Beauty and Truth, Truth and Beauty

[spittle]

I seem to recall reading that Caesar went so far as to make a formal denial of 'relations' with the king of Bythnia. All it achieved was to add fuel to the fire. (Goldworthy...I think?).

 

Perceptions of Beauty.

It is a fact that the wealthier a society becomes the thinner the women are seen as beautiful.

 

I remember that from an old sociology class.

[Andrew Dalby]

I seem to recall reading that Caesar went so far as to make a formal denial of 'relations' with the king of Bythnia. All it achieved was to add fuel to the fire. (Goldworthy...I think?).

 

Perceptions of Beauty.

It is a fact that the wealthier a society becomes the thinner the women are seen as beautiful.

 

I remember that from an old sociology class.

 

No doubt there are many facts in sociology, but I doubt that one. The chubby ladies that you see in paintings by Rubens didn't come from a noticeably poorer society than the slim ladies of medieval paintings and Lucas Cranach. Currently you can see a comparison right here

 

Judgement of Paris

 

in these two paintings all six women (or rather goddesses) are supposed to be stunningly beautiful. As we know, Venus/Aphrodite had to cheat to win the competition!

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd just like to point out that you can't measure what a group thinks is beautiful from the paintings of one guy. For all we know, Rubens had a fat fetish, and his contemporaries had exactly the same range of tastes that we have today.

[Pertinax]

A small aside on the "idea of beauty" I suggest that symmetry of features is an enduring cross cultural motif in the human perception of "beauty", by this I do not mean that he properties of those features to be similar , only that a perceived regularity exists. Coins alas tend to give us profiles not (usually) full face portraits.

[spittle]

If coins showed full faces (rather than profiles) we'd need oblong examples to allow for our next monarchs ears.

 

And the stamps could have fold out appendages.

[The Augusta]

A small aside on the "idea of beauty" I suggest that symmetry of features is an enduring cross cultural motif in the human perception of "beauty", by this I do not mean that he properties of those features to be similar , only that a perceived regularity exists. Coins alas tend to give us profiles not (usually) full face portraits.

 

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. And not just a cross cultural motif, but one that crosses the ages too. It not only applies to human facial features, but to things such as architecture, where the 'beautiful' is held to be symmetrical. Proportion also plays a part I think. I wonder what this says about the human perception. It would be interesting to analyse it.

[The Augusta]

I'd just like to point out that you can't measure what a group thinks is beautiful from the paintings of one guy. For all we know, Rubens had a fat fetish, and his contemporaries had exactly the same range of tastes that we have today.

 

 

Sorry, Cato, I have to disagree here. Rubens was a commissioned artist and many of his works are indeed reflecting the tastes of a group. Many artists in his position didn't just paint whatever took their fancy; he received commissions from the Spanish court - among others to paint some of his more voluptuous offerings (Garden of Love etc). Other baroque artists adhered to this robust feminine form too, so I think I can safely say that it was within the taste of at least the high brow art lovers of that generation.

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't think that anyone ever preferred a Twiggy or a porker. The voluptuous women painted are alluring.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd just like to point out that you can't measure what a group thinks is beautiful from the paintings of one guy. For all we know, Rubens had a fat fetish, and his contemporaries had exactly the same range of tastes that we have today.

Sorry, Cato, I have to disagree here. Rubens was a commissioned artist and many of his works are indeed reflecting the tastes of a group. Many artists in his position didn't just paint whatever took their fancy; he received commissions from the Spanish court - among others to paint some of his more voluptuous offerings (Garden of Love etc). Other baroque artists adhered to this robust feminine form too, so I think I can safely say that it was within the taste of at least the high brow art lovers of that generation.

 

Again, I don't doubt that there were then--as now--a range of of tastes in body fat. But you can't compare a non-representative sample from one historical period to a non-representative sample from a later historical period to make sweeping generalizations about historical changes in taste. The data are equally consistent with changes in sampling rather than historical changes in taste.

[Andrew Dalby]

I'd just like to point out that you can't measure what a group thinks is beautiful from the paintings of one guy. For all we know, Rubens had a fat fetish, and his contemporaries had exactly the same range of tastes that we have today.

Sorry, Cato, I have to disagree here. Rubens was a commissioned artist and many of his works are indeed reflecting the tastes of a group. Many artists in his position didn't just paint whatever took their fancy; he received commissions from the Spanish court - among others to paint some of his more voluptuous offerings (Garden of Love etc). Other baroque artists adhered to this robust feminine form too, so I think I can safely say that it was within the taste of at least the high brow art lovers of that generation.

 

Again, I don't doubt that there were then--as now--a range of of tastes in body fat. But you can't compare a non-representative sample from one historical period to a non-representative sample from a later historical period to make sweeping generalizations about historical changes in taste. The data are equally consistent with changes in sampling rather than historical changes in taste.

