How worthy is beauty?

<p><strong>Wouter, thanks your own photographic perspective</strong>. Turns out we're often on similar pages. <br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>It's wonderful to see so many responses from actual photographers</strong>, discussing their individual real photographic (ie non-theoretic) concerns. Almost nobody has tried to constrict the thread by avoiding discussion of <strong>their own photography</strong>. It's interesting to see online the kind of work people do, in relation to what they write online. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> , Jun 23, 2010; 08:46 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want the subject doing all the work for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a <em>perfect </em>statement.</p>

 

Beauty comes in infinite forms. I live on the east coast, so it's pretty tricky to get a sunset over the water shot here.

Possible, but not easy. Also, the haze is so thick here that the atmosphere can look like mud during the last hour of the

day. Suffice to say I don't shoot a lot of classic sunsets. No problem, beauty takes many forms, and a portfolio of nothing

but sunsets is the most boring thing you could ever imagine. PN featured a gentleman not long ago, all beautiful sunset

photos, but after a dozen, enough is enough!

 

Clover in cool shade is beautiful. A macro shot of a bumblebee is beautiful. New tires on a classic car - beautiful. A dog

taking a no 2 in front of a posh restaurant is beautiful. A dozen eggs in their carton are beautiful in the right light.

 

The question isn't "is beauty worthy?" It's "are we worthy of beauty?" Are we disciplined and determined enough to seek it

out in all of it's not-so-obvious splendor? Are we proficient and creative enough to make the best of it when it finally shows

its magic? Beauty isn't kittens and roses and sunsets. Beauty is the whole world around us when we accept good stewardship of it and

explore and develop all that it has to offer.

<p>I was looking for the scene in <em>Bob Fosse's All That Jazz</em> where the Roy Scheider character was kissing an older woman who was dying (in order to post to another thread) when I came up on the following link to the final scene in that movie:</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcl0L7eJUY</p>

<p>What struck me amidst all the drama of the scene were the numerous still photos that could be abstracted from this brief video clip. Some are conventionally beautiful, but most derive their beauty from how well they advance the mood of the scene as well as the plot of the movie. They are beautiful as stills, that is, but they take their greater power and beauty from how they work together.</p>

<p>Whether the subject is Ben Vereen, one of the dancers, or the final grisly scene, I can only say that I see beauty in each of them--even the ugliest of them, the final scene.</p>

<p>What becomes obvious is that beauty, like anything else that has meaning, is thoroughly contextual. Many of the factorable stills would still be powerful and beautiful standing alone, of course, but, when woven into the thread of the finale of this great musical, their power and beauty are multiplied many times over.</p>

<p>This is a "must see" if you have never seen it. It is as if the separate frames of the sequence of shots all act synergistically to compound the beauty and power of the totality.</p>

<p>Beauty is <em>not a</em> simple concept. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want the subject doing all the work for me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, that could be the best one-liner in the history of photographic criticism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>"The question isn't "is beauty worthy?" It's "are we worthy of beauty?"</em><br>

<strong>No, this thread's question is/was about the worthiness of beauty.</strong> Some think beauty is the highest of values, others think there are values more important than the aesthetic. YMMV.</p>

<p><em>"Clover in cool shade is beautiful. A macro shot of a bumblebee is beautiful. New tires on a classic car - beautiful. A dog taking a no 2 in front of a posh restaurant is beautiful. A dozen eggs in their carton are beautiful in the right light. "</em><br>

In other words, beauty is a relatively inconsequential concept. I tend to agree.</p>

<p><strong>I saw Derrida dancing with delight the day the beauty died.</strong></p>

<p>Are you saying that the word "beauty" tells us nothing, John?</p>

<p>I think that you have very nearly deconstructed "beauty": "beautiful" and "ugly" make up another dualism that must be exploded.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Along the same lines, John, I was reading Rubén Darío this morning: "Como flor o pecado en su traje rojo. . . ." [Like flower or sin in its red suit.] ("Salutación a Leondardo," from<em> Antología Poética</em>.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

Beauty is isn't inconsequential. It's fragile and precious and inspirational. It requires patience and nurturing and

understanding to develop to it's full potential.

 

Cynicism is as inconsequential as it is ubiquitous. Cynics disparage beauty and anything else that has inherent value.

Oscar the Grouch thinks beauty is icky and icky is beautiful.

