects and sculptors and artists as "the greats" in Western art history. Moreover, “No sane person should believe that something is subjective merely because it cannot be settled beyond controversy.” ― Hilary Putnam

I'm tossing this out because of the clear inadequacy of this article in discussing the Western history of concepts of beauty. On the other hand, it's not my intention to run around like a bull in a China shop, wholly wrecking the article and rewriting it from the ground up. But it does seem clear that a great deal needs to be added to this article to bring it up to minimum standards of a reasonably comprehensive discussion of the subject vis-a-vis Western history.

Category:Beauty

Please add Category:Beauty. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Doesn't the English word beauty ultimately come the Latin bellus? Why are the Greek entymologies listed? Almafeta (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How can this article better distinguish itself from Aesthetics

What ways could this article distinguish itself from the philosophical topic of Aesthetics? This page's existing discussion of the various cultural conceptions of beauty is a worthwhile topic (possibly deserving it's own article) but at this point it is too disorganized and gives the impression of irrelevancy.

Should this article be rewritten to link the majority of the page to subsections of Aesthetics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZephyrP (talk • contribs) 05:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indian beauty

Aishwarya

Aishwarya

Former Miss World and top Indian actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is often cited as the "most beautiful woman in the world", for which she has received worldwide attention.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1652689_1652372_1652359,00.html|title=India's Influentials |work=Time|author=Simon Robinson|date=15 August 2007}}</ref><ref name=forbes>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/09/0309bollywood.html|title=India's Celebrity Film Stars|work=Forbes|accessdate=3 September 2001|date=9 March 2001|first=Todd|last=Jatras}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?id=ENTEN20100132627|title=NDTV awards: Amitabh, SRK, Ash icons of Indian entertainment|publisher=NDTV|accessdate=25 February 2010}}</ref><ref name=mostbeauti>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/29/60minutes/main663862.shtml "The World's Most Beautiful Woman?"]''cbsnews.com''. Retrieved on 27 October 2007</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Hiscock, Geoff|title=India's global wealth club|year=2007|publisher=John Wiley and Sons|isbn=0-470-82238-4|page=6}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Ash does fine on Letterman|url=http://in.rediff.com/movies/2005/feb/09ash.htm|publisher=Rediff|author=Chhabra, Aseem|date=9 February 2005|archiveurl=//web.archive.org/web/20090528225803/http://in.rediff.com/movies/2005/feb/09ash.htm|archivedate=28 May 2009|deadurl=no}}</ref> Atleast from South Asian perspective she can be considered very beautiful. Her pic should be put in article.Amateur0 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to undo vandalism.

This page looks to have been potentially vandalized, possibly unintentionally, by someone who does not speak fluent English. Looking at the history, it was significantly better about a year ago. In my opinion it would be improved by reverting all the changes since July 2015. Does anyone agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallingfrog (talk • contribs)

Can you be more specific? -- John Reaves 21:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Fallingfrog that the article was better written a year ago. The current first sentence has been lifted verbatim from this dictionary, and some pretty poor English simultaneously inserted in other parts of the article. These changes were made on 11 July 2015,[4] and impoverished the style. I think they were good-faith attempts to improve Wikipedia, though, and not vandalism; the user may not be a native speaker of English. I see on their page that they got into some conflicts, and stopped editing in November. I have boldly reverted the article to the last version before their changes. I realize some (minor) improvements have been made since then; I'll come back some day and work them back in. (Unless somebody else gets to it before me, HINT HINT.) Thank you for your assistance, Fallingfrog. I see have you only just created an account; welcome to Wikipedia! (If you sign your talkpage posts with four tildes, (~~~~), they will be magically transformed to your signature and a timestamp when you save.) Bishonen | talk 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. I didn't have a chance to browse the revisions. -- John Reaves 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I think I've now restored the improvements my revert removed; it wasn't as time-consuming as I feared. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Tracy, Nghi, Tâm is an example of beauty :))

BillP-19 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No source supporting claim. Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beauty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220045250/http://www.bucks.edu/~docarmos/BCMnotes.html to http://www.bucks.edu/~docarmos/BCMnotes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305091132/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-28 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-28

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

living words

i decided to look up the word beauty, and find what is written not very dimensional, im afraid i would love a chance to discus and add, if i may, to the entry on Beauty. RemnantLane (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More potential sources for this article

One uncited statement in this article is: "A feature of beautiful women that has been explored by researchers is a waist–hip ratio of approximately 0.70. Physiologists have shown that women with hourglass figures are more fertile than other women due to higher levels of certain female hormones, a fact that may subconsciously condition males choosing mates." I found it using the Citation Hunt tool, and then I found some sources for the claim. However, I cannot edit this article because it is semi-protected, even though Citation Hunt took me here (perhaps a flaw in the tool?) Here are the sources, so you can judge whether they are reliable or not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3682657.stm https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbie-shaped-women-more-fertile/

However, it should also be noted that this preference may not be universal. For instance, some non-Western cultures in which women have to do work such as finding food have preferences for higher ratios. I'm not quite sure how this would be worded in the article: advice would be helpful. Here are the sources for that statement: https://www.livescience.com/3098-female-figure-hourglass.html https://www.vox.com/2014/6/22/5832826/did-evolution-really-make-men-prefer-women-with-hourglass-figures http://www.sharonlbegley.com/hourglass-figures-we-take-it-all-back

I haven't put the edit request template yet because I just read that there should be consensus on the changes made before putting this template. I hope someone notices these sources. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apparently I'm now autoconfirmed and can add this myself. I won't do it right now because I'm using a mobile, and I find adding sources difficult when using a phone. (I think my edits don't show up as mobile edits because I pressed the link for the desktop version, which I like better than the mobile version). I'll do it soon, once I can use an actual desktop.Diamond Blizzard (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I have a desktop and I've added the sources and sentences. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

First place

"Beauty is a characteristic of an animal, idea, object, person or place that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction." This puts animals and objects before human beauty, which is the first meaning of beauty, given human development, and its also a high level idea of beauty, not prurient or transitory. There is a promoted idea which claims human beauty is called something else like attractiveness, and beauty is reserved for a higher idea. But then those don't connect back to human beauty at all. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing in the introduction is the idea of attraction, where places may be "beautiful" but only other humans have a kind of beauty which is connected to attraction and sex for the purpose of reproduction. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Animal, idea, object, person, and place are listed in alphabetical order. That was probably deliberate. We often use alphabetical order for things, to avoid wasting time on unhelpful argument over ordering. Alsee (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But alphabetical order is not topical order. Alphabetical order is quite useful for many things, like lists. But this is not that type of list. -Inowen (nlfte) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Feminine and Masculine Beauty

Hi ::@Ravensfire: I intend to add a Female Photo to represent Feminine Beauty and a Male to Photo to represent Masculine Beauty. As You asked me to Discuss on the talk page. Here I am. Happy to hear your opinion on this.(Purplecart (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

I'm afraid that adding photos of individuals and claiming that they represent "beauty" is bound to be very subjective, very time specific (notions of beauty change) and it would open up for millions of people wanting to add their own individual examples of what they think is beautiful. The concepts of "feminine beauty" and "masculine beauty" are also inherently problematic; they can be discussed but not presented as simple existing concepts that we can see typical examples of. --bonadea contributions talk 10:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what Bonadea said. Trying to have a single image to represent feminine beauty is nigh impossible not to result in significant disputes. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all of that. I'm not even use that a collage would work, even just using contemporary images would be a massive editorial undertaking as the definition of beauty has become dramatically wider in the past few decades. I've got a vague memory of some groups trying to create an artifical composite image by combining thousands of different women into a single image. That may be an interesting possibility assuming there's a free version available. Ravensfire (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Beauty is ideal form; in humans it amplifies sexual attractiveness for the purpose of sex selection and mating. In humans and in other things it evokes a sense of nature, of wonder, of perfection. -Inowen (nlfte) 13:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The part of "Human beauty"

In the first paragraph talks about inner beauty, that inner beauty does not exist, when talking about beauty in a person obviously speaks of its physical beauty. The inner beauty, that is something ugly that others say to make fun of the ugly, it is as if a person without arms told him "the box is made with the heart, not with the arms", which clearly is a mockery and a very nasty mockery, almost as unpleasant as saying that inner beauty exists. Beauty in itself is that which is pleasing to the eye.201.230.180.162 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I thank you, authors of ...

this summary/introduction, it is beautiful. :-) --2A02:908:1963:180:44C7:A73E:8D21:42FE (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Image additions

I recently made some BOLD changes to this article. I explained them pretty clearly in my edit summaries, but 2 editors decided they didn't want the changes. All of the edits that I made are logical and beneficial. I'll try to explain them even more clearly on the talk page. Here are my changes.

