beauty and consumer culture (again)
the point of my last post was to distinguish between two different kinds of beauty -the beauty that is proper to a physical object vs the beauty that is proper to a human being with a rational soul- and to suggest that some of our (consumer) culture is based on the confused notion that we could get the latter (which we deeply want, even without realizing it) by bringing ourselves into close physical proximity to and/or enjoyment of the former. this does not mean, of course, that its wrong to appreciate the beauty of physical objects. rather, just that there is an important difference between appreciating the beauty of things (e.g. clothes, cars, tables, etc.) and thinking that one, qua human being, could become beautiful in and through those things.
relatedly, our consumer culture also raises a question about the use/consumption of beauty vs the detached-appreciation of beauty. my friend natalie has pointed out to me how much much our contemporary experience of beauty occurs in the context of consumption. when we encounter beautiful things, it is frequently, perhaps typically, in a situation where those things are being sold to us and we are being invited to buy them, to consume them.
likewise, i am tempted to say that a strikingly large amount of our consumption occurs in the context of beauty. things are sold to us because they are attractive; they are sold to us by beautiful people; they are put in boxes and covered with that are made to look sharp and appealing. but at the same time, it certainly isn't the case that our consumer culture has left us awash in beauty, is it? aren't we, somehow, surrounded by so much ugliness, cheapness, kitsch?
perhaps the notion of 'beauty' isn't helpful here, or in any case we need some more terms. maybe what is behind most advertising isn't so much beauty as the notion of the 'cool', but i'm not sure how to relate the form of the cool to the form of the beuatiful (the true, the good and the cool?)
in any case, what should we make of the use of beauty in producing and selling things? on the one hand, it seems good that in making things -whether clothes or cars or chairs- we should try to make these things well-designed, aesthetically appealing, even beautiful. to bring artistic craftsmanship and beauty into our everyday lives seems a worthy goal, especially if the alternative is cold, 'functional' material culture epitomized by much office furniture.
on the other hand, isn't there something essentially misguided about trying to 'consume' beauty? isn't part of the wonder and mystery of beauty that it has no 'use'?
perhaps we should say that beauty is not 'for' something else in the sense that, qua beauty, it is not the means to some other end. and yet, this need not mean that the only appropriate venue for the experience of beauty is a museum, where one sits and 'does nothing' but appreciate the beauty of something. rather, we can create and appreciate beauty in contexts of consumption and use -such as a meal or a building- while recognizing that the beauty of such things is valuable and wonderful in a way that cannot (or ought not) be seen as merely a means to an end, even if in some way the object itself is a means to an end.
relatedly, our consumer culture also raises a question about the use/consumption of beauty vs the detached-appreciation of beauty. my friend natalie has pointed out to me how much much our contemporary experience of beauty occurs in the context of consumption. when we encounter beautiful things, it is frequently, perhaps typically, in a situation where those things are being sold to us and we are being invited to buy them, to consume them.
likewise, i am tempted to say that a strikingly large amount of our consumption occurs in the context of beauty. things are sold to us because they are attractive; they are sold to us by beautiful people; they are put in boxes and covered with that are made to look sharp and appealing. but at the same time, it certainly isn't the case that our consumer culture has left us awash in beauty, is it? aren't we, