Beauty and Truth, Truth and Beauty

[Gaius Octavius]

Recently: Gina Lollobrigida, Dolly Pardon, Marilyn Monroe, Kim Novak, Jane Russell, Sophia Loren, Liz Taylor, and , of course Twiggy. Our society must not be so rich.

 

MPC is on the spot with his comparison.

[Andrew Dalby]

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. ...

I did actually go on to say precisely what I agreed with the Augusta about. But since you ask me, I agree roughly with this statement too. I would add, though, that it isn't just a matter of time passing ("the ages"), but also of cultures, social groups, and fashions. There are people in the world right now who think Rubenesque ladies are beautiful; but (I think) there are few such people in the region where Rubens once worked, in social groups comparable to those who bought his pictures. I think this may be used in evidence, though certainly it's far from sufficient evidence in itself, that fashions in human body shape vary and change.

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.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The "people" you referred to, whom I don't know, were "classicists who are raised up on the notion that art history tells us something profound about the "history" of human psychology". But your example of Philippe Ari

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would add, though, that it isn't just a matter of time passing ("the ages"), but also of cultures, social groups, and fashions. There are people in the world right now who think Rubenesque ladies are beautiful; but (I think) there are few such people in the region where Rubens once worked, in social groups comparable to those who bought his pictures.

 

Yes, I'll happily admit that there are people in the world right now who think Rubenesque ladies are sexy and who think that Twiggy-type ladies are sexy. My guess is that this state of affairs will always be likely no matter what period in human history we're talking about because these two groups comprise the tails of a statistical distribution in which the mean, median, and mode of ideal feminine sexiness is closer in weight to Scarlett Johansson than to Kate Moss or to Kirstie Alley.

 

I should also explain that I think there is a good reason for this. Generally speaking, hip-to-waist ratio is a good sign of sexual maturity and fertility, and (probably due to natural selection) there is very broad cross-cultural agreement that women with a high hip-to-waist ratio are sexy. Hip-to-waist ratio, being a proportion, is completely independent of base sizes. However, in the real world, as people get fatter, they don't retain their proportions-- add 200 pounds to Kirstie Alley, and you don't get a super-curvy Kirstie, but a less curvy Kirstie. For this reason, I don't think that body fat ends up being unimportant to judgments of sexiness.

Edited February 18, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, do you have an algorithm?

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC, do you have an algorithm?

 

Divide waist by hip. For details, see Waist-to-Hip Ratio (NB, I carelessly inverted the two variables in my note above). Just to emphasize that WHR and weight are not the same, the WHR for Twiggy and Sophia Loren are quite close (~.7). For a comparison of judgments between Harvard undergrads and a tribe of hunter-gatherers, see this article.

[Gaius Octavius]

I can't say that I understood that article. I can't envision men running around with tape measures and calculators in making their choices. Too academic. In my opinion, facial features, proportion and 'soul' have much to do with choice.

[docoflove1974]

I had always heard that it depends on what a given society considers to be 'healthy'. For example, a 'healthy' woman during the Impressionist movement often had some body fat, was curvy and voluptuous...this was a sign that she was well fed, probably disease-free, and overall was healthy enough to bear children. As for the more modern fads, 'thin is in' could be construed as a reaction to the number of overweight people, that the idealized form of 'healthy' is thin--but not runway model thin, as that is 'too skinny' for most Western men (and probably many others around the world). But a woman who, again, looks well-fed, healthy, and possibly active (not necessarily muscular, but just someone who doesn't look like they spend all day and all night loafing around) is someone who is considered 'healthy' and therefore desirable. Any sense to this?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any sense to this?

 

What is the evidence for historical change in what is considered healthy? What is the evidence for historical change in what is considered sexy?

[Ursus]

I do believe there was major study a few years back on "beauty."

 

Data was compiled from people of various cultural and religious backgrounds, to ensure there was no one cultural bias.

 

The data suggested there was a genetic, not a culturally derived, predisposition to attractiveness. The dimensions of the body suggest to an observer who is and who is not healthy, and therefore potentially compatible as a mate for offspring, and thus attractive.

 

Most men preferred women that had an hourglass shape - with hips in a certain ratio to waist, and breasts a certain size, and legs a certain length - because it all suggests a healthy, fertile female capable of bearing children. Women preferred men who were reasonably tall and well-built as they would give healthy children and be able to defend them.

 

If you believe in the theory of evolution, and that human beings are essentially animals who had to learn how to survive and propogate in the wild, this all makes perfect sense. If you have a more "creationist" view of things this might not match your beliefs. If you are idealistic (especially of the PC variety) and believe attraction should be solely mental and spiritual, this theory may even be offensive.

