Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the observer? Or is it something else?

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the observer? . . .

Like many other properties beauty is identified and re-identified in many different places. It has no location like an object, nor does it exist in the eye or brain of the observer. Beauty wouldn't exist without the experience, nor would it be experienced without objects or events possessing the property which causes the experience. This opens for the possibility that objects or events can possess beauty as a property without necessarily being experienced as beautiful. It could take a while, or some knowledge, before one discovers it.

The visual centers of the brain are responsible for both our appreciation of beauty, mathematics, and our tool making capacity as well because its all based on pattern matching. Beauty is an emergent phenomenon which next generation computers will soon be capable of leveraging beyond your wildest imagination. Every classical work of art and music has turned out to represent a fractal dragon equation meaning beauty is also self-organizing and once we have that systems logic computers will be able to apply it to anything.

If there were no observers, would it still be beautiful? Well, who would be there to judge?

Quoting wuliheron

The visual centers of the brain are responsible for both our appreciation of beauty, mathematics, and our tool making capacity as well because its all based on pattern matching.

I guess that is why I thank my visual centres when I listen to music huh? :-}

Quoting wuliheron

Beauty is an emergent phenomenon which next generation computers will soon be capable of leveraging beyond your wildest imagination

Assuming they can create self-awareness to perceive the beauty. That still is an assumption.

Beauty is a very broad term, which can refer to the natural beauty we can sense around us, or moral beauty, some say perfection & symmetry, or the elegance of some thought. Do you suppose that what is ugly is also in the eye of the beholder and if this is the case then what is the utility of the word 'beauty'. Can an ugly thing also be a beautiful thing like Guernica perhaps.

If we agree that there are beautiful things then perhaps there is something in these things that we collectively find beautiful, so that saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is only part of the story. If there is something in the object, then perhaps that has to do with how that object is comprised, its natural or man made composition, its accidental or purposeful beauty.

Quoting intrapersona

If there were no observers, would it still be beautiful? Well, who would be there to judge?

Does the quality of beauty exist with no observer?
The observer only uses the act of perception over beauty, but the beauty is still there, regardless of the observer.
Beauty is eternal as where the observer is not, it lives a limited amount of time.
Beauty exists and it's permanent as a fact, like mathematics, even if there is no controller that exercises the act of control over mathematics and interacts with it, mathematics still exists and can wait for a next controller. Beauty too can wait for the next observer...

We are making it too EGO-centristic - stating that if there is no observer then beauty doesn't exist - this is a very very vain statement.
It makes us very self-important ( without me or my act of observation that which is being observed does not exist - REALLY?), where in actuality we are non important to the act of existence of beauty, our only " importance " is our own perception of what beauty is and only for the limited amount of time we live while we can observe it.
But saying that beauty doesn't exist with no observer is like saying reality or the universe doesn't exist if we die .... :)

Reply to Cavacava im talking about the quality of beauty, the substance from which beauty is made of, not the form of beauty - the idealistic beauty or a specific kind of beauty.

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

but the beauty is still there, regardless of the observer.
Beauty is eternal as where the observer is not, it lives a limited amount of time.

How can you prove that? You are using your mind to percieve beauty, it is a construct of the mind. Even if it DID exist objectively, you could never prove it existed... just like you could never prove an objective set of morals existed.

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

We are making it too EGO-centristic - stating that if there is no observer then beauty doesn't exist - this is a very very vain statement.
It makes us very self-important ( without me or my act of observation that which is being observed does not exist - REALLY?)

That is unsubstantiated claim, you have no evidence for it. Akin to saying something like God exists without proof.

All you can prove is that you perceive beauty from your brain thanks to descartes infallible cogito ergo sum.

And it is not ego-centric at all, I know what you are saying but ego-centrism is about someone trying to be better than someone else or something else or excessively self-concerned. Right here, we are just stating facts in a passive way.

" without me or my act of observation that which is being observed does not exist - REALLY?" is a different argument and has to do with observer effect among many other things.

Whether or not it is just data out there (sense data) or whether the hidden order is inherently beautiful, WE will never know if we continue to stay in our modes of subjectivity.

Sorry bro, but these are the facts... :(

Quoting intrapersona

ego-centrism is about someone trying to be better than someone else or something else or excessively self-concerned.

ego centrism means all actions have the EGO as the center. You are the center of all things and actions, everything has to be related to the center, to the you...i think your definition of egocentrism is wrong or at least incomplete.

Quoting intrapersona

How can you prove that? You are using your mind to percieve beauty, it is a construct of the mind. Even if it DID exist objectively, you could never prove it existed... just like you could never prove an objective set of morals existed.