1: The lead image was changed to Weiblicher Halbakt by Vlaho Bukovac. I did this because the lead image should show a human. The vast majority of this article deals with human beauty and the effects that it has on society, so it doesn't make sense for the lead image to be of architecture. Virtually none of this article deals with buildings or windows. The lead image is supposed to be representative of the topic, and the information and statements that are included in the article, per MOS:LEADIMAGE. Apart from that, one contention that I can foresee from editors is that beauty is subjective and the proposed lead image is not a representation of a painting that everyone would find beautiful or attractive. This is an absurd argument. First of all, lots of people would not find the current lead image to be beautiful either. Many people do not find Gothic architecture or rose windows to be beautiful or good looking. Second, the lead image is supposed to be a representation of what most or many people would find beautiful. When Bukovac painted Weiblicher Halbakt, he did it with the intention of creating a nude woman who was attractive/beautiful. Art historians, and people in general have since commented on the beauty of Bukovac's paintings, including Weiblicher Halbakt. Also, from simply looking at the painting I think everyone can agree that this painting shows a person that many people would find beautiful or at least that the painting was created with the intention of showing a beautiful person. Third, the second paragraph of this article says "Often, given the observation that empirical observations of things that are considered beautiful often align among groups in consensus, beauty has been stated to have levels of objectivity and partial subjectivity which are not fully subjective in their aesthetic judgement." This essentially means that there are some universal standards of beauty but with some subjectivity. Which clearly adds to my argument. The image should be included in the article and should be the lead image.

2: I changed the title of the first section from "Ancient Greek" to "Ancient". If this article is going to divide up information about beauty into time periods then it should include several different societies. There have been many other ancient societies apart from Greece. Perhaps this is a comment on the tendencies of the larger Wikipedia community as well. Many articles focus heavily, often too heavily, on ancient Greece or even ancient Rome while neglecting other societies that had their own standards and customs. After I changed the title, I added a "worldwide view" tag to indicate that the section does not currently have information about other societies and cultures. I added the tag with the intention of later diversifying the section and adding more information, but of course my changes were undone before that could happen. The section title should be changed to "Ancient".

3: After the section title was changed to Ancient, I decided to add an image of a corresponding ancient statue. The statue was of Thusnelda, the relatively famous ancient Germanic wife of the quite famous Germanic chieftain Arminius. Germanic peoples are often not included in WP articles like this one, so I thought it would be good way of diversifying the images a bit. The statue was created in the 2nd century CE with some modern restorations. Thusnelda is often described as being beautiful by both historical and contemporary sources. The statue is found at Loggia dei Lanzi, a building/museum known for housing well crafted statues and sculptures. Thusnelda was and is considered to be beautiful, and the statue is beautifully crafted. It should be included.

4: Right around the Middle ages section I added a picture of the statue of Yang Guifei, the favorite concubine of Emperor Tang Xuanzong. I added a Chinese representation to (once again) diversify the images and contents of this article. Yang Guifei is one of the Four Beauties of China. This obviously implies her beauty and historical sources have described her as being beautiful as well. It represents the Chinese standards of beauty. Again, if you don't find the person that is represented in the statue to be beautiful, you can at least appreciate the beautiful craftsmanship and detail that went into creating the statue. The image of the statue of Yang Guifei should be included in this article because it depicts a beautifully made statue of a historic woman who was and is considered beautiful by Chinese culture.