 

One thing the theory may not take into account though is homosexuality. Since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have no evolutionary need to perceive and genuflect "attractiveness." But that is a whole another issue entirely, I suppose.

 

EDIT: I see Cato posted a link that briefly mentions the above.

[Gaius Octavius]

U and MPC, are the criteria you cited the ones you use/used?

[Ursus]

Used in what, exactly?

 

I honestly don't know what to think about the whole concept of beauty. I only know what elicits my interests. Physically, I do seem to go for a generally slender but healthy appearance, with a certain amount of leg length, breast size and hip ratio catching my attention. But beyond the purely physical, personality and intelligence are quite captivating.

 

And if I were Antony, what would it matter what Cleopatra looked like? She could be the ugliest and fattest woman in the world, but I would still use her for the wealth of Egypt. Once securely established on the Pharoah's throne, Cleo could meet with a fortuitous accident, and I could sit any half attractive lass on my lap I wanted. Beauty is only skin deep, but power is eternal.

[Gaius Octavius]

Used in what, exactly?

 

I honestly don't know what to think about the whole concept of beauty. I only know what elicits my interests. Physically, I do seem to go for a generally slender but healthy appearance, with a certain amount of leg length, breast size and hip ratio catching my attention. But beyond the purely physical, personality and intelligence are quite captivating.

 

And if I were Antony, what would it matter what Cleopatra looked like? She could be the ugliest and fattest woman in the world, but I would still use her for the wealth of Egypt. Once securely established on the Pharoah's throne, Cleo could meet with a fortuitous accident, and I could sit any half attractive lass on my lap I wanted. Beauty is only skin deep, but power is eternal.

 

Exactly!

[The Augusta]

Any sense to this?

 

What is the evidence for historical change in what is considered healthy? What is the evidence for historical change in what is considered sexy?

 

Good heavens - what have I started? I take a couple of days' break and come back to an academic debate.

 

Cato, I suppose what I was getting at, and I think AD picked up on it, is perhaps 'what a certain section of society perceived as beauty'. Now, for that, we can surely take Rubens' paintings as evidence. In our ancient sources regarding Cleopatra, for instance, it was stated that she was 'beautiful' - therefore even if this was only the authors' views, it was definitely a view, and could we not therefore take this as evidence? After all we were discussing the perception of Cleopatra's beauty. I was trying to say that in the first century BC, society may have classed her as beautiful, just as society in Rubens' day (or a section of it, if you prefer) may have classed his voluptuous ladies as beautiful. Is this clearer - or have I made it worse?

 

And I think we can draw some conclusion from what we see in art through the ages. Art was not produced in a vacuum - it was often produced to reflect popular taste, or in some cases, more high-brow taste - but it nevertheless was to reflect a subjective viewpoint. Would you agree?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato, I suppose what I was getting at, and I think AD picked up on it, is perhaps 'what a certain section of society perceived as beauty'. Now, for that, we can surely take Rubens' paintings as evidence.

I have no quarrel with this qualified thesis, but I still don't think Rubens' paintings "surely" provide evidence of the thesis. Not all paintings are meant to portray beauty.

 

In our ancient sources regarding Cleopatra, for instance, it was stated that she was 'beautiful' - therefore even if this was only the authors' views, it was definitely a view, and could we not therefore take this as evidence?

The textual evidence is much less ambiguous. I have no quarrel with the idea that someone thought Cleopatra was beautiful (nor do I doubt that Antony really loved Cleopatra).

 

And I think we can draw some conclusion from what we see in art through the ages. Art was not produced in a vacuum - it was often produced to reflect popular taste, or in some cases, more high-brow taste - but it nevertheless was to reflect a subjective viewpoint. Would you agree?

I would agree that art is produced to reflect a subjective viewpoint, but the critical question is: a viewpoint on what? on the beauty of gods--or their monstrosity? on the sexiness of the powerful--or their evil charisma? In a certain political context, such as one in which your livelihood and all your hopes depend on a bunch of rich, idiotic, capricious, and artistically tasteless patrons, what might your subjective viewpoint be and how might you express it? If it were me, I'd get a real kick out of portraying the powerful--like pagan goddesses or those creatures in the "Garden of Love"--as fat, licentious fools. Whether this really was Rubens' viewpoint is up for debate, but I think it's clear that one can't take all depictions of women as the artist's intended personification of feminine beauty.

 

More broadly, though, I don't take artists as either representatives of high-brow taste or representatives of low-brow taste: artists (like everyone else) have the capacity for being both conformists and non-conformists, for expressing a dominant viewpoint and for expressing their own idiosyncrasies.

[Andrew Dalby]

... nor do I doubt that Antony really loved Cleopatra ...

 

Coming from one who is usually so scrupulous about source information, Cato, that remark takes me by surprise! 100% love? Not even 0.1% doubt?