Simply saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is not the same as saying that everything is equally beautiful. All 8 billion of us have individual preferences, in many cases they align with the majority and in many cases they don't.
Lol, you argument is a logical contradiction when you follow it through. By saying Beauty is in the eye of the beholder do you mean that beauty is subjective to each individual and not objective?
So much of it comes from culture in my opinion. In balkan culture women with curves are considered more beautiful than skinny women. Same with skin tone, height ect idk
There are mathematical proportions and evolutionary reasons of beauty but that doesn’t mean we should go nutso to reach them and Shame everyone who doesn’t
Yes beauty still is in the eyes of the beholder, now the question is, is 'the beholder' is someone whose easily programmed by society of what beauty is? or is 'the beholder' has a strong individual unaffected taste?
Great question. As most things it's probably a mix of things. When it comes to beauty of a person might seek signs of health and strength. And the notion of such things can change depending on cultural or even environmental settings. Strength can be many things, right? Even health( today being too obese is unhealthy, but in other times it wasn't easy to accumulate fat and being thin was the major health issue). But it's also a social factor and when seeking approval one tend to imitate others. And then it's going to depend who is more of an authority in a specific social group, to see who they'll try to imitate. But human mind is so flexible, the results are too wild and unpredictable, and they should be set free, not confined to majority's lowest common denominator.
You're onto something but don't quite have it right. Beauty is most definitely subjective but certain standards can be agreed on by most (but never all) people.
Well, biologically speaking, there are certain traits that make men and women objectively attractive. However, culture creates subjective beauty. It is foolish to say that it is only nature or only nurture. It is simply both. Then again, this video was not about sexual attraction. However, I think one can make an argument that, not beauty, but rather what is ugly can be universally objective in humans. For example, all humans know that a building that is dirty and mold is nasty, and can make people more prone for sickness. This is an evolutionary survival tactic. And if you have these natural instincts of what you consider disgusting (that all normal humans have), then this is something that can objectively NOT be seen as beautiful. Once again, science triumps.
Wholly subjective. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. Were that not true, everyone would see beauty in exactly the same things. It of itself would be a thing of beauty that none could deny! Period. But the sheer expanse of interpretive differences is mind boggling. Maybe comparable to the stars in the sky. We are each unique interpreters of that treasure. We each dictate what it is, how it is, and why it is. We assign degrees of beauty to those around us according to preconceived parameters extending beyond physical appearance. They coincide with what we value in life. They bounce off of our belief systems, our concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, and some, of righteous or sinful. A guy's heart is broken by a beautiful woman with light brown hair and hazel eyes. It forever alters his experience of those properties on a woman. A man's life is saved in the jungle by a woman with corncobs on her head and a plate in her lip. She is kind, caring, nurturing, and loving. He will forever see such women through new eyes. His inner eyes have opened to reveal beauty where once he was blind to it. Experience morphs our perception of beauty, proving beauty is wholly subjective.
danzo shimaru i definitely agree with your points on subjective beauty, but i do think there are always standards that most people will agree on. those standards will vary with the time and culture but they exist. so in essence what i am trying to say is there are two main influences for what is beautiful. collective experience (culture) and individual experience like you mentioned.
+Team Zayn so basically you would kill your dog, because you wanted to make him talk, like that time you heard him talk before. You are definitely going into an insane asylum lol
Depends on the beholder's mindset. Is the beholder easily manipulated by societies idea of what beauty is. Or does the beholder have a strong individualistic taste. So in conclusion beauty does in fact lie in the eyes of the beholder. Or at least that's what I believe.
humans have innate idea of what is beautiful which mostly stems off whether the individual looks “healthy” which a lot of factors comes at play we are animals too, subconscious knows who it wants to procreate with and in the same innate system understand what is Beautiful, this applies to both sexes towards both sexes. or at least that’s what I feel, quite literally most of the time
humans have innate idea of what is beautiful which mostly stems off whether the individual looks “healthy” which a lot of factors comes at play which Aesthetics and Symmetry are directly involved. we are animals too, subconscious knows who it wants to procreate with and in the same innate system understand what is Beautiful, this applies to both sexes towards both sexes. it’s ignorant to just center around “society” as the factor. that’s what I feel, quite literally most of the time.
I personally don't like that kind of architecture, but I don't think that it is completly ugly either. Even if a small group of people pefere the grey skyscrapers over renaissance style architecture, does that make them objectivly wrong? and if so, who is to determine that? Ok, an example. I personally don't like post-modern architecture, because it's not my taste. But there are some people out there who loves it. So again, who is wrong? Me or them? :)
I can see your point, but the more I think about it, I believe it's rather more about that our styles of architecture sould be more varied, than just only stick to a certain style by using the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' phrase. If that really is the point of the video, than I do certainly agree. :)
While im not 100% on all the idea presented in this video, i have to say this channel is FUCKING SAVAGE and not afraid to tear any idea apart. Definitely subscribing lol.