5: I replaced the Roman fresco image of a woman with a painting called Dante and Beatrice. The painting depicts Dante Alighieri looking longingly at Beatrice Portinari. Dante was in love with Beatrice and wrote a poem about her. The section that the image was added to is called 'Human beauty" and it deals heavily with sexual attraction and connects it to fertility and reproductive quality. The Roman fresco image did not depict sexual attraction or physical attraction. The image of Dante and Beatrice certainly did. The image shows 3 attractive/beautiful women and a man (Dante) who is attracted to them, or at least one of them (Beatrice). The same section also has a "See also" to the Physical Attractiveness WP article. The lead image of that WP article has a similar illustration to the Dante and Beatrice painting, it shows a man talking to and looking at 2 attractive women. The lead image of the Sexual attraction WP page has a similar illustration to the Dante Beatrice painting. It shows a man talking and being attracted to two beautiful women. The image of Dante and Beatrice should be included in this article because it very clearly depicts sexual attraction and human beauty.

6:Lastly I added a modern image of a woman to the "Human beauty" section. I think that it is incredibly important to also have a modern representation of beauty or attractiveness. Like I said before, the section deals a lot with sexual attraction, fertility, and things like a woman's waist-hip ratio. So I added an attractive woman with an hourglass figure, and waist-hip ratio that matches what the section's text says. The image was removed and the current image is described as "An indian girl in her traditional attire". Not only is the current image of very bad quality but it also doesn't depict any of what the text says. The image that I added very clearly deals with and depicts what the text says. Also, anyone who may argue that the image that I added doesn't depict someone that everyone would find attractive (I've already explained why this is a silly argument) will run up against the fact the current image of the indian girl is not someone that everyone would find attractive either, and it has been included in this article for a long time. The current image should be replaced with the image that I added because it clearly represents the text of the section.

Hopefully I did a good job of explaining my beneficial edits. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the "vast majority" of the article is about human beauty. The lede certainly establishes that it's about the general concept, and as such, the current lede photo is appropriate. Some of the sections the article currently includes about human beauty (Eurocentrism, Western ideals) probably belong in Physical attractiveness and not here, but that's a separate discussion. Back to the photos, though; the current photo of the Indian girl is fine; the one you are proposing for a "modern representation" is unnecessarily prurient. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article barely begins to sketch out a few of the various definitions and attributes of beauty, while the section on human beauty is disproportionate and should be trimmed—readers who want more can follow the hatnote to the main article, Physical attractiveness. If our article were better developed it primarily would be about the ideas presented here. Ewulp (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slightly late response, I've been a little busy lately. The sections that deal with Human Beauty and the effects of it on society have a word count of 1368 words. The sections directly before that (time period sections) have a word count of 798. Keep in mind that the time period sections are incredibly general and still do deal with human beauty a little bit as well (but not as much as they should). So yes, as it stands now the majority of this article is about human beauty (rightfully so). Once again, architecture is barely mentioned in this article and although the lead does establish that beauty is a general concept and the time period sections continue to make it general the only time this article deals with specifics is when it talks about human beauty. And that's for good reason because most reliable sources talk about beauty in humans. There's a reason why the Human beauty section is filled with many citations while the sections above it have very little citations. How many sources are going to be talking about the beauty in ideas. There is no reason for why the lead image cannot be changed and plenty of reasons for the lead image to be changed. So it should change and it should depict a human.

The image of the Indian girl is of bad quality and it does not depict any of the concepts discussed in the section that it is currently placed in. As for my image being "prurient", I guess it all depends on where someone may draw the line of something being prurient. The woman in the image is wearing tights and her breasts and butt are all covered up. You can see part of her waist and she is in shape. This image depicts the text in the Human beauty section much better. Wikipedia is not censored and so we should not be stopped from using an image if it helps to illustrate what's in the text due to a fear of being prurient. Of course that doesn't mean that we should use very graphic or offensive material but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who found the image especially "graphic" or "offensive". On the other hand, if you have a different image that works better then I would definitely consider using it. But the current image has to be replaced. Also, there is no reason for the human beauty section to be cut, there are plenty of research papers, historical sources, and books that talk about human beauty. This article is included in the "Gender Studies" and "Sexology and sexuality" Wikiprojects. If anything, a separate beauty in inanimate objects section could be created. That section could talk about beauty in architecture and things like that. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted; the section title "Ancient Greek" better describes the section than "Ancient", since it's all about Greek philosophers and their influence. The jpgs added have little relation to the text and are not especially illustrative of concepts of beauty. This article may be included in the "Gender Studies" and "Sexology and sexuality" Wikiprojects, but it's also listed as a top-importance article by WikiProject Philosophy. The subject of the article is beauty, not human beauty in particular. You say that "most reliable sources talk about beauty in humans" more than they talk about beauty in ideas, but if you take a look at the contents pages of typical books on the subject (a few of which can be viewed here, here and here) you will see that this is not the case. They talk about beauty in ideas, in nature, in music, in art, and about the properties or theories of beauty much more than you think.

