Beautiful Is In the Brain

 

“Beautiful!”

This ringing endorsement that something or someone is aesthetically pleasing remains an often used adjective to describe an appeal with a very high standard of excellence. Yet, what common standards do we employ in the judgment of beauty? Can they even be articulated?

Philosophers have long been interested in beauty. The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that beauty has “traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth, and justice.”

Beauty is a primary theme among ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and medieval philosophers. And, it was central to eighteenth and nineteenth-century thought, as represented in treatments by such thinkers as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Burke, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hanslick, and Santayana. By the beginning of the twentieth century, beauty was in decline as a subject of philosophical inquiry, and also as a primary goal of the arts. However, there were signs of revived interest by the early 2000s.

Is beauty subjective – located ‘in the eye of the beholder’-- or is it an objective feature of things?
Camps of thought include:

• The classical conception is that beauty consists of an arrangement of integral parts into a coherent whole, according to proportion, harmony, symmetry, and similar notions.
  
• The idealist conception is conceived – in contrast to the classical aesthetics of integral parts and coherent whole – as perfect unity, or indeed as the principle of unity itself.
  
• Also, some ascribe to a theory based in the ancient tradition of “love and longing” and profess that beauty is related to qualities in bodies, “by which they cause love, or some passion similar to it.”
  
• Many hedonistic thinkers of the 18^th century accounted for beauty in terms of pleasure. “By beautiful we generally understand whatever, when seen, heard, or understood, delights, pleases, and ravishes us by causing within us agreeable sensations.”
  
• Philosophers in the Kantian tradition identify the experience of beauty with disinterested pleasure, psychical distance, and the like, and contrast the aesthetic with the practical. “Taste is the faculty of judging an object or mode of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful.”
  

(Crispin Sartwell. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2016.)

All of these philosophies seem to apply to our concept of beauty. Yet, the boundaries of aesthetics stretch beyond this thought. There are so many times we experience awe associated with beauty and feel totally unsure of what has struck us as “beautiful.” Could such a common appraisal be somehow explained? Is there some way we can know what strikes us as intensely beautiful?
Well …

Tomohiro Ishizu and Semir Zeki from University College London conducted research that found that people from all kinds of different cultural/gender/age backgrounds have a similar response to works of visual art and music they believe possess beauty.

Zeki found, by examining MRI images of his subjects’ brains, that when people look at something they find beautiful, a portion in the front part of the brain called the medial orbito-frontal cortex “lights up.” That is, there’s increased blood flow in this area. He believes it’s a near-universal response to beauty.

The visual stimuli included paintings of portraits, landscapes and still lifes … The auditory stimuli included classical and modern excerpts.

The research team emphasizes their theory is tentative and will “stand or fall” with future theories. They wrote:

“Our proposal shifts the definition of beauty very much in favor of the perceiving subject and away from the characteristics of the apprehended object. Our definition… is also indifferent to what is art and what is not art. Almost anything can be considered to be art, but only creations whose experience has, as a correlate, activity in mOFC (medial orbitofrontal cortex) would fall into the classification of beautiful art… A painting by Francis Bacon may be executed in a painterly style and have great artistic merit but may not qualify as beautiful to a subject, because the experience of viewing it does not correlate with activity in his or her mOFC.”

(Tomohiro Ishizu and Semir Zeki. “Toward A Brain-Based Theory of Beauty.”  

PloS. July 06, 2011.)

By contrast, Zeki said, he found that when people see something that’s aesthetically displeasing – something they find ugly – it lights up a completely different part of the brain ( the amygdyla).

This study doesn’t necessarily mean that all forms of beauty are represented in the same way in the brain, and, granted, other parts of the brain could play a role. Yet, it does confirm that seeking beauty is seeking to reward our pleasure centers and stimulate us with dopamine, the feel-good chemical of the brain. The degree of activity in the medial orbito-frontal cortex correlates very strongly to the degree to which we find a thing attractive.

