As we left the Alvin Ailey building last Wednesday, Guillermo and I had a heated debate over aesthetics and beauty. While I argued that there must be some biological coding within humans that determined what we found pleasing or attractive, Guillermo insisted that that was impossible because in that case everyone would find the same things beautiful, which is clearly not the case. Each was determined to convince the other that he or she was wrong, but in the end, I realized that we were defending two completely incomparable things. While I was talking about aesthetics, Guillermo was talking about beauty, and while the two may sound similar on the surface, they are actually quite different. I concluded that I was talking about aesthetic, which concerns the brain, while Guillermo was talking about beauty, which concerns the heart. One finds something aesthetically pleasing when it strikes the right chords in the brain. It somehow naturally heightens one’s mood. On the other hand, one finds something beautiful when it has sentimental meaning to them, bringing me to that old saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I gave Guillermo the example of consonance. No matter who your audience is, you play a consonant chord and then a dissonant chord and everyone will tell you that they liked the consonant chord more. Something about the way we are built makes us prefer the pure harmony. That’s aesthetics. Then I gave the example of an immaculate hamburger that appears on a commercial. A vegetarian might look upon it in disgust, whereas a meat lover will begin salivate just looking at it and remembering how good past hamburgers that have looked this perfect have been. That’s beauty.
Like several have already stated, the media mandate much of what should be considered beautiful, more specifically who should be considered beautiful. Thinness is preferred over obesity, light over dark eyes, straight over curly hair. The way the media actually achieve setting these standards is explained through what is called the cumulative effects theory. The theory basically says that there are three key elements in the accumulation of minimal effects that finally causes a change in consumer attitudes and behavior over time: repetition, consistency, and corroboration. Take the example of overweight women. In order to change the way they are currently perceived, the media must repeatedly show overweight women and consistently regard them in a positive light. Finally, different forms of media must corroborate each other so that the same image and interpretation of overweight women as attractive is manifested in every form of media we consume.
Since beauty is subjective, I cannot even say whether it is necessary in art or not. I have found that I have been able to call a piece of art “beautiful” after learning about how it was made or the time period during which it was composed, or reading about the artist and his vision in that particular piece. Again, beauty is about the heart. If you cannot draw any connections from a piece, it is difficult to find anything special or meaningful in it.