The edit history of this article, and 14 years' worth of postings this talk page, demonstrate that the inclusion of images of people regarded as beautiful has been contentious. Perhaps the reason the Pompeii fresco (stable for more than 8 years) and the Indian girl (added August 17, 2019) have been uncontroversial is precisely because both images are obscure enough that the viewer can imagine their own idea of beauty. This article doesn't need more images as much as it needs to be written. Ewulp (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you read my previous statements carefully? Most of your concerns have already been addressed by me in the previous (and very long) reasoning and explanation. Even so, I will post a longer response to your comments soon... -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I read your previous statements carefully. You state that this article should be primarily about human (specifically female) beauty, and that maybe "a separate beauty in inanimate objects section could be created. That section could talk about beauty in architecture and things like that". This is rather like expecting the Medicine article to be entirely about pharmaceutical drugs (aka "medicine"), with maybe a separate section that mentions the history of medical practice, diagnostics, surgery, therapy, diet, prevention, training and licensing of medical professionals, hospitals, medical devices, and other trivia. In fact pharmaceutical drugs are covered in Medicine, but they are only a small part of the larger subject; the main article for drugs is Medication. The main articles for the content you wish to add to Beauty are Feminine beauty ideal, Female body shape, Physical attractiveness, and Courtly love. In this article the Thusnelda image is appropriate, though a Greek work depicting a male figure might better serve your stated purpose of "diversifying the images a bit". The jpg of an undistinguished 20th-century effigy of Yang Guifei adds little encyclopedic value except to confirm that, yes, the Chinese make sculpture too. If an editor filled the article with jpgs of flowers, it would create the same fault of overemphasizing one locus of beauty at the expense of all others. The Henry Holiday painting is out of place in this article, which has no supporting text concerning any relationship between beauty and Medieval courtly love. Ewulp (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Beauty (ancient thought) into Beauty. There are already a number of sections on history in Beauty, some of which correspond to ancient times. --HyRotor (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. Sounds like an excellent idea to me. The main beauty article obviously should have most of its content on the history of the concept and conceptions of it in different cultures; there's no reason we need an article just about ancient conceptions of beauty when the main article is more than fit for that purpose. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: I totally disagree. Beauty is more than just abstract ancient, medieval, or modern day thoughts or ideas. I actually think much of the information in the sections about the historic beliefs about Beauty should be removed from this article and transferred to the Beauty (ancient thought) article. This article mainly covers information about physical beauty in people. It is in the Sexology and Sexuality, and Gender Studies WikiProjects for a reason. This article should mainly focus on what people find beautiful in other people, animals, and things. Not Beauty as an abstract thought. We don't need a long history lesson on what every single society or historic person has ever thought about Beauty, sure that can be included but in small amounts. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Support the merge. The subject of Beauty is beauty, a large concept that should be covered the way any encyclopedia would cover it. Human beauty is a subsection; the main article for that is Physical attractiveness. Ewulp (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the merge. The proposed merge would bring in a lot of irrelevant and overdone material. That material is already covered a little bit in this article. There could be a separate article for the philosophical aspects of Beauty, which the Beauty (ancient thought) article covers quite well...at least in theory. The philosophy and thoughts about beauty are also just a subset of it. Most people associate the word “Beauty” with Beauty in people, and architecture/art as well. Not philosophy or ideas. —-2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:1F (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. For five years, Beauty (ancient thought) has been barely more than a narrative outline, mixing a few paragraphs of actual "meaty" content with mere-mentions by ancients (Heraclitus, Cicero) and a few myths that provide no meaningful context or expansion of the concept (Helen, Thales). The same periods of time are covered in Beauty, and could be enhanced by adding the "Socrates and Plato" content from the "ancient" article; most of the rest is of "ancient" is redundant to the other article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Support the merge. I don't see a good reason why we need an article specifically for the ancient conception of beauty and I think the article "Beauty (ancient thought)" doesn't mention one either. The objections to the merge presented so far seem to be motivated mainly by perceived shortcomings of the "Beauty"-article. These are at best indirect reasons for opposing the merge but not positive reasons for justifying a separate treatment. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@HyRotor, Psiĥedelisto, TrynaMakeADollar, Ewulp, 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:1F, and Schazjmd: It's 5 to 2 for the merger. I would go ahead and perform it unless there are further objections. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