 

To close, it seems that our brains find common ground in beauty even if we are unable to articulate exactly what is “beautiful.” I'm not sure of all the implications of this finding; however, anything that increases dopamine is sure to have lasting appeal. This view of beauty makes one think of the id, the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs and desires. After all, the id acts according to the pleasure principle. Beauty surely stimulates the id.

The id relies on the primary process to temporarily relieve the tension. The primary process involves creating a mental image either through daydreaming, fantasizing, hallucinating, or some other process.

Freud believed the id is a reservoir of instinctual energy and also compared it to a "cauldron of seething excitations" with no real organization.

Who hasn't seen something unresistably alluring, found themselves in that steamy bucket of admiration, and set sail for the life fantastic? Blame it on your happy mOFC – it just took a sweet hit for the beautiful.

What photos do you think qualify as “beautiful”?

Beautiful Women

Now, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or blaspheme in any way; however, I have seen a certain statement applied to the term beauty in women many, many times. Now, I am certainly questioning the validity of this statement as it applies to connotations of beautiful people. I agree, little is more pleasing than to relate to a woman with a loving personality and positive, outgoing attitude, no matter her physical appearance. Yet, so many other things point to the value placed on physical beauty by women and men. I am beginning to doubt the sincerity in the statement: "It's what's on the inside that counts." Cosmetics, corrective surgeries, singular standards of appearance, popularity, fashion-- all point to the fact that a beautiful woman must have "the look." So, I began to wonder if the majority of believers of "inside beauty" were lying to save face or to parrot an old adage. It is pretty evident that beauty is to women what wealth is to men: the more they have, the better society likes them. In relentless passing of time, the supposed “power” and “privilege” enjoyed by beautiful women are merely fleeting advantages that are entirely dependent on the goodwill and subjective opinion of others (usually men), and are likely to disappear once the woman grows older, or gains weight, or becomes ill. But many women will do anything possible to slow the ravages of time upon their youthful beauty. And, I mean anything. Here are some findings about beautiful people in our American culture: 1. People who are good-looking are assumed and expected to be better than the rest of the population. (Kenealy, Frude, and Shaw. 2001) 2. Physically attractive individuals were rated as having more socially desirable personalities and were expected to have greater personal success on most of life outcome dimensions. (feministgal.blogspot.com) 3. Physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive an individual, the greater the likelihood that that person will be hired (Watkins & Johnston. 2000). 4. Attractiveness biases have been demonstrated in such different areas as teacher judgments of students (Clifford & Walster. 1973), voter preferences for political candidates (Efran & Patterson. 1974) and jury judgments in simulated trials (Efran. 1974). 5. With her severely scarred face, Lucy Grealy (no longer beautiful) considered herself a disabled person, perhaps marking the first time the "disability is a social construct" argument drew attention. (Lucy Grealy. Autobiography of a Face) 6. Praise, attention, trust and validation are more often readily given to beauty while shortcomings and mistakes are overlooked, sometimes unfairly and at the expense of others. (Alysabeth Clements. Pretty Is As Pretty Does: The Privilege of Beauty) 7. "It's just remarkable the attributes we give to a human being who is good looking," Helen Fisher, Rutgers University anthropologist says. "We think that they are smart. We think that they're funny. We think that they're friendly and warm, and social and popular." 8. Steve Jeffes, author of "Appearance Is Everything," conducted a survey. To confirm a hunch, he questioned jewelers, who told him that very beautiful women who wear diamond rings will almost always wear larger diamonds -- more than one carat -- than less attractive women who also wear diamond rings. 9. People assume that a person who's very good looking is doing a better job than in fact they are doing. So they rise up in the company, and they have more status and more power. (Helen Fisher) 10. As far as help and personal assistance, 20/20 dropped books in front of people walking by them in New York's Greenwich Village. Fewer than half the people who passed helped a plain-looking actress. But when it was the prettier actress' turn, 70 percent of the people nearby pitched in to help. Pretty girls become aware of advantages and power at various ages. As they begin to notice that they turn heads, and that others, usually but not always male, are more eager to help them or please them. Thus, these opportunities and extras are offered in order to bring them closer to admirers. And, what's a girl to do? Many feminists content until women are no longer sexed up, they won't be seen as human beings by men. And, in actuality, these are the women who will never see THEMSELVES as human beings. (Jill Fillipovic). Reduced to objects of standardized beauty and male manipulation, these sexy, beautiful bodies help defeat their own sense of true femininity. Female beauty, in its present definition, fits model proportions of body and face. This view is supported by the men, the women, and the society that judge its standards. Conformation seems to be the key to successful attainment of beauty and privilege, while pressures put on young women to meet present concepts cause many psychological problems. Acceptance of natural looks seems to take a backseat in this argument. And surely, "It's what's on the inside that counts" is somewhere far behind as far as perception of beauty goes. Here are some present day beauties. Notice any similarities in the list? Lara Flynn Boyle 5 ft 4 in 92 pounds Nicole Richie 5 ft 1 in 93 pounds Teri Hatcher 5 ft 6 in 104 pounds Renee Zellweger 5 ft 4 in 105 pounds Victoria Beckham 5 ft 6 in 108 pounds Halle Berry 5 ft 7 in 112 pounds Lindsay Lohan 5 ft 6 in 112 pounds Jennifer Love Hewitt 5 ft 2.5 in 115 pounds Charlize Theron 5 ft 9 in 116 pounds Jennifer Lopez 5 ft 6 in 118 pounds Jennifer Aniston 5 ft 6 in 118 pounds Nicole Kidman 5 ft 11 in 120 pounds Britney Spears 5 ft 5 in 125 pounds Cameron Diaz 5 ft 9 in 127 pounds Tyra Banks 5 ft 11 in 128 pounds "Beauty is only skin deep, but it's a valuable asset if you're poor or haven't any sense." - Kin Hubbard