 

I'm glad to have your wholehearted agreement, Cato! As you noticed, I cited the two images specifically in order to contradict a sweeping generalization.

 

But I think the Augusta's right about something. Rubens (like many successful artists) wasn't powerful enough to impose his own tastes wholesale. To live, he had to sell paintings. To sell, his work had to be admired. If people thought his paintings of beautiful women were failures, they wouldn't have bought them, and he would have had to adjust to that.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I think the Augusta's right about something. Rubens (like many successful artists) wasn't powerful enough to impose his own tastes wholesale. To live, he had to sell paintings. To sell, his work had to be admired. If people thought his paintings of beautiful women were failures, they wouldn't have bought them, and he would have had to adjust to that.

 

Even if we assume that there was a market for Rubens' work, we can't conclude anything about changes in taste over time. One, Rubens may have been catering to a niche market: the fact that his paintings sold at best tells us that there were as many fat-lovers as there were paintings to be sold. Two, we don't actually know how Rubens' women were perceived: maybe people liked them for their novelty or even comical value rather than finding them sexy. Third, the mere existence of other works like that of Rubens is equally consistent with either a change in taste or a mere artistic fad--e.g., does anyone really want to claim that during Picasso's lifetime, men found distorted heads and disfigured bodies sexy? Fourth, and most importantly, if there were historical changes in what people found sexy, we should find the evidence from human behavior (e.g., from marriage records), from non-artistic works (e.g., in discussing private lives in letters and literature), and from works that were not meant for public display (e.g., in everyday pornography, erotic literature, diaries, and so on, and the examples should far outnumber the counter-examples.) To my knowledge, no one has ever produced such evidence. Instead, the evidence for an historical change in sexual tastes depends entirely on a small number of paintings by a single school of painters in a small geographic region over a small number of years. I'm tempted to say, "a swallow doesn't make a spring," but in this case, I have to say, "a tail feather from an unidentified bird doesn't make a spring."

 

Yes, I realize that this line of argument is heresy to classicists who are raised up on the notion that art history tells us something profound about the "history" of human psychology. Frankly, at the scale we're talking about (i.e., at the grain of decades rather than epochs or even millenia), I think this notion is hogwash, akin to inferring the history of the brain by comparing Chaucer to Marlowe. Art history is interesting, to be sure, not because it tells us about sexual preferences but because it tells us about...art.

[Andrew Dalby]

But I think the Augusta's right about something. Rubens (like many successful artists) wasn't powerful enough to impose his own tastes wholesale. To live, he had to sell paintings. To sell, his work had to be admired. If people thought his paintings of beautiful women were failures, they wouldn't have bought them, and he would have had to adjust to that.

 

Even if we assume that there was a market for Rubens' work, we can't conclude anything about changes in taste over time. One, Rubens may have been catering to a niche market: the fact that his paintings sold at best tells us that there were as many fat-lovers as there were paintings to be sold. Two, we don't actually know how Rubens' women were perceived: maybe people liked them for their novelty or even comical value rather than finding them sexy. Third, the mere existence of other works like that of Rubens is equally consistent with either a change in taste or a mere artistic fad--e.g., does anyone really want to claim that during Picasso's lifetime, men found distorted heads and disfigured bodies sexy? Fourth, and most importantly, if there were historical changes in what people found sexy, we should find the evidence from human behavior (e.g., from marriage records), from non-artistic works (e.g., in discussing private lives in letters and literature), and from works that were not meant for public display (e.g., in everyday pornography, erotic literature, diaries, and so on, and the examples should far outnumber the counter-examples.) To my knowledge, no one has ever produced such evidence. Instead, the evidence for an historical change in sexual tastes depends entirely on a small number of paintings by a single school of painters in a small geographic region over a small number of years. I'm tempted to say, "a swallow doesn't make a spring," but in this case, I have to say, "a tail feather from an unidentified bird doesn't make a spring."

 

Yes, I realize that this line of argument is heresy to classicists who are raised up on the notion that art history tells us something profound about the "history" of human psychology. Frankly, at the scale we're talking about (i.e., at the grain of decades rather than epochs or even millenia), I think this notion is hogwash, akin to inferring the history of the brain by comparing Chaucer to Marlowe. Art history is interesting, to be sure, not because it tells us about sexual preferences but because it tells us about...art.

 

 

I don't know any of the people whose views you're disputing, so I can't really comment except to say that, from your description, they sound pretty silly.

 

As to whether one can do social history from literature, art, etc., my answer is that one can. You seem to slide off into illogicality there: why from pornography and erotic literature (both of them very rare genres before the 18th century) but not from other literature or art? I don't understand the reasoning behind your rule. Yes, one can use such sources -- as well as private records and documents, and archaeology too -- but in the case of each kind of source one has to recognize what it may show, what it probably won't show, and what it may conceal. Not all social historians make sweeping generalizations.

