What makes something beautiful?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ooh, I just got another box.

[SteveGangi]

Teeny tiny circles of confusion.
The right kind of bokeh, whatever is the right kind.
Good chiarascuro or however you spell it.
Dmin (sort of the anti-Dmax, like yin and yang).
Good saturation but not overblown "Disneyland" colors.
The right aberrations for that old timey "glow" that only comes from old beat up low quality lenses, crusted with motor oil, spilled beer and cigarette tar.
The look of old films we can't get anymore, printed on papers the corporations keep planning to discontinue.
Anything and anyone, if enough booze is administered.

But seriously, I have no idea why some things strike me as beautiful or ugly. Analyzing them makes no difference. I don't like Picasso paintings. I don't know why. Either I immediately like something or I don't. If I have to analyze it and convince myself that I like it, then I guess I really didn't like it after all.

[Ed Sukach]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bruce (Camclicker) @ Jan 31 2003, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I found an essay that I find inspirational on this subject:

http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I checked that out... Quite some food for thought here.

A couple of points I'd like to bring out ... I think it is an error to assume that when I say it is difficult to define an "Universal Beauty" that "Beauty" in itself does not exist.

Equally as misleading is the idea that, if each of us has their own concept of "what is beautiful" it necessarily follows that we are completely satified with our work as it stands, and there is no motivation to "improve". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't think I've ever made a print I was satisfied with. There is always something ... a little less or more exposure; dodging or burning here or there .... contrast...

At some point I have to say, "This is the end." and stop.

We each have our own concepts ... call them visions... of "beauty". They can be, and usually are, harsh taskmasters.

Enough rambling.

We are defined by our likes and dislikes, our mindsets and conditioning .... and a lot of other attributes that I am not at all certain that I understand.

My vote for all-time, all-media most beautiful work of all time: Renoir's "Torse au Soliel" - see the attached file (I hope it works).

Comments?

[SteveGangi]

That was a good article, thanks for the URL. I still remember "art appreciation" class in high school. Some of the paintings we saw blew me away, others I simply thought were junk and said so. I just couldn't see the sense in being told what I should like, no matter how "important" anyone else thought a painting might be. I didn't know it then, and could not put it into words, but the ones I hated were just too contrived, or were trying too hard to make "a statement". It was like they were being forced into whatever "school of art" was in fashion at the time. Some were just too cluttered or too weird. Just like photos (or anything else) that are too busy or consciously trying too hard to be "art" or "original" or "important" and fall flat. What I got from the article was that simplicity is beauty. Sort of like Akkam's Razor which says the simplest explanation is the best one. It makes sense.

[Aggie]

..