Month: November 2009

Beauty.

The word beauty in today’s society brings certain images to mind (I think we all know what these are). These images aren’t just what all of us think the word beautiful means, however. These images are influenced by so many factors, especially the media and pop culture. There is a certain point up to where biological factors and genetic makeup also affect our definition of beauty. Symmetry has always been a characteristic people look for, along with other general traits that most people as a whole can agree on being attractive.

There’s a point, however, where even if a person doesn’t meet these guidelines or doesn’t possess these traits, they can still be beautiful to you. This is where biology stops and emotions/experiences begin to factor in more. Personally, the more I begin to like a person’s personality, the more attractive they will be to me. Although, I’m sure we all subconsciously do follow some of the standards that have been set in society. I don’t think beauty is necessary in humans, but an attraction is. (If that makes sense.)

In terms of art, I think emotions and the ability to connect to the artist’s emotions/experiences matters more than plain biology and what we chemically find attractive. This is where beauty is more about content than what is physically there. Art forms and styles are constantly changing and it is impossible to define any criteria for what is beautiful in art. There are also so many art forms (what would be beautiful in dance as opposed to a painting? You could never have one set definition across the board) that a demand for a certain kind of beauty would be irrational and honestly, would take the fun out of art. Beauty is where you find it and to each person, a certain piece of art can be beautiful or it cannot.

Beautiology

The concept of beauty seems to hold a lot of importance in our society. We see “beautiful” people in our magazines, TV shows, and fashion runways. Either you have it or you don’t. And if you don’t have it, there are plenty of plastic surgeons ready to give it to you.

Our chemical makeup is the first to determine what we find attractive. DNA, genetics, pheromones; they have the first say in whether we dig the smell of strawberries or are turned off by the sounds of a coffee machine. They trigger a reaction in us, telling us what we do and don’t like.

But sooner or later, we become influenced by outside forces. This includes family, friends, and the media telling us what shirt looks pretty on us, what color we should wear to bring out our eyes, etc. Our natural instincts on what we deem beautiful run through a filter, or even fuse with the perceptions of others.

With art, beauty is optional. An artist’s creation is his or hers alone; what is aesthetically appealing to one may not do it for another. But to respect an artist’s creation for what it is is beautiful in itself. The same goes for humans. Beauty can never be a necessary component in a human being. Its abstract, and brown eyes and freckles may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But depending on how much you take into account others’ ideas of beauty with your own, freckles may not be so bad after all…

Beauty and Biology

Beauty is a unique perception for every individual. What is beautiful to one person can be completely hideous to another. So beauty is all a matter of taste, and each person determines his own idea of beauty in culture. However, certain ideas of beauty have been formed. There are set forms of aesthetics in our culture, such as thinness, hair color, facial symmetry, and other traits that society deems “beautiful.” But still, people’s ideas of beauty vary. I believe that we are determined biologically attracted to beautiful things, but each person’s hormones, endorphins, neurons, and stimuli are all different, so therefore although we biologically attracted to certain things, the attraction is different for everyone.

As we have discussed in class beauty is defined in many different ways. In art, aesthetics are definitely important for the initial attraction to an object, and sometimes it is is necessary for the art to have any appeal at all. But in other circumstances, if the art can speak for itself, and its meaning and intent are clear, then beauty is not always needed to make a point.

Beauty and Biology

All animals, including humans, seek symmetry and proportion in a mate. These qualities indicate a minimal number of genetic defects, and therefore a more “fit” genome. The more “fit” the genome, the better the quality of the eggs or sperm that the mate is able to offer. Symmetry, proportion, thick, shiny hair, long fingernails and eyelashes, and the ability to grow facial hair are cross-cultural indicators of good health. Humans naturally apply these factors of attraction to all objects, including works of art. Our intrinsic desire to produce offspring “fit” enough to propagate the human race lures us toward symmetry, proportion, and even shininess. These basic qualities therefore determine “beauty” and are a necessary component of art.

Dante Adela performing this weekend

For those of you who would like to see Adela in a new program in New York:


A SHARED PROGRAM OF

BRIAN CAREY CHUNG’S COLLECTIVEBODY|DANCELAB and

BODYSTORIES/TERESA FELLION DANCE

3 PERFORMANCES AT THE BARYSHNIKOV ARTS CENTER

November 20 at 8 PM; November 21 at 2 PM & 8 PM

Baryshnikov Arts Center, 450 West 37 Street

Tickets on sale at: https://www.smarttix.com/Show.aspx?ShowCode=FOR26

OR at Baryshnikov Arts Center box office

Nov 20: $45 benefit performance with wine and hors d’oeuvres, $20 at the door (performance only)

Nov 21, 2pm and 8pm: $20, $15 (students/seniors w/ valid I.D.)

www.collectivebodydancelab.org

Beauty and Biology

“The lack of physical attraction was fatal” Spencer wrote of his rejection of George Eliot love.  He argued that biology was interfering in his ability to respond to her.  Are we predetermined biologically to be attracted to a beautiful object or a person?  Daniel in “Daniel Deronda” (Eliot 1876) asks: “Was she beautiful or not beautiful? And what was the secret of form or expression which gave the dynamic quality to her glance?”

How do we determine beauty in our culture?  Is it a necessary component in Art, in humans?

Punk Rock Exhibit

While I enjoyed the visit to the Punk Rock exhibit at the MoMa, it was not something I would go to again. The exhibit seemed out of place and chaotic, over-packed and confusing. As we have talked about it in class, the exhibit itself belongs not in the pristine white walls of MoMa, but rather in a grungy place that would give the exhibit a more appropriate atmosphere. Even though the exhibition space was orderly, the exhibit itself confused me. I felt bombarded with music, headphones, videos, photographs, newspapers, clippings, art and collages from all sides.  I could not focus on one piece alone. The music was a good, and essential part of the exhibit, because how can one display a certain musical movement without giving the visitor an idea of what the style sounded like? Also, some of the things displayed had too much detail or information in them, like the large collage or the newspaper clippings posted together. While they were interesting pieces, I either found myself looking at the collage as a whole and not reading into the details or getting lost in trying to read or look at every photo and article in the collage. The end result of the latter is that I ended up looking at only 1/10 of the piece, was no longer interested in reading anything else, and never saw the overall picture of the collage. Maybe the chaos and bombardment of various elements in the exhibit was meant to represent the music itself, but this was not my kind of exhibit. While it was informative, I prefer MoMa’s other exhibits to this one.

Punk Rock at the MoMA

The punk rock era captured the true spirit of anti-establishment and rebellion. Although I wasn’t sure of what to completely expect, I could have almost been certain that such a museum display would capture the true rebellious and exciting essence of this period.

Walking into the exhibit, I was greeted by mostly mundane pieces: televisions playing music videos, newspaper clippings, and headphones playing the songs of famous punk rock artists. I can experience all of these from the comfort of my own home. Very few of the displayed items were actually unique. One of the most disappointing features of the exhibit, however, was the lack of actual punk rock artwork. Punk rock is not just a music genre; it is an artistic movement. There are many of us today who are well aware of punk rock artists and their music, but few of us, including myself, know about punk rock as an art movement. Although the exhibit did feature several of Jenny Holzer’s works as well as “The Game” video of the rocks, the display fell short of providing more anti-establishment art work that originated from the era of garage bands.

The display itself was also flawed; for an era of anti-establishment, the highly ordered structure of this exhibit seemed to be ironic. Not a single rebellious emotion could be evoked by the seemingly tidy and structured display. The exhibit was also extremely short, composed of a laconic sampling of several punk rock artists and only a handful of other punk rock-related pieces. Punk rock, however, was an extremely influential era, whose effects are still being felt today on the artistic (especially musical) world. A more extensive display of this exhibit is necessary to truly capture its beauty.

Luckily, this display had a few upsides. Although there were only a relatively small number of punk rock artists who were sampled, the exhibit managed to collect some of the most critical and influential musical artists of all time. From Television, The Voidoids, Laurie Anderson, Beth B, Patti Smith, and Blondie, I was impressed by the great collection of artists that were chosen to be sampled.  Overall, although there were a few upsides, the punk rock exhibit at the MoMA failed to live up to expectations.

MoMA and its attempt to control chaos

Last week was my first time visiting the Museum of Modern Art, and I came with a lot of expectations. Walking through the halls and seeing just a taste of what the museum had in its walls escalated my excitement to see our main attraction. And while the Punk Rock exhibit did give me a lot of information into a genre that I admittedly didn’t know much about, the curators made a poor mistake when designing the display.

The collage was a chaotic mixture of photographs, articles, and flyers of the musicians that brought the genre of punk rock from clubs of New York to the world stage. Unfortunately, this was all the chaos we were going to get out of the display. The rest of the exhibit was organized meticulously, from the perfect alignment of the album’s samples to the square shape of the music video stations. I felt like I couldn’t get into the music while encased within the pristine-ness. “Blank Generation” by Richard Hell and “Heart of Glass” by Blondie felt like they needed to be surrounded by color. I felt weird watching Dominatrix’s “The Dominatrix Sleeps Tonight” in the bright lighting of the exhibit.

I felt that the designers could have put a little more effort into creating a vibe within the display that corresponded with the genre. It didn’t have to be anything drastic; dimmed lighting, obscured framing of the cases, colored light bulbs, or uneven placing of the music video stations would have achieved this without breaking their budget. I enjoyed everything that I saw and heard at the punk rock exhibit, but I wished that the curator’s didn’t try to conform the genre to be cohesive with the rest of the museum. It was misleading and the genre lost its authenticity.