 

[Added a moment later:] We're talking about later Europe, here, it seems, rather than the classical world. A social historian who used just the kind of sources that you're recommending, and who ''never'' generalized (I think!), and whose work I enjoy very much and I guess you might also, is Richard Cobb. Perhaps you know his books already. He generally wrote about Paris before and during the French Revolution.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Pertinax]

I find it difficult to imagine art divorced from the engine of patronage, therefore I pose the question 'If a painter has no "influence" does he/she not aspire to influence by producing work which reflects a set of social mores (and brings in fees as a plaudit)?" The social mores being expressed in all arts in a continually altering manner, but I venture to suggest that whatever was the fashion for a ruling elite (from Tyrant to meritocracy, through time and space) would be the most difficult appearence and behaviour to emulate without the consumption of scarce resources.

 

The history of the suntan as a social signifier perhaps hints at this, Voltaire is dismissive of Candide's beloved when she is "burnt black by the sun" as this signifies her as a peasant, whereas a "careful housewife" would seek to have a milky white skin to show her non-participation in manual tasks: when mass Industrialisation produced a nation of starch fed milk bottle coloured factory workers those of greater means developed tans to display the wealth required to travel , (setting aside any Freudian hints as regards sexual display): when cheap package holidays and sunbeds mean the oiks can tan at will, then a discrete light tan on a thin body becomes the subtler signifier of class.

 

Clothing and hair arrangement are startlingly revealed in Elizabethen work, the time consuming pressing and starching of ruffs as a signifier of rank, to say nothing of the occupation of a great deal of social space by a person of rank wearing a multi layered dress.

 

I also believe Cleopatra has been re-incarnated as Mr Ian Dowie:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...ficial%26sa%3DN

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I think the Augusta's right about something.

Did you think Augusta was correct when she wrote " People's perceptions of beauty change with the ages. For instance, all those Rubenesque ladies who were depicted as the epitome of feminine beauty would hardly find takers these days, with our tastes for skeletal women!"? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the "something" on which you and Augusta agree. (BTW, I, for one, don't think there is a widespread sexual desire for skeletal women: there is a vast difference in weight between runway models--whose job is to make fabric look good--and Playboy centerfolds--whose job is to arouse sexual desire.)

 

I don't know any of the people whose views you're disputing, so I can't really comment except to say that, from your description, they sound pretty silly.

I'm disputing the idea that Rubenesque ladies were once considered the "epitome of feminine beauty." My claim is that the evidence from art isn't sufficient to justify this claim.

 

As to whether one can do social history from literature, art, etc., my answer is that one can. You seem to slide off into illogicality there: why from pornography and erotic literature (both of them very rare genres before the 18th century) but not from other literature or art?

Actually, I wrote: "if there were historical changes in what people found sexy, we should find the evidence from human behavior (e.g., from marriage records), from non-artistic works (e.g., in discussing private lives in letters and literature), and from works that were not meant for public display (e.g., in everyday pornography, erotic literature, diaries, and so on, and the examples should far outnumber the counter-examples.)". As you can see, my example of erotic arts was included as merely one opportunity to support the hypothesis I'm disputing. My broader point was that measures of private tastes (e.g., what people think is sexy) can't be drawn from works designed for public consumption (e.g., the art that people hang in their houses). The reason, I think, is clear: what people consume in public and what they desire in private are very often quite different things.

 

BTW, I don't think I'm caricaturing a general outlook on human nature. In addition to comments on this board that "ideas about feminine beauty have changed; look at Rubens", I'd point to Phillipe Aries' claim that "in medieval society, the idea of childhood did not exist" as a great example of what I'm talking about. Moreover, I'd point to anthropologists such as Margaret Mead and a generation of social constructionists who have maintained (among other things) that facial expressions of emotion are caused by social norms. More recently, psychologists like John Money have maintained that even gender identity is determined by how society treats the child (and he even attempted to raise a biological boy as a girl to prove his point!), and his ideas are still used to justify gender re-assignment to newborn boys whose penises are considered too small. Finally, the root idea here--that the mind is a blank slate (or "wax tablet") until it is shaped by society--has been expressed throughout history, from Aristotle, to Locke, to B.F. Skinner. (My own outlook FWIW is that what people think to be sexy--or childish, or signals of emotion, or what they think about their own sex--is largely dictated by biology rather than by culture.)

[Ursus]

The ensuing discussion on the broader dimensions of culturally derived standards of feminine beauty and its depiction on media has been interesting and articulate - but I believe it might be better to transport that discussion to another forum as it is beginning to overshadow the more topical item of Cleopatra's coin.