Editor peincw (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: add articles to "See Also"

The discussions on this Talk page mention other WP articles which might be better places for some of the issues being discussed - so someone coming to "Beauty" might actually be better off going to those articles. Could someone please add these articles to the "See Also" list? Female body shape Feminine beauty ideal Physical attractiveness Sexual attraction Unattractiveness Thanks, 194.193.145.209 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think a warning at the start of the article would be appropriate, along the lines of: "This article considers Beauty from a general point of view. For more specific aspects of beauty, and in particular female beauty, see the topics in the 'See Also' section." This would address issues which have occurred repeatedly in this Talk page. 194.193.145.209 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added some of the links you requested. The others either already have links in the article or they didn't seem relevant enough to me. As for your suggestion about the start of the article: Beauty is the topic of this article and it is a very general term that applies to all kinds of things. Your suggestion seems to give undue weight to feminine beauty in particular. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

But this is what I am on about. I have read a lot of this Talk page, and again and again (before it was protected) people were coming to this article and loading it down with instances of human beauty and in particular female beauty. It seems to me this is an instinctive natural reaction, and it applied historically. If we are now more enlightened than that, there could at least be an explicit statement at the beginning, implying "Undue weight on these particular aspects of beauty is now considered inappropriate," (by whom?) "but we have articles where they are appropriate." But instead the article is simply protected to prevent modification by the great unwashed. It is as if even the warning is considered an excessive concession to these now-unacceptable modes of thought. Former 194.193.145.209 60.241.230.82 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Chartes Cathedral link

please change ((Chartes Cathedral)) to ((Chartres Cathedral)) 2601:541:4580:8500:3DAB:343C:ECF:7686 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 00:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

I would like to introduce a new section: "Beauty - scientific explanation".

Beauty - scientific explanation

The theory of contrast (1) defines beauty as a positive sensation (pleasure) resulting from the economy of perception of beautiful objects (i.e. the perception of the information contained in these objects). If we have two objects with the same information content then the more aesthetically valueable (more beautiful) is the one whose perception requires less energy (is more cost-effective). This saving of energy in the perception of beautiful objects is due to the compression of information (i.e., compactness of form) in these objects, which results in less energy corresponding to the perception of the same amount of information. Information compression can involve more information or less. Objects of high complexity are those that contain a large amount of compressed information. Compressing more information (e.g., in a work of art) is more difficult and takes more time, but it offers the possibility of saving more energy during perception, providing the recipient with more pleasure. Therefore, complex artworks are valued more. However, we also consider objects with a small amount of compressed information, such as e.g. golden division, to be beautiful. The compression in golden division consists in containing more information than in other possible divisions (symmetrical and asymmetrical) in the same number of three elements. An additional feature here is well known golden proportion. The theory also reconciles the controversy over the subjectivity and objectivity of beauty by explaining that the perception of beauty depends not only on the mind of the observer or the properties of the perceived object, but on the contrast between the information contained in the object and the information contained in the observer’s mind. Contrast is defined here as „the tension resulting from the interaction between the common and differentiating features of contrasting objects”. The contrasting objects in this case are the perceived object (the information in it) and the observer's mind (the information in it). The greater is this contrast, the more we like the object. It follows that the perception of beauty is also influenced by our knowledge. Contrast so defined is equivalent to complexity, as „the complexity of a system is greater the more elements it contains and the more connections there are between tchem”, as the intuitive criterion of complexity says (Heylighen 1999) . In contrast, the elements that are distinct are the differentiating features, while the connections between them are the common features. Common features introduce coherence into the system, which is equivalent to information compression. Information compression, on the other hand, reduces the energy of the system while maintaining the amount of information. This makes such a system more economical (cost effective). This saving of energy is the essence of value and goodness, as well as beauty and art, because we prefer objects the perception of which requires less energy (less effort). It is possible to argue that objects created by artits are more beautiful than natural objects because they contain more information compression and a stronger contrast (artists creating works of art strive for maximum brevity, eliminating unnecessary things). A landscape painted by artist e.g. by Monet or Cezanne is considered more beautiful than a natural landscape (the subject of the painting). This also explains the need and sense of creating beautiful things (art) and what creation is in its essence. The theory also clarifies the difference between beauty and art. Art is a broader concept than beauty, in the sense that it allows the presence of unpleasant sensations during the perception of artworks, provided that they still have a high degree of complexity (compression of information).