The existence of beauty doesn't have to be proved. It is there. It's like asking me to prove we have this discussion while we are having it, and it's a fact.

there is a major difference between acquiring knowledge ( memorizing stuff ) and understanding facts ( seeing with no prejudices and make a statement based on reason )

Some aspects may be seen in the eye of the beholder while others may be in the object if they are shared across various groups of people.

Quoting intrapersona

That is unsubstantiated claim, you have no evidence for it. Akin to saying something like God exists without proof.

your statement about God is a fallacious argument.
First of all because we have different views about what GOD is ( therefore we both make statements subjectively ) - we have to define and agree upon what the notion of GOD is before we make any statement about it. In order to be logical and reasonable.

Otherwise is just your opinion vs mine, which is childish.
I perceive GOD not as an entity, but more of all things that exist ( both natural and abstract ), that manifest in form of ideas, planets, life, sciences, ( is biology or math excluded from GOD? )
GOD is everything so in my personal view it exists and I can see it and feel it everyday.
God will never be found by blind belief, only through logic, reasoning and love we will grasp GOD.

For a religious person GOD is an old guy with a bible in his hand waiting in the Heaven for people to die so he can judge them..

For an Atheist there is no GOD - no concept of god at all.
For the church GOD is business - making money out if the idea of GOD etc... See the million-dollars mansions some pastors or preachers have :) God is such a kind person :))))

Whats your view about the GOD problem ?

Quoting ralfy

Some aspects may be seen in the eye of the beholder while others may be in the object if they are shared across various groups of people.

totally agree but the quality of beauty resides where?

Where is the WHITE? the color white? Because what we see as white is just our brain interpretation of a range of visual spectrum values translated into different colors - every wavelength having it's own color ( so in this case we can say white exists as a fact ( substance ) in the range of values from A to B which can be calculated and measured, but can beauty be measured? isn't it eternal and sacred - i know the two terms collide in a small manner )

J. Krishnamurti said " Beauty is when you're not " - and he meant Beauty exists when there is no EGO-centric observer, but only the act of observation itself ( with NO prejudices and no conclusions and no center from which the act of observation takes place ).

Quoting intrapersona

All you can prove is that you perceive beauty from your brain thanks to descartes infallible cogito ergo sum.

I am not perceiving beauty thanks to Descartes.

Because his statement was true before he was born, just like beauty. the concept of "I think therefore I am" existed before Descartes said it :) He only wrote it on paper, but that doesn't mean he made it exist. He might have made the first note on paper about it, but the fact ( I think therefore I am ) existed regardless of his personal note. others existed before him and even if they didn't had a writing form of it they still existed and they were aware :)

The tricky part with Beauty is that - we think Beauty is something that we can See or Hear, and in reality beauty is something that we Feel inwardly,
Because a sound can be beautiful too right?
When your lover touches you, can it feel beautiful too?

So beauty is perceived by senses but the feeling of beauty is inward. You are beauty itself when you feel it, that's why you enjoy interacting with it so much.

Just my opinion! Not the truth!

Reply to Benjamin Dovano

It can be seen in combinations of sensual elements of the work and certain neurophysical characteristics found among human beings. At least that's what I gathered from books by Fred Turner and others.

Quoting intrapersona

Assuming they can create self-awareness to perceive the beauty. That still is an assumption.
5 hours ago ReplyShareFlag

Beauty is intrinsic to nature and doesn't require consciousness to appreciate. For example, every classic work of art and music are based on fractal dragon equations. Symmetry is important and, for example, an animal's ability to detect bilateral symmetry is a way for them to assess the genetic fitness of potential mates. Hence, the reason even the smallest amongst us can appreciate beauty and music doth have charms to sooth the savage beast.

Consider the case of two paintings hanging in a gallery. One is the Mona Lisa; the other is simply a canvas randomly smeared with feces and vomit. A man walks into the gallery, finds the first pleasing, and recoils in disgust from the second. Then a dog walks into the gallery, sniffs them both, and finds the second to hold vastly more aesthetic interest.

Beauty is *both* in the object and in the eye of the observer. That is because it is a relation, between the properties of an object and the nature and tastes of the observer.

Quoting hypericin

Then a dog walks into the gallery, sniffs them both, and finds the second to hold vastly more aesthetic interest.

how can you be sure? How can you prove that?

You are basically saying " Beauty is the relationship intensity or range-value between the Observer and the thing that is observed " right ? ( so like if you enjoy the object 30% AND the object enjoys you back 40% - you have 70% beauty ? )

So you say " beauty " is when you judge something and pleases you. If it doesn't please you it is not beautiful. So the quality of beauty is given by you - the observer.

