Beauty = Complexity
Complexity does not always equal beauty.
- What must be added to complexity to achieve beauty is a sensual order; the ordered complexity reaches the ear and the sounds alone must be pleasing.
Beauty does not equal Content.
-If beauty in art was the mere content we lose objectivity and adopt relativity unknowingly. In this scenario we must regard scribblings on paper interpreted as King David equal in beauty to that of the statue of David.
-The content of art is only what we attempt to communicate, and it is up to us as artisans to make it beautiful.
-As Demetrius says in his "On Style": It is possible to rob a subject of its dignity.
Beauty does not equal "evocation of emotion".
-We run into the same problem as we did with content, since emotion is brought on by the content. Emotion is a bye-product of the initial beauty; it is only a bonus.
-If a Christian listens to a theologian talk of God and his systematic he will not weep. But upon hearing a four part harmony choir sing "Eternal Father" they are much more susceptible to their emotions. Why is that? The composer of "Eternal Father" had the correct choice of poetry in the lyrics and the complexity of the music was a apparently beautiful in its own right. They made it devotional so they had something to communicate as a musician and so they may praise God as a Christian.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Author and His Muse
When unemployed they employ me in thought
Aut Pax, Aut Bellum
A sheep in wolf clothing
Evan Gunn and His Muse
The Author and His Muse
Web Literature
Permanent Viewables
Topics of Interest
Friendly Fire
Cigars
When unemployed they employ me in thought
The Archive
- Nov 2014 (1)
- Mar 2014 (1)
- Dec 2013 (1)
- Aug 2013 (1)
- Jul 2013 (1)
- Jun 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (3)
- Apr 2013 (1)
- Mar 2013 (1)
- Jan 2013 (1)
- Dec 2012 (1)
- Nov 2012 (1)
- Oct 2012 (1)
- Jul 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (1)
- Apr 2012 (1)
- Mar 2012 (1)
- Feb 2012 (2)
- Jan 2012 (2)
- Dec 2011 (3)
- Nov 2011 (1)
- Oct 2011 (4)
- Sep 2011 (3)
- Aug 2011 (4)
- Jul 2011 (3)
- Jun 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (7)
- Apr 2011 (14)
- Mar 2011 (14)
- Feb 2011 (10)
- Jan 2011 (3)
- Dec 2010 (4)
- Nov 2010 (3)
- Sep 2010 (2)
- Aug 2010 (2)
- Jul 2010 (9)
- Jun 2010 (15)
- May 2010 (6)
- Apr 2010 (4)
- Feb 2010 (2)
- Nov 2009 (1)
- Oct 2009 (1)
- Jul 2009 (1)
- Jun 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- Mar 2009 (1)
- Feb 2009 (1)
- Jan 2009 (2)
- Dec 2008 (2)
- Nov 2008 (1)
- Oct 2008 (2)
- Sep 2008 (3)
- Aug 2008 (2)
- Jul 2008 (6)
- Jun 2008 (3)
- May 2008 (7)
- Apr 2008 (7)
- Mar 2008 (5)
- Feb 2008 (9)
- Jan 2008 (10)
- Dec 2007 (5)
- Nov 2007 (3)
- Oct 2007 (3)
- Sep 2007 (1)
- Aug 2007 (3)
- Jul 2007 (4)
- Jun 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (4)
Facebook Badge
Abandon all education ye who enter.
4 comments:
What about things that are considered beautiful by many people that are simple in their form, not complex? Do you mean to say that those things are not beautiful? You define beauty as complexity, but make no argument proving it to be so. You have said that emotions can be aroused through beauty, and matters of subject that are not inherently beautiful can be portrayed in a non-beautiful way. That is certain. But how does that lead to "beauty = complexity"? Complexity can add to the beauty of the thing, but is it always complexity that arouses emotions? Is everything that you would call "inherently beautiful" complex?
Niagara Falls is beautiful. Why?
I am not saying that the simple things cannot have a degree of beauty; I do say that those things with added complexity have more beauty. Some simple things are simply beautiful, but some larger, more complex things ave greater beauty.
I do not make an argument. I provide a definition. My definition is applicable to everything and works. Why would you disagree? You don't give any definition, but you try to contradict mine, because you cannot stand being told that your artistic preferences are not good art. You and your haiku .
I am actually perfectly fine with criticism on my artistic preferences. If you think that haiku is bad, feel free to tell me that. Your post is titled "An Informal Proof," but if you are not attempting to make an argument in favor of your definition, how can you call it a proof?
You state, also, that a sensual order must be added to complexity, thereby admitting that complexity is only a part of beauty, contradicting your previous statement that beauty=complexity.
Your idea of what other than complexity must also be present for beauty to exist is that the essence of the beauty "must be pleasing." What sort of pleasure do you mean? You later on claim that evoking emotional pleasure does not make something beautiful. Is it instead, then, an intellectual pleasure? If it is, than complexity would not be the only intellectual pleasure derived from art, and thus complexity could only be considered one of many intellectual factors in making something beautiful.
I therefore ask you not to prove that complexity is a factor in beauty, but that complexity is the only factor that is truly relevant in art, as you seem to assert.
We call something beautiful, we claim that it has reached its goal. Sensual order goes hand in hand with beauty; all beauty has sensual order. Now how do we separate the beautiful from the not as beautiful? One component must be added: Complexity.
I am not saying that the only things that are beautiful are the things that have vast complexity. I am saying that is how we distinguish good (simple) beauty from great (complex) beauty.
You follow?
Post a Comment