The theory of contrast is published in a book „Theory and Practice of Contrast: Integrating Science, Art and Philosophy” (Stanowski 2021) (1). It is an interdisciplinary theory which combines knowledge from aesthetics, cognitive science and theory of information and explains most issues concerning beauty, art and other related fundamental issues such as value, creativity, colour, cosciousness, information, complexity, and emergence. It also reconciles existing theories of beauty, introducing common ground for them.

References:

(1) Stanowski, Mariusz (2021). Theory and Practice of Contrast– Integrating Science, Art. and Philosophy, London: Taylor&Francis, CRC.

(2) Heylighen, Francis (1999). The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution, in; F. Heylighen, J. Bollen & A. Riegler (Eds.) The Evolution of Complexity. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht): 17–44. 46.186.40.55 (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for putting all the effort into writing this text. In general, having a section on the scientific perspectives of beauty would be a good idea. However, your text is not about the scientific perspective in general but about one particular theory that is of very recent origin without much reception in the academic literature. Giving such a detailed explanation of this specific theory would constitute WP:UNDUEWEIGHT since our article has to cover the most important points of an academic discourse spanning several millennia. If we had an article on Mariusz Stanowski then your text might be included there but, alas, we don't. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I believe that wikipedia also has an educational purpose and should inform not only widely known theories, but also the latter if they are scientifically confirmed. Taylor&Francis CRC is a reputable scientific publishing house in which publication requires multiple scientific reviews. This means that the Contrast Theory has already been recognized as existing and if it is an important and missing theory (as I believe it is) Wikipedia could help to notice it. Whether an author is well-known or not is not necessarily indicative of the value of his concept. Often well-known people in a field, e.g. computer science (e.g. Steven Wolfram) make statements in other fields, e.g. aesthetics, or the universe that are no longer scientific but published on Wikipedia despite not having been verified in any scientific publication. There is currently no scientific theory of beauty on Wikipedia so I would appreciate your reconsideration of my proposal. Hektor5867 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hektor5867 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm in agreement with you that the source is reliable. I'm not saying that this theory lacks value or that it shouldn't be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. I'm just against including your text in this article because of the reasons stated above. You seem to agree with my argument at least to the point that this theory is not well-known. Our Beauty-article is not the right place to popularize it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7. This is not a popularizing or advertising text, but a factual information about the existing theory of beauty, which is a scientific. This is important information that can accelerate the development of both philosophy and science. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but already of a different era (rapid change), it is constantly changing and reorganizing. I think it is not worth explaining for the next 100 years that "beauty is a sunset". 195.182.51.216 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, there should be sourcing that indicates that others have others have taken notice of this theory and are writing about it. Wikipedia isn't the place to spread the word about new developments or theories, this site lags behind the cutting edge by design. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation which helped me. Hektor5867 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, per the consensus of this talk page the material should not be added, kindly don't do that again. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)