Modern pop music is so popular because people are addicted to it. People don't enjoy this type of music because of its beauty. It's not coming from that place at all... This music is so successful because it gives people a buzz of short term pleasure but nothing more. Similar to pornography, this "buzz" becomes something people become addicted to. The post modern philosophy of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" blurs the difference between true beauty and desire/addiction/short term pleasure... This is post modern philosophy and the worst of capitalism working together to make the world a place where people are making money off of other peoples short term pleasure.
Pop does not and never has elicited a feeling of beauty as that is not its purpose (obviously #not all but you know what I mean) it exists to excite, distract, produce dopamine but not be beautiful. Pop is a product
This video only applies if you think humans are free-thinkers. I don't. I believe we are taught everything, including what to find beautiful. I'm not saying beauty isn't at all subjective, everyone has preferences, but again, those preferences have been influenced by something which concluded that opinion.
That's certainly an interesting way to look at it. But to say that we are taught everything is probably incorrect. The University of Exeter did a study showing newborn babies prefer to look at faces that society determined 'attractive' than to faces determined 'unattractive'. If we really are taught what to find beautiful, I doubt 60-hour old babies would consider the same faces attractive as adults. There are certain inherently attractive features and phenotypes, like symmetry, patterns, and even faces. That is not to say that a large part of beauty is not a social thing. For example, a study showed that Libyans considered butts more attractive than boobs, and Egyptians thought otherwise. Despite the fact that Egyptians and Libyans are almost identical in genetics, they had different preferences, shaped mostly by society. But that's a very specific thing. In general, certain things are more attractive than others, not by social pressure, but human nature.
eye of the beholder does not mean beauty is entirely subjective it means that everything can be beautiful in its own way. as you show in the kintsugi video.
Even that is not true. There is no real beauty in a blank canvas. Yes you could argue about possibilities the blank canvas could hold but at the end of the day, It's not the canvas you admire the beauty to. Itself moreso what you imagine on said canvas which could be applicated on any other blank or abstract object. So there is nothing beautiful about a blank canvas, not to say it's ugly either as that's an extreme false dichotomy. Some things simply won't please nor disgust you. So therefore there is no real beauty nor ugliness in something like a canvas, marker, most modern buildings, etc.
I think this misses the point. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder basically says that different people have different tastes. What is attractive to one person might be repulsive to someone else. Based on upbringing, experiences and acquired prejudice, ones tastes are set. Just because the majority of people find something or someone attractive - in fact most of the time I don't. Character > cookiecutter imo.
This is a bit of an oversimplification. While a majority of people say New York is beautiful, there is not true consensus. Each person is thinking of a different part of the city. Some may be thinking of Times Square, others may think of Central Park. Each is subjectively beautiful for completely different reasons. Some may look at Times Square and see an ugly hodgepodge of crass commercialism, others may look at Central Park and see a poor imitation of nature filled with dangerously dilapidated playgrounds. You can find beauty almost anywhere if you look for it. And the same is true of ugliness. It is entirely subjective which you think of first when you look at something.
+Christopher Gibbons You're talking about perception. It's great if you can find beauty anywhere. But objective beauty is about functional beauty. If you see a wall that has been painted with care, you automatically assume that the wall is built with care too. Even though you might not even know what the wall is made of, you assume it will not easily break. You trust the wall. You feel attracted to the wall. You perceive it as beautiful.
+Christopher Gibbons "Times Square circa 1987 " pretty much defines my overall impressions of New York. It was very impressive, but I never want to return.
I think the phrase is more so expressing that beauty can be found in anything, even the flawed things. You don't have to be perfect/conventionally attractive to be beautiful.