Quoting hypericin

Consider the case of two paintings hanging in a gallery. One is the Mona Lisa; the other is simply a canvas randomly smeared with feces and vomit. A man walks into the gallery, finds the first pleasing, and recoils in disgust from the second. Then a dog walks into the gallery, sniffs them both, and finds the second to hold vastly more aesthetic interest.

Beauty is *both* in the object and in the eye of the observer. That is because it is a relation, between the properties of an object and the nature and tastes of the observer.

All that proves is that different species focus on different aspects of beauty. A blind man might also prefer the same painting the dog does. In fact, some 80% of dogs go deaf and blind and their nose is much more important to them than other senses.

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

so like if you enjoy the object 30% AND the object enjoys you back 40% - you have 70% beauty ?

Um, like, no. Not even close.

I'm saying that beauty is a relationship. It is difficult to "prove" such a thing. But beauty certainly does not reside entirely *in* the object. That doesn't make sense. What is the material substratum for beauty? And it doesn't reside entirely *in* the subject either. If a million people walk in the gallery and judge the first painting superior, it suggests something existent outside of personal judgement is in play.

Reply to wuliheron
If beauty is inherent in nature, how do you account for individual taste?

You understand that symmetry is just a surrogate for genetic fitness. So what then is inherently special about symmetry? If there were a unsymmetrical being capable of appraising beauty, it would undoubtedly find it's own brand of asymmetry beautiful.

Are there supposed to be fractal dragon equations inherent in the shit-stained canvas?

Quoting hypericin

If beauty is inherent in nature, how do you account for individual taste?

You understand that symmetry is just a surrogate for genetic fitness. So what then is inherently special about symmetry? If there were a unsymmetrical being capable of appraising beauty, it would undoubtedly find it's own brand of asymmetry beautiful.

Are there supposed to be fractal dragon equations inherent in the shit-stained canvas?

Nature is filled with variety including individual tastes in everything whether we consider them beautiful or funny or ugly or whatever. Without variety evolution is a dead end.

Emergent effects are what is special about symmetry. A newborn infant will not begin imitating people for several weeks or acquire a sense of humor for months because both are emergent effects of pattern matching and symmetry.

As I said, classic works of art and music have turned out to based on fractal dragons. I know nothing about any research on crap stained t-shirts.

Quoting hypericin

What is the material substratum for beauty?

Harmony - sacred geometry etc.. in the field of a painting or sculpture. In the beauty of a landscape it is something else

plus a dog cannot grasp beauty :)

Dog is acting only in the present which is very good and keeps him alive, while we live only in the past constantly projecting the " future me " that I want to become, still holding to my past prejudices and knowledge which are all only in the past.
The dog also has very heightened senses unlike us - who had the same, but lost them due to lifestyle and society.

We are functioning now with the whole of senses impaired and dulled. ( Alcohol, drugs, junk food, lack of sport, lack of reading and understanding, attention deficit - due to all the noise and spam and junk from all TV's - billboards - banners - Ads - News - etc.

We even lost the notion of morality - we mistake Morality with socially acceptable morality -(respectability), political correctness (this term should be banned ) It is an evil construction in itself - it brings corruption and division between humans.

Society leaders want people to have as little time as possible for inquiry into life issues. Because a man who can think clearly cannot accept the current state of the society and this is largely unwanted.
So what to do? Create distractions but not just any distractions, a distraction that people love and make a religion out of it.

Therefore they will invest and sustain businesses like Facebook - that absolutely gave young people ADHD and other mental disorders because of the way it interacts with them. Look at excessive selfies - what they do - why would someone take 10000 photos of himself in a day? isn't this a serious mental disorder? I mean do we need more evidence?
We have trillions of selfies of ourselves but how many of us really know how we are inwardly?

People want their opinions to matter so they post them on twitter and Facebook. Guess what? No one gives a shit :) The World agenda is still up and running "5 by 5"

Quoting wuliheron

Beauty is intrinsic to nature and doesn't require consciousness to appreciate. For example, every classic work of art and music are based on fractal dragon equations. Symmetry is important and, for example, an animal's ability to detect bilateral symmetry is a way for them to assess the genetic fitness of potential mates. Hence, the reason even the smallest amongst us can appreciate beauty and music doth have charms to sooth the savage beast.

Beauty can't exist without an experiencer to experience it. Art, music and fractal dragon equations are all just data in the great objective whatever.

Quoting intrapersona

Beauty can't exist without an experiencer to experience it. Art, music and fractal dragon equations are all just data in the great objective whatever.

Awareness and consciousness are not the same things. We might not believe a dog is conscious in any human sense of the word, but certainly they are aware and have their own standards for beauty which can be considered merely an appreciation for symmetry. A healthy dog, for example, has better bilateral symmetry making them a more attractive mate.

