/highculture/ - High Culture

The criteria for beauty is satisfaction and pleasure. I doubt that religion today provides that as it has become just another vector for controlling the masses. In pre-christian times, the beauty of the Gods were evident in the temples; it is a shame they did not survive on account of fanatics in the early church.

>>29

>satisfaction and pleasure

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this? Do you mean a kind of earthly pleasure we get from eating good food? It's struck me that art and music can obtain transcendental beauty that can create an almost religious feeling.

Beauty is symmetry and cleanness.

I don't see why arts have to be an attempt to emulate religion.

It might throw some light on the subject if we could find some neurological backing to what happens when somebody experiences what the call beauty. Experiencing beauty is a subjective experience, so to attempt to define the experience objectively is difficult to say the least.

>>28

It does seem that a lot of art was once religious in nature. With atheism now so prevalent, art flourishes in many other forms, filing the void.

Beauty is something unnecessary, but pleasing to the eye, to me at least. However really what constitutes "beauty" is difficult to nail down because anyone can see beauty anywhere.

Even in a can of literal shit.

In which case I will say, not all taste in what beauty is is necessarily equal.

In "Why Beauty Matters", Roger Scruton made me think there is a correlation between the beauty and the transcendental, the things above us we can never grasp though never tired of contemplating.

There are also studies showing objective beauty IS a thing.

(I'll try to find the link, if you have it share it)

>>46

>Even in a can of literal shit.

I don't think it's beauty, it's just interest, which is really different.

I think it's interesting to base ourselves on the idea of human beauty, because it's the same for everyone, and from it might derive all other forms of beauty.

>This board is predominantly for the purposes of posting & discussing classical music, paintings, sculpture, &c. High culture from other civilizations are welcome. Visual content must be in keeping with this theme; this includes embeded links.

And I was banned for posting the classics of this time.

y

this board is already super slow, if you didnt like it you could have just told me so.

If you really want to talk about beauty, and where is beauty, we first have to define it,and that is no easy task.

In the middle ages, only God was truly beautiful; with the Renaissance, that idea still persisted, but the artisan's craft was thought has a paralel to God's creation. Then, beauty was found in the forms and nature.

In the Romantism, beauty started being associated with de divine, but not God - it's Kant's Idealism at play, where one's aim is to reach the Ideas.

From there, through Schopenhauer and Nietzsxchse's aesthetic theories, art gradually became more and more about ideas (even if Nietzsche's thinking called for quite the opposite). Add in Greenberg and Adorno, and the idea of beauty is not even relevant.

It does make some sense, though, and that is why Scruton's movie annoys me so much: different ages require different images. You don't build houses, don't read, don't think or even talk the way people did a hundred years ago. To think that the culture or ideals of that time should fit ours seems to me simply absurd.

>>62

This, high culture, the transcendent and the symbolism of religion are inseparable.