i absolutely love this channel, and i love all of its fascinating viewpoints and ideas, but Every argument Alain has made regarding aesthetics and art i've almost universally disagreed with
I like how he is using buildings and objects to compare each other and not real human beings to not cause any controversy and problems...i respect that
Comparing the Eiffel Tower to a city dump and saying "See? Beauty really isn't in the eye of the beholder!" is a bit absurd. Besides, this video fails to address that what the "majority" considers beautiful is ever-evolving, therefore it isn't "objective". If beauty was truly objective, it would remain unchanged throughout the ages. More than that, it would be an easily testable skill, and forgive me for not thinking of beauty as being so black and white as to indulge *that* can of worms. Also the conspiracy that property owners are trying to brainwash us to believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so they can build cheap, ugly buildings with impunity is more than a bit absurd, to put it lightly. I'm not saying that ugly buildings don't get built just to save money, because they do, but it does *not* prove that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. They don't think the buildings they're making are beautiful; they think they're practical. As far as the claims of brainwashing go, I need compelling evidence without equally or more compelling contradictory evidence to the contrary before I'm going to entertain such a ridiculous notion. The most heinous offense of this video, however, is to imply that somebody who sees beauty where we do not (yet) is wrong because popular opinion says so. Popular opinion is that math is dry and boring, but some people see complex beauty and symmetry in it (a... well, popular... example being fractal geometry). Many people say breaking nature or art down to a science destroys its beauty, yet some people see it as an enhancement of the depth of its beauty (Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan, for example). By this logic, fahsion makes no sense because it's all about being on the cutting edge of beauty and pushing the boundaries of what we're taught to accept and admire. Also, most people try to avoid sadness or any negative thoughts or feelings, yet an artist like Vincent van Gogh can take suffering and depression and turn it into a truly visionary expression of beauty that could teach us all a thing or two on the subject. If all we value is popular opinion, we wouldn't value geniuses or forward-thinkers. In fact, we'd all be dragged down to underachiever status, clinging to mediocrity and averageness. This channel has a lot of good info, but this video is pure poppycock. When did opinion become fact, especially on the basis of popularity? When did disagreeing with another's opinion become a societal offense that warrants a conspiracy? Some people find beauty in the New York nighttime cityscape. Some people find it in the architecture of the Colosseum or the Parthenon. Others see it in a contemporary building. Some people think nothing quite matches the rustic beauty of a log cabin. If beauty is objective, then they can't all be right. Or at least, some of them are more objectively right than others
Well if beauty was truly subjective then why is there so much consensus on what is beautiful? For instance, most celebrities are the same physical "type" or at least have similar features. They're practically a stereotype. Symmetrical faces, clear glowing skin and hair being the most basic features. It seems like our brains evolved to find signs of good health and healthy genes attractive. You might not prefer "stereotypical beauty" personally but it is possible to admit that someone is "objectively beautiful" but still not to your personal taste. That, incidentally, is how I feel about "blonde bombshells". I prefer dark Mediterranean-looking women but I would be dishonest to say that all Nordic-looking women are ugly. Can we honestly say that anorexic and morbidly obese people are beautiful? They may have beautiful personalities but that's another kind of beauty that can be objectively assessed. We find traits like kindness, honesty and a good sense of humour attractive. Not all people have it - not in equal measure, at least - but they can be defined and assessed factually and objectively. It is possible to have an beautiful body but an ugly personality. And yes it helps to compare extremes when making a point like this. That does not mean that beauty and ugliness are absolutes. They exist on a continuum - that's why its more accurate to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10..but comparing 5s and 6s is not as effective as comparing 1s and 10s when illustrating the point.
Great points made in this comment. First, this video presupposes that developers even care about beauty over function at all. But as far as human beauty goes...I can prove beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My teens and I fervently disagree on who is hot. I find older gentleman beautiful and good looking and they find squirrelly little twerps good looking. Anyway, agree. This video is silly. And Alan, plenty of people think beauty is subjective.
Beauty isn’t truly objective. Because this isn’t perfect maths or science, and it isn’t perfectly the same beauty as time goes on: there you’re right. But it is more objective than you might think; in a short period of time, and in a relatively small or limited population or culture. Why so butthurt
This is so true. It's really refreshing to hear someone not say everything is subjective and relative, and rather that there are indeed things which seem to be intuitive to us as humans, one of them being beauty.
Funny how Paris is the second most beautiful city, since the most iconic structure is the Eiffel tower, which was almost not even built because it was deemed too ugly. The tower that won the competition was suppose to be made of brick, but a structure that tall wouldn't have been able to stand, it had to be made of metal.
The phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is just like a religious phrase "blessed are the poor, for they will inherit the kingdom of the Lord." Literally such phrases are used to make people appreciate their look and living conditions even if it doesn't appear to be appreciative!
What a terrible argument. The Eiffel Tower which was displayed here as a "fundamentally beautiful" sight and part of the Parisian landscape was deemed an eye-sore and described as incredibly ugly by a significant portion of Paris' inhabitants when it was first constructed in 1889 for the World Fair & 100th anniversairy of the revolution. If mass consensus had been acted upon at the time Paris (and France) might be without its most iconic structure today.