Beauty and the Golden Ratio

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Free and Dependent Beauty

Philosopher Emmanuel Kant divides beauty into two categories: (1) free beauty--that which presupposes no concept of what the object ought to be; and (2) dependent beauty--that which does presuppose a concept of what the object ought to be and judges the perfection or imperfection of the object in accordance therewith. Kant's dependent beauty is rather easily understood. This beauty is conditioned beauty, that which is ascribed to objects that come under the concept of a particular end. Kant believes that the beauties of human beings, horses, and buildings as presupposing a concept of perfection are, hence, merely dependent. These objects of adherent beauty are judged according to their purpose, so it is inappropriate to add to them elements of pure beauty. However, Kant contends that free beauty is that which has "purposiveness without purpose." It, therefore, does not get caught up in judgments of sense (that which is merely pleasant or unpleasant) or judgments of reason (that which is good/bad, useful/not useful). Judgments of free beauty are independent of emotions, of sensory charms, and of the concept of perfection. Although judgments of free beauty are not provable, they, nonetheless, oblige every one's agreement -- the key to the critique of taste. The judgments rely on the harmony of the cognitive faculties of understanding and imagination. Also, the judgments of free beauty reflect upon how an object's configuration appears to have been the result of an intelligent design. For example, flowers are free beauties of nature. Hardly anyone but a botanist knows the true nature of a flower, and even he, while recognizing in the flower the reproductive organ of the plant, pays no attention to this natural end when using his taste to judge of its beauty. Kant believes that judging the beauty of the flower is not a conscious action. In acknowledging this judgment of a flower, Kant explains how an ordinary capacity of perception works in a special way when finding something inherently beautiful. The person viewing the flower senses that there is something to be understood - but quite what it is eludes him. I think that the implications for understanding Kant's philosophy of beauty are great. Concepts of dependent beauty pervade our waking existence. Singular stereotypes of beauty in gigantic doses are fed to us by the media. We swallow these images, become conditioned to them, and inject them into our own daily lives. Soon, we become slaves to appreciating and valuing only dependent beauty, and we demand its ever-increasing presence in our lives. Perhaps a better understanding of free beauty as a useful companion to our walk on earth might better our conception of the world. To repeat an old saying, we all should "stop to smell the roses" that grow in abundance around us. When we open our eyes a little wider to allow free beauty to take its rightful, natural place, we may benefit in its appreciation. And, we may feel more comfortable with an expanding view of beauty as it truly exists.