What is beauty?

There is something paradoxical about questions of the form, “what is X?” The paradox is this, or at least this is how I see it: before we can use the word “X” we need to know and agree what we are talking about. If we use the word correctly then we agree what “X” is already. But as life would have it, we might agree on the majority of cases, but not necessarily on each individual case. Hence the paradox; either we know what “X” is or we don’t.

We can start answering the question, what is beauty?, by trying to look at some property in a beautiful object or person. If we can find such a property we will be able to solve two problems at the same time. We have an objective criteria we can measure, slice and dice for further analysis. And of course it takes us off the hook in having to individually decide what is beautiful.

If you are into beauty in a big way you’ll need to know this number: 1.61803398. It’s a nine digit number, but it won’t take care of your evenings during the weekend! This is the famous Golden Ratio. In a nut shell, the Golden Ratio is a 2 dimensional ratio that beautiful things are supposed to have. It seems that we instinctly home in on a rectangle possessing this ratio. We also have the propensity to call things that have this ratio beautiful. The Pantheon and the Mona Lisa are supposed to have it.

We also seem to be attracted to curves as opposed to straight edges. For example ambling along the rolling hills of South England has a different emotional effect on some people than that evoked by the white cliffs of Dover. Even though the latter can evoke a bit of nostalgia single handedly.  In the same vein of thinking, a curvaceous figure does not have the same effect as say someone described as “thin as a rake.” And metaphorically speaking we also speak of round nice figures in business. 3.14159265 is also a nine digit number known as Pi and it is more common than the Golden Ratio.

Some people, including philosophers, do not think that there is such a property that is THE ingredient for beauty. Rather, beauty is whatever creates a pleasurable experience in a person, but could be different things to different people. This is where we get the expression, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” And if we didn’t have genetics and biological evolution we would keep it at that. But take this passage from R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, (talking about long tailed widow birds) “….Any individual, of either sex, is likely to contain BOTH genes for making males HAVE a certain quality, AND genes for making females PREFER that selfsame quality, what ever that quality might be.” Maybe beauty is in the genes of the beholder.

We would, however, do better before trying to answer the question, what is beauty?, to try and understand beauty. We can start by looking at the function or purpose of beauty. Beautiful things tend to be more acceptable. For example, few would argue that Plaza de Cibeles is more beautiful than say Plaza de Castilla. We can also look at beauty by comparing it with ugliness. We can go a step further and ask ourselves, is it just that ugly people are not usually portrayed, for example in the media, as the ideal role models in society? Just look at your tv for the evidence.

And then there is always Plan B. We can understand beauty by applying brut force to it and pass it through the grinder of the second law of thermodynamics. What does it take to save beauty from the ravages of entropy? And even, can we find beauty in entropy or chaos? Maybe the gingerbread men might have the answer to these questions.

See you Sunday, Lawrence