"Beauty lies in the Eye of the Beholder" is the most elegant and beautiful sentence in the English language! *Agree?* Beyond the common meaning, that beauty is subjective, I see a second meaning in this sentence: beauty can't exist without the beholder (observer) and comes into existence only "in his eye" (brain/consciousness). A bit like when Zarathustra says to the Sun: "You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine?". Then a third meaning: a beholder can create beauty, where it is not apparent or absent for other people. For example a pile a trash exposed in a modern art museum. Then even a fourth meaning: beauty only "lives" in the eye of the beholder (conscious observer), it has no other physicality. So the "eye of the beholder" is itself beautiful: due to reflection, appreciation and inter-dependence/action between the 'beautiful thing' and the 'beautiful eye of the beholder'. There are good points in the video, but I'm not too happy about the fact, that you have chosen to outright negate such a marvellous sentence in the video title! In my eyes anyway ;)
I simply cannot accept that the best judges of beauty are the majority. Art (beauty) is about the refinement of our perceptions and the deepening and broadening of our sympathies. And hence it necessarily follows that the best arbiters of beauty are those whose perceptions are the most refined and whose sympathies are the deepest and broadest. And these are not necessarily in the majority.
Sophia E I disagreed, people tend to differ even if some people said yes it does then some may say no, I’m part of the no group. Beauty is NOT in the eyes of the beholder
Beauty is everywhere, life is short, enjoy it while you can. Don't get caught up in trying to intellectualize what it is to you because people will always disagree. Be grateful you have the capacity to understand the complexities that make you smile every day.
The problem is that the will of majority is not really controlled by the majority, but a minority. The minority controls the message, therefore controls what is considered beautiful.
Nietzsche describes how an unrighteously resentful person can also benefit from subjective beauty, if they also have a proclivity for being disingenuous. This is someone whose own judgment of beauty offends them, usually as a result of identifying with the ugly themselves. They naturally see beauty as a threat to their well-being and attempt to usurp it by lying about what's ugly and what's beautiful.
when analyzing online dating software statistics, you find the people that score the most dates aren't those that would be considered beautiful universally (those who most people would rate as 9's or 10's), nor is it those who would be considered universally unattractive (those who most rated under 4)...its those with more diverse scores that get the most dates...meaning people that get a lot of mixed ratings, giving them a lower overall average, but you don't date a sample population of women all at once, you date someone with whom you share mutual attraction. But when some people rate them high and other people rate them low, mysteriously these people get far more dates than the 9's and 10's. What if "universally accepted beauty" is the real trick/scam...sold to us through years of marketing and conditioning...and the only real beauty worth seeking is one that you can behold with or without the company of your peers ;)
+Theo M. Good point. In an ideal world, it'd be better if there was a variety of cities that are extremely beautiful to some people rather than just pretty good to everyone, but only given that it's easy enough to find and move to a city you find beautiful.
There is no such thing as a perfect 10. In elementary school, I thought a girl was the ugliest in the world. My friend had a huge crush on her. In college, I had a huge crush on a girl. A friend said he'd rate her a 6, maybe 7 tops.
+JMan while that may be true, he's talking about beauty being "in the eye of the beholder". Yeah they're predictable. However, the phrase itself means beauty is subjective.
I actually disagree with this. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To deny otherwise is to disregard individual significance and free choice. Yes, some things may be universally accepted to be more beautiful than others, but if one person does find something beautiful that others don't, why should his opinion be dismissed? And no different when comparing things that are deemed by most to be beautiful (such as country landscapes); which is more beautiful? Its in the eye of the beholder.
The arrogance. Beauty is subjective by definition. Just because a majority find something beautiful does not make it objectively beautiful. It is only objective to say that the majority find it beautiful, but it is subjective to say it is beautiful. The pretentious arts fartsy people who try to say art isn't subjective are insecure in accepting that their like for something is not objective. I have little doubt that the writer for this has worked in field which requires true objectivity, such as science
+mrZbozon I don't know, maybe beauty is objective and we are not always capable of access that beauty, for some intricate reasons. What do you think? For example I find an ugly flower, could this be related to some strange episodes in my past and this is making the flower less beautiful? or the flower is still beautiful and I'm the myope? (And sorry for my english)
+Martín Silva I agree with you, if we say that some artworks are objectively true that doesn't mean that we are snobbish some people just aren't "trained" to see what is beautiful in certain works, for example I don't like classical music, I don't find it beautiful (that is I cannot see the beauty in it), because my ear is not "trained" for that music.
+mrZbozon You're right, consensus doesn't make something objectively beautiful. However, it does support DESIGNING things(in the real world) based primarily on said consensus. If most people believe slimmer iPhones are more beautiful, it doesn't mean that slimmer iPhones are OBJECTIVELY beautiful, but it wouldn't make much sense for Apple to start designing thicker ones, now would it?
People in the comments saying beauty is subjective are missing the point. Everything outside the scientific methods scope is subjective; that includes ethics and morality, law and government, religion and politics. Just because something is subjective, doesn't keep us from making judgement calls, and sure as hell doesn't keep us from acting as a group. And it shouldn't, because that really is the only way to improve the world as we know it.