<p>Guys...do I have to deconstruct this? The subtext is that beauty is for the hoi polloi, not sophisticated elites like himself. The OP deemed his question beyond questioning, then asked for how we relate to beauty in our <strong>own </strong>photography, afterwards proceeding to tell us how wrong we were. Josh was onto this several posts back.</p>

<p>I intentionally expressed the original question in a way that would <strong>open discussion,</strong> asking participants here to talk about <strong>their own work. </strong>I assumed that most of us actually are photographers, therefore would share images...and that proved correct.</p>

<p>The way I framed the question has<strong> worked exactly the way I hoped</strong>: It led to many illuminating responses in which <strong>almost</strong> everybody here actually did talk about their own work, and of course virtually all of them made it possible for us to see that work.</p>

<p><strong>It's wonderful that we "disagree"</strong> (eg me with Dan South..it's good to visually confirm how different we are as photographers and individuals...I treasure differences like that as much as I treasure questions.</p>

<p>Almost everybody here has had the <strong>courage to share </strong>easily located work in P.N galleries, websites, or Flickr . Click the courageous photographers' names and you may find that <em><strong>their</strong><strong> images support, and may be more valid than their ideas. </strong></em></p>

<p><em> </em></p>

 

<p><strong><em>"I saw Derrida dancing with delight the day the beauty died." </em>- Lannie</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Lannie, <em>deconstruction was a verbal game. </em>There was no "there there." It intentionally avoided valuation, tried to quash a big part of human experience. Beauty, whatever that is to you and me, didn't "die," the label was devalued by people who used it carelessly. Give it a rest, maybe it'll recover in a few generations.</p>

<p>Admirers of Derrida (deconstructionists), still clinging to a once-trendy mode of thought, are into word games more than they are interested in perception. It's not surprising that deconstruction in art-related realms is confined to a shrinking periphery: conceptual art, a particular generation of professors and"critics," and several novelists whose time has past. Jimi Hendrix will occupy a bigger place into human history than will Derrida, especially for artistically productive people.</p>

<p>"Beauty" is, for most of us (me included) a usually careless label, like "art" or "spirituality."</p>

<p>It's interesting that questioning the value of uninvestigated labels inspires upset, even attacks :-)</p>

<p>The "beauty" label more often applies to the fatuous and easy than to the significant: soap opera stars, Kodachrome Sunsets, and the most recent faux-post-modern architecture are as "beautiful" and "artistic" as all of our other carefully fabricated cultural detritis. I don't deny the accuracy of those labels (sunsets are beautiful), I just think they are noise in what could better be real communication...the same label is routinely applied to Sistine Ceiling and postcard snaps of fuzzy kitties.</p>

<p>Nothing escapes description as "beautiful," "spiritual," and "artistic" from a value-free frame of reference ... valuation is not just ignored, it's actively dumbed-down by deconstructionists.</p>

<p>My evolving view (not opinion, because opinions tend to be held rigidly and argumentatively) is that it's <strong>better to avoid labels that are too easily applied</strong>. For example, is "beautiful" a satisfying and communicative label to apply, as many do, to photos of starving people (eg aspiring fashion models and Salgado's dying African babies)?</p>

<p>Subjective and very specific responses are what I like to hear about from individual viewers of photographs because that individual can add my own experience. When a label as promiscuous as "beautiful" is applied it over-spices the stew, killing subtle flavors of the carrots, potatoes, fish.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, John. I enjoy reading Derrida, frustrating though he may be at times. (Of course, I still watch <em>The Wizard of Oz</em> when it comes on television.) As far as I am concerned, philosophy and art have always been about deconstruction and reconstruction, analysis and synthesis, in some sense. Nowadays I don't even try to define "deconstruction" any more than I would try to define "post-modernism." The labels are not necessarily meaningless, but they are vague and ambiguous and open to more than one interpretation.</p>

<p>Of course, I am prone to my own verbal excesses at times, as in approximating the line from "American Pie": "I saw Satan dancing with delight the day the music died." It had no real meaning, of course. I just like the sound of it when I read and sang it aloud. I really was not trying to demonize Derrida, either. People such as Derrida are best read for new perspectives, not for argumentative rigor. They are wizards with words, and I like to watch magicians, wizards, and sorcerers at work, even when I don't take them all that seriously.</p>

<p>As for the thread, no thread is perfect, but I have enjoyed this one immensely. I was just about to e-mail you when I saw your post.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example, is "beautiful" a satisfying and communicative label to apply, as many do, to photos of starving people (eg aspiring fashion models and Salgado's dying African babies)?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's interesting that you should ask questions like these, John. Using "beauty" for me is like rating a photo here on PN in terms of "aesthetics" and "originality." Esthetics is difficult enough as a field of inquiry without trying to quantify esthetic value, and trying to sum up the value of a photo with these two terms is frustrating at best.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>John, I expected to be attacked and labeled, and as always, you did not disappoint. What <em>was</em> surprising is the fact that you did not disagree with my post. Amazing.</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I was walking down the road with two friends when the sun set; suddenly, the sky turned as red as blood. I stopped and leaned against the fence, feeling unspeakably tired. Tongues of fire and blood stretched over the bluish black fjord. My friends went on walking, while I lagged behind, shivering with fear. Then I heard the enormous, infinite scream of nature."<br>