Quoting wuliheron

Awareness and consciousness are not the same things. We might not believe a dog is conscious in any human sense of the word, but certainly they are aware and have their own standards for beauty which can be considered merely an appreciation for symmetry. A healthy dog, for example, has better bilateral symmetry making them a more attractive mate.

You are speaking of self-awareness. Consciousness is the same as awareness. That is why they call it SELF-awareness otherwise they would just call it awareness, which they don't.

"Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[4] As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."[5]"

You can split semantic hairs all you want, but the definition of consciousness is as wishy-washy as they come. We have two words, I assume, because they are useful for different things.

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the observer? Or is it something else?

The judgment that such and such qualities are beautiful is in the eye of the observer.

The qualities in question are not.

Reply to Benjamin Dovano

Beauty is only beautiful if its intrinsic truth opens a new range of possibilities in the way that we conceptualize the our narratives about the art object. In that way a we can find a mountain range, a Picasso or a work by Mark Twain all beautiful. This truth lies in the relationship that forms around their matter, our narratives, the artist and the community of observers, it is not simply in the "eye of the beholder".

Reply to Cavacava

So you require some sort of community agreement for something to be beautiful?

Also, why woudln't that be an argumentum ad populum (the population in question at least being the domain that you feel is pertinent to these sorts of judgments)?

Certainly if there is only one observer, that is the community, but no, not ad populum as I stated it is the relationship between matter, the narratives/history, the artist, and the community of observers.

Reply to Cavacava

In other words, say that 100 people witness some work. Let's say that just a handful of them, let's say 5 of them, say that the work is beautiful, and the other 95 have reactions of indifference to revulsion.

Is that work beautiful for the 5 people in question? Or are they wrong?

Perhaps they don't see whatever truth is in the work, it does nothing for them, it does not open up any possibilities in their lives. Atonal music is not easy to appreciate, it requires thought and knowledge of music, for people with the proper understanding may see what the artist has tried to accomplish, they understand the history behind the music, it's truth hits them, it juts itself out of its matter and grabs them.

Reply to Cavacava

What about my questions though? Is that work beautiful for the 5 people in question, or are they wrong? (And are the other folks wrong for being indifferent or revulsed by it?)

No, the other 95 people simply don't understand the history/narratives behind the work, perhaps they don't have the proper education to appreciate the work, they don't see what is important about the work, it does not hit them.

Reply to Cavacava

So would you say that every work is beautiful, it just requires understanding the history/narratives behind it, seeing what is important about it, etc.?

Every work is beautiful (Schopenhauer?), I don't think so, I think that works are beautiful only in so far as they can illuminate their object, there is a truth that makes itself evident in the work, it's that truth that grabs.

Reply to Cavacava

So then by virtue of what are you saying that the 95 people in my example simply haven't seen the work's beauty yet? Are you saying that the other 5 people can't be wrong if they find the work beautiful?

I think that's what Paul Klee thought...I am still trying to work it out.

Reply to Cavacava

Ah, okay. I think it's wrong to say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is wrong, though.

As I said in my first post in this thread:

The judgment that such and such qualities are beautiful is in the eye of the observer.

The qualities in question are not.

Reply to Benjamin Dovano

As you put it, it resides in the spectrum of colors, among others.

Quoting Benjamin Dovano

Is beauty in the object or in the eye of the observer? Or is it something else?

Is this an exclusive OR is it an inclusive OR. I ask because I think beauty lies in both the observer and the observed. Why?

We all have different tastes - isn't this why we have so much variety in everything we do - from food to art.

For something to be taken as beautiful it must possess the features that turn on the observer.

Thus beauty is the harmonious confluence of personal taste and qualities of the object of beauty.

When the cat is on the mat, is the 'on' in the mat or in the cat, or is it somewhere between them? I can find the cat, on the mat, and the mat, under the cat, but where oh where is the 'on'? Bah, I don't think it exists - nothing is ever really on anything.

Reply to jkop " This opens for the possibility that objects or events can possess beauty as a property without necessarily being experienced as beautiful."

No.
Just because two people can agree that an object is beautiful does not mean that beauty is an inherent property of the object, It simply means that two people have an agreed standard.
With the observer, not only is beauty absent, but it is absurd.
By such misconceptions do moralists agree to hang people by their necks on false claims of objectivity.

Eye of the beholder

I think beauty is mostly subjective. One might proffer a Dali over a Picasso.

Reply to Benjamin Dovano
I think, beauty is in everything. And at the same time, it is in nothing. Beauty does not have a particular nature but is merged with nature . Just like God