+MrJethroha I agree with you, though if beauty is related to our subjective categories (sensibility, reason), it always relate to an object, and the beauty is experienced as the propriety of the object itself, as it is in fact, at least for the artwork
+MrJethroha You're right, but that's not what the video _actually_ says. It might of intended to say that, but it didn't. The idea to be fought is that of "the fact beauty is subjective invalidates any discussion of it", not the subjectivity of beauty itself - those are two different things. There are certainly common aspects to what most people find beautiful, and investigating those is specially useful in the context of design and art production, but those serve no purpose in proving/changing someone's individual opinion on the aesthetics of something. Not in the way their used to argue in this video, at least: there seems to be no real reason as to why a discordant someone should accept the majority position as his own without incurring in argumentum ad populum, as rightly pointed out by many in this comment area.
I wonder if beauty has its objectivity, then maybe what is in the "eyes" of the beholder is not beauty, but instead, taste. For example, take the three leading women in Friends. All beautiful, but one is glamorous, one is classic, and the other is alternative in terms of their dress and their personality. I hope we can all agree that they're amazing looking, and that we all have our preference.
@@bhavyakukkar i thought it was gonna be about beauty in general then they like zeroed in on architecture and it was like... okay, this just got a lot less meaningful.
The point isn't that we should decide what is beautiful based on what the majority believe is beautiful, but that we should openly engage about what is and isn't beautiful and allow ourselves to be critical of things that are ugly, so that when people provide reasonable arguments about why or why not something should be built we can be open to that argument, rather than just saying "well that's just your view and I'm going to stick to mine". It also highlights that when a majority finds something ugly that they should be vocal about it, so that we can try and create a world that is more beautiful without leaving our environments to be decided by small conglomerates.
I still believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Like interest for example, it depends on the person. You can't force somone to be interested in something or find it pretty just because you do so
Some things are just obviously more physically beautiful than others like the Eiffel Tower vs a dump site. Saying that this and that is very much subjective confuses me. Some people try so hard to give unnecessary deep comments towards unpretty things. Just imagine a winning art that is only a canvass painted with white paint. Some people will simply say that "oh, that's meaningful. it symbolizes new start. very inspiring." just to appear smart and thoughtful. that can be really annoying. but, yes, there are things that are arguable just like the beauty of Venice vs the beauty of Amsterdam, etc. The video isn't bullshitting at all. How we undertand the message of the video is subjective anyway. ha.
Are you saying that ‘ugly cities’ are a result of project developers who listen to the majority of people who cannot decide on what is beautiful? 1. Do project developers of most countries even ask the masses what is a beautiful building or city? 2. The fact that people are drawn to the Eiffel tower shows that people DO have a notion of what is beautiful. Maybe that message of what is beautiful is not being communicated to the developers? 3. And I find the title to be to generic, for such a specific idea. 4. and which country do u have in mind when u talk about this? I love THE SCHOOL OF LIFE!!!! how can I apply to be a part of your team after I graduate? :)
I don't agree that just because a majority thinks something is so, that it then is so. Beauty is entirely subjective. People from other cultures can have wildly different ideas about what beauty is. Beauty is an appreciation which we place on the objects, which the objects themselves do not have without the existence of humans. I certainly agree that we can have a concensus about what beauty is, but that can be no more than an average outlook of a subset of people (e.g. people alive in the western world today).
Just because a certain place is more popular, doesn't make it more beautiful. It's more popular and that's it. What does popularity have to do with aesthetics at all?
+007MrYang In this context I think it's sensible to make decisions on popularity. Let's say a town was to build a bridge. They should build the kind of bridge most people would find beautiful, not because it's somehow scientifically beautiful but because most people would be happy with that bridge.
The market knows what's ugly and what's beautiful. But as long as there's poor people and rich people, there will always be demand for both ugly and beautiful developments. We all want Jessica Alba but settle for whatever's convenient.
i'm sorry. beauty is absolutely in the eye of the beholder. that is why i find the majority of hollywood stars who are considered to be "beautiful" to be ugly to average (julia roberts, annette benning, etc)... i think much of it has to do with race as well. Too many mediocre white models and actors are considered beautiful while black models and actors that are far more beautiful are overlooked.
***** what you posted is a contraction...notions of beauty can't be subjective and objective at the same time....if you really think about it, "consensus" doesn't mean "objective"..it just means people who share the same subjective point of view...kind of like how most men at one time shared the point of view that women weren't as smart as men and belonged in the kitchen....that wasn't an objective point of view at all...it was completely subjective and based on the cultural influences at the time.
***** no doubt most people would say the normal looking woman is better looking than the woman who looks like she has some kind of deformity...so, i guess you have a point that given a choice between a person who looks like they have some kind of genetic disorder that makes them look something other than fully human vs a normal human, most humans would say the normal-looking human wins...