- Edvard Munch</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure it looked <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg">beautiful</a>. Perhaps all beauty is kinda like a whisper, you know the type not without a scream or two,...</p>

<p>Edvard Munch's work seems especially apt in this discussion. While someone might call it "beautiful," I've never heard anybody say that before responding emotionally to something entirely other. </p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, your "whisper" idea appeals. The beauty somewhere in Munch doesn't leap out...forcing his work initially through that lens would miss a lot. Saw a very fine Munch film twenty years ago, then made an somewhat silly, intentionally Munch-"Scream"-knockoff of a genuinely anguished woman (railroad station rather than ocean)...I'll try to find and scan it etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I agree that simply saying something is "beautiful" doesn't cut it. The not-conventional understanding of beauty that I've always gone with, and relative to my own photographs, has more to do with longing and potential. As you and Phylo have already noted, this kind of beauty may not leap out. I also like the "whisper" metaphor. I think a significant idea of beauty includes struggle and non-ease. In any case, I often find myself photographing amid some sort of struggle. I think many of us wobble back and forth between conventional uses of "beautiful" and more substantial uses of it. Bloody, horrifying scenes in Shakespeare are harrowing and can be said to be ugly. That's one level. On another, they are "beautifully" written. Neither "ugly" nor "beautiful" in these descriptions give much information, as you say. Discussing the scene would provide more substance. But those words are a starting point. "Beautiful" is often used conventionally to describe the simple content. It tends to describe the sunset more than the photograph of the sunset. <em>Blinding someone</em> with a sword is not beautiful. Sure. But <em>the writing</em> may be. That's a level a little further up the chain. It takes into account the content and the form (or the presentation and effect of the content). In my own photographing, I try to be aware of the way the photographic traits, technique, and tools relate to the subject matter. Beauty, the way I would use it, has to do with those relationships and all the tensions and resolutions that they involve.</p>

<p>Fred, those are important thoughts, expressed especially well with your analogies to Shakespeare and distinguishing the blinding from the writing. Phylo's reference to Evard Munch was as powerful. Brilliant connections.</p>

<p><strong>Your distinction between beauty that's "conventional" from the entirely personal is harder to accept ("the way I would use it").</strong> I'd completely reject that more personal use IF you had not been crazy or brave or honest enough, as most photographers here have proven to be, to share images that literally validate your ideas. </p>

<p>Fred, you've demonstrated precisely why I originally asked the photographers among us to talk about <strong>their own work </strong>in the context of "beauty," and you've demonstrated that if a person actually is a photographer, his images may count for more than his words.</p>

<p >“Proverb. First found in a work by Sir Thomas Overbury's, 1613:”</p>

<p >"All the carnal beauty of my wife, Is but skin deep."</p>

<p >Seems to fit the thread.</p>

<p>The perception of beauty is the result of an awareness, which may not even be conscious, of the connectedness of everything. That is why beauty is present in what cultures often describe as "ugly" or "ordinary". Even violence can reveal the fact that "all duality is falsely imagined", so sometimes even violence can be beautiful. </p>

<p>It is axiomatic that, since everything is in fact really only one, everything can be perceived as beautiful if one is tuned, or aware, or practiced perhaps, in that perception. The fact that some people perceive beauty in things others don't, has far more to do with the mind doing the perceiving than it does in the inherent beauty of things or events. Everything is equally beautiful. </p>

<p><em>"It is axiomatic that, since everything is in fact really only one, everything can be perceived as beautiful if one is tuned, or aware, or practiced perhaps, in that perception."</em><br /><em></em><br />That has operatical-mathematical-sounding, authoritarian ring to it...interestingly, it neglects "paradox." The messy, juicy, fun, conflicting bits seem mostly to spring from paradox, which appears to be the reason it's so routinely forgotten about by aspiring priests.</p>

<p>The authoritarian clues: "everything is," "in fact," "only," and "one." The requirement that "one is tuned" seems a way of saying that the unwashed are "untuned," in need of being "born again." Southern-fried preachers and hairy guys in Afghanistan caves espouse similar views. :-)</p>

<p>Alan Watts discovered (and laughed about it with some embarassment) that Zen monastaries and military academies serve the same purposes in modern era: control. He didn't need to mention the history: Zen was revived in Japan (was C'han on the mainland, but died out) by war lords ("royals") in order to control the goons ("samurai") they used for turf wars.</p>

<p>Some Zen practitioners hold that beauty is a distraction. Me, I'm just a faux-zen fanboy :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?</p>

<p>One man's object of beauty could be another man's car wreck.</p>

<p>Totally objective.</p>