***** i hear you...yes, there are some universal standards of beauty...things like youth, symmetrical features, healthy bodies, cleanliness and grooming. the guy in your picture was obese, dirty, sickly-looking & unkempt...most women would find him unattractive. But I'm sure you know a person can be overweight and still be gorgeous...if you cleaned that dude up, gave him a shower, shave and a stylish haircut, dressed him up in a jacket and tie, nice watch and fashionable shoes, i would bet you, he'd have a buncha women checking him out. Not that he'd get the kind of attention brad pitt gets on his worst day, but then again, i know women who aren't into brad pitt at all... lemme ask you this...who's better looking? this one? media.celebrity-pictures.ca/Celebrities/Gisele-Bundchen/Gisele-Bundchen-50.JPG or this one? media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4b/cd/f5/4bcdf535fb64e40d95861665cedba401.jpg
It is very true that when it comes to beauty "non scientific agreement can be acceptable too". Besides I am sure that science will prove the argument of this lesson in the future! I wanted to give an example from botany, about why is it that certain two flowers look so beautiful together...That's NOT in the eyes of the beholder either. Robin Wall Kimmerer, who is a wonderful professor of Forest Biology says that she wanted to study botanics to find out about this! ( She has one book about what we can learn from mosses and another one about the plants and indigenous wisdom! ) Here is how she tells that story in an interview with Krista Tippett: "Yes, it goes back to the story of when I very proudly entered the forestry school as an 18-year-old and telling them that the reason that I wanted to study botany was because I wanted to know why asters and goldenrod looked so beautiful together. These are these amazing displays of this bright, chrome yellow and deep purple of New England aster, and they look stunning together. And the two plants so often intermingle rather than living apart from one another, and I wanted to know why that was. I thought that surely in the order and the harmony of the universe, there would be an explanation for why they looked so beautiful together. And I was told that that was not science, that if I was interested in beauty, I should go to art school. Which was really demoralizing as a freshman, but I came to understand that question wasn’t going to be answered by science, that science, as a way of knowing, explicitly sets aside our emotions, our aesthetic reactions to things. We have to analyze them as if they were just pure material, and not matter and spirit together. And, yes, as it turns out, there’s a very good biophysical explanation for why those plants grow together, so it’s a matter of aesthetics and it’s a matter of ecology. Those complimentary colors of purple and gold together, being opposites on the color wheel, they’re so vivid, they actually attract far more pollinators than if those two grew apart from one another. So each of those plants benefits by combining its beauty with the beauty of the other. And that’s a question that science can address, certainly, as well as artists."
Anything based on opinion is subjective. You can say "majority!" all you want, but that word just defeats your own argument. With subjectivity, there will always be possibility for minority in contrast with the majority. If everyone in the world felt the same about sunsets, it wouldn't make that feeling a fact. It would just be a widely shared opinion.
Hi Alain, I really appreciate your videos because I too find contemporary society's whole "oh everything's a social construct" and "there is no such thing as right and wrong" to be nauseating, defeatist, and meaningless. Perhaps you'd like to just step out into the open and just announce how you dislike philosophical, ethical, and aesthetic relativism as brought about by postmodernism? Many of your videos seem to try to drive that point home. I sympathize with your charmingly nostalgic leanings back to the days when people believed in ideas instead of throwing their hands up in defeat or cynicism.
Seriously? a conspiracy theory? I'll tell why we shouldn't treat aesthetics as we treat politics, because aesthetics doesn't require a definitive decision making process. There's no harm in leaving large margins of error when it comes to judge things as beautiful or not, in politics there is a lot of harm, because inaction can lead to disaster.
@@keithklassen5320 you need to dig deeper into how hormones shape our behaviour. Study more into human psychology. You will find why beauty matters and that’s the basis of human evolution.
I disagree with your arguments but I respect your opinion. Even on your first point on 'some places being more ugly than others', its all subjective. Sometimes on a rainy night, driving down a dilapidated street can look in its own way beautiful.
0:41 while I completely agree with you on this, there's a certain beauty about those buildings. A very dark and grimy type of beauty that somewhat attracts me to the place. Mostly because I'm a dirty fucking hipster screenplay writer that loves dark and grimy areas to film action in.
Beauty is not subjective. The mind is. But the senses are not, and beauty is what gives pleasure to the senses. The mind can further interpret that, but at the basis of all this is the pleasure we derive from our senses. 🙏
What many are also missing from this video is the main villain. It does not reffer to the judging of little personal made structures, but rather, the larger more common skyscrappers and in general buildings, which seem to be built in a very greyish down right ugly manner.
There may be something to the idea of "objective beauty", but the idea that "subjective beauty" is a benefit for property developers because it's less expensive is half-baked. In a free market, developers need to sell their product. If they produce ugly architecture, it ain't gonna sell. The ugliest architecture ever imposed on humanity has been that which was designed by committee and approved by government, not that which was produced through the free market. Folk like Courvoisier didn't offer their brutalist designs for paying customers to accept or reject. Instead, they sold their designs to governments, who then IMPOSED the buildings on the public. Ugly suburban developments get that way because governments impose zoning laws and building codes which demand ugliness, and not because developers think that customers prefer ugly communities. The most beautiful cities got that way through trial and error, rather than planning. Over time, architects and developers try new ideas. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't work. Ideally, the ideas that don't work get demolished and the ideas that do work get emulated. This process gets short-circuited when governments try to standardize by coercion what is "beautiful" according to some "objective idea of beauty". In other words, while it may be true that an objective standard of beauty does exist in theory, any attempt to IMPOSE one's preferred definition of beauty as "objective" merely serves to stifle creativity. One must accept the possibility of subjective beauty in order for previously undiscovered forms of beauty to emerge.
Beauty IS subjective, another mans trash is another mans gold. I know a MARRIED couple where the man is wayyyyy better looking than his wife, seriously, he could be a male model while his wife is average looking. Most men would NOT have found her attractive but he DID therefore thats why he dated and married her in the first place because he found her to be attractive enough even though most people would not. BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE.
Some things are just more beautiful than the others, and it is subjective. And it's not just aesthetic appeals that matters to me. I think we can only see prettiness when we also acknowledge it's ugliness.
I think the issue people are having with this video is the simple fact that this phrase is often stated with regard to HUMAN beauty. And applying the arguments and appeals to a sort of logically based objective argument for beauty becomes pretty troublesome- perhaps even evocative of Nazi-Germany (superior race). However, if we're talking about landscape architecture , community/city planning, and design of human settlement- then I agree very strongly with this video. I am actually quite glad that a video was made to discuss this very topic as it's one that's pretty dear to me, having lived in the sub-urbs all of my life. But instead of tackling it from a perspective of objective beauty standards, perhaps it'd be better to look at it from the stand-point of environmental integrity and human psychology. There are certain landscapes (i.e. one's that greedy developers are NOT producing) that objectively produce better outcome , environmentally and psycho-spiritually for human beings than others- and this can be measured with objectively derived data.
Not even then does it make sense there are several worlds most "beautiful" buildings that i find to be ugly and a waste of space but to others it is amazing.
We shouldn't make our decisions depending on what is beautiful or ugly (which IS mostly subjective) but rather on what is right or wrong (which is easier to determine objectively, via ethics).
If we were to say because the general will favors a politician then it would mean that politician is a good one... So, what you are saying is that consent is more important than progress in a nation? Apparently you believe that Justin Bieber is a better artist than Beethoven too, since art and politics should be judged the same way, what people find more popular should be considered "good" even if it lacks the same amount of unity and complexity.
HyakaDude popularity, yes. Good, no. Or it depends what you mean with good. It is good for a salesman to know what many like. But then popularity and good are the same thing.
Leon thepro Yes, but if a majority of people believe something is good and they are not well informed, then does that make it good? Like cigarettes, which has been very popular and been considered good (for whatever reason), we later find out is harmful and very bad. What the majority of people thought once was true, now realize it was false.
BeatOfTheDead No, majority does not mean good or truth. But its going to be good or bad depending on what you want. Nothing is inherently good, it just might be from some peoples perspective. There is no good or evil in the world as I see it. Its in the eye of the beholder just as this video claims is a get out of jail free card phrase even though they dont really offer counter arguments towards it. They just mean that we shouldn't devalue the good of majority because opinions are not science.
Mate, I like a lot of what you say, but their are some things which are just obvious logical falsifies. You can objectively argue if a style of architecture is good for tourism but you can't argue it is objectively beautiful.
I don't really understand how beauty cannot be in the eye of the beholder. Are you saying the minority is wrong for finding different things appealing?
I don't get this? He said it was dangerous to believe beauty was subjective then proceeded not to mention any sort of health risks. I thought he would mention design flaws that could result in fatal accidents or something. What does this video wish to accomplish?
The way I see it, there is a relatively simple hypothetical experiment you can do to determine if all beauty is always subjective or not. Remove all humans from existence. Does the word or concept of beauty even exist anymore? No. The Alps are just geological formations. It takes human perception to determine that they have "charm". Even if every single person in the word agreed that the alps had charm, the alps still wouldnt have inherent beauty.
OK, I have to comment on your remark at 00:50 regarding tourism. People travel to certain cities not for their beauty, but for "the whole package". I've never in my life met someone who thought New York was "beautiful" or "pretty". It's "cool, buzzing, fancy, modern" whatever. But never "beautiful". Not much else to say, really - but the idea of using tourism figures to validate "beautiful" is very incorrect here.
Adam Neal That might be considered awe-inspiring - I doubt many would call it "beautiful". Frankly, NYC and LA are some of the uglier cities I've been to. Don't get me wrong, super cool places - but also pretty ugly.
+Philip Zeplin I agree. They have other qualities: excitement, live theater, opera, ballet, museums, fine restaurants. This draws me to a city more than the beauty of the city itself.
What "beauty" IS can certainly be debated, such as whether a building is constructed with respect for patterns and orderly systems or a subversion of a particular ideal. Both are beautiful, for-one could argue-its logic, or its rarity; how aligned or misaligned with any particular value any particular person earnestly holds. The larger cities depicted in this video have this subtext of dystopia, and incongruity; buildings popping out of a pasture like warts... but this is a caricature. Should a city/town as a scene be taken as a whole, or by its individual parts? Are surrounding buildings in Paris LESS beautiful because of the presence of the Eiffel Tower? MORE beautiful? When it was constructed, it was seen as an eye sore. Now, to people all over the world, it is the icon of Paris, but it is of course not because of some innate beauty. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, but must also respect historical context. It's possible that the scenes depicted in this video as being "less" beautiful may well be viewed as the golden age of architecture in 100 years, when millions of people were living together in a relatively cohesive ecosystem (as opposed to 100 years from now when the world is a desert roamed by Mad Max). As such, there is never a real "solution" for aesthetics. It evolves, not unlike the values governing political thought. The values of the people dictate a thing's beauty, and everyone has different values, and every generation may have different values. "In the eyes of those lovers of perfection, a work is never finished-a word that for them has no sense-but abandoned; and this abandonment, whether to the flames or to the public (and which is the result of weariness or an obligation to deliver) is a kind of an accident to them, like the breaking off of a reflection, which fatigue, irritation, or something similar has made worthless." --Charmes. Le Cimetière Marin.
+superNowornever It's funny that you say that since i'm a moral nihilist and also antinatalist (against procreation and for human extinction). That's next ''mass movement'' after atheism and veganism.
+1GTX1 Hmm. I'm an atheist and a vegan but also a mom (vegan kids too)...you might eventually find that procreation is just in the DNA...but lots of humans don't procreate and make transformative contributions. It is kind of comforting to think that the earth will recover no matter what homo sapiens do and even if (maybe especially if) we eliminate ourselves.
Another problem about deciding what's beautyful and what isn't: Lately, a lot of people feel like they have to be politically correct even when the subject is subjective. For instance when people say obese bodies can somehow be attractive (not talking about those who have a fetish for fat). Aaaand, too much people are scared of having an opinion that differs from popular opinion. Additionaly, there are those who want to be different no matter what. I'd like to know how to teach people to form an opinion that is truly theirs.
You say literally nothing in this video that backs up your claims. I'm not saying I agree with you, I'm not saying a disagree with you - it's just flawed arguing to simply make a statement as grandiose as 'there is objective beauty', and then back it up with only flimsy references to (flawed) political systems and not, say, examples of what is and is not objectively beautiful.
Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but there is an awful lot of agreement between the eyes of different beholders. The fact that value judgements are subjective doesn't imply that we will disagree about them.
Maybe this topic shouldn't be framed as a question about the essence of beauty but instead about the value of having a a consistent aesthetic plan for a city, or any other thing we might want to design. If we wanted to design a house and contracted 10 pairs of designers and architects to each design one room without speaking to the others, we might imagine that the house would turn out less than beautiful. It is (arguably) the same with cities. If there are at the very least *some* principles to adhere to, the overarching aesthetic unity of the city designed with those principles will give that city an aesthetic edge...
This episode is not about the beauty of a person, it's about esthetics in our environment. And I kinda agree with you, not totally but most of it is something a lot of people can agree to. For example that a city like Venice is esthetically more beautiful than a city where project developers have planted cheap buildings randomly, not caring or looking at the city as a whole. Not striving for balance or harmony.
But if you view something as beautiful and the rest of the world sees it as ugly, does it really matter? At the end of the day I think the argument for beauty is in the eye of the beholder holds firm because though certain things are "agreed upon" it's usually by social conditioning and not some innate script that is written into our DNA to define what is aesthetically appealing or not
I love this channel and how it offers us interesting viewpoints on a wide variety of topics, but I simply disagree on this one. Beauty is entirely subjective. It is qualitative, not quantitative. Even though a vast majority of people do find a certain item beautiful, it does not immediately render beauty as objective. It appeals to the senses and thus the mind - we all have different minds, and therefore different ways of perceiving beauty. I like to think that beauty is actually everywhere, it's just that our mind is more sensitive to certain types of beauty, which are ingrained in the object itself. My ideas, however, are not entirely developed.
Unfortunately, beauty has a strong objective element, that even animals seem to recognize.. I have never heard anyone describe feces as beautiful... even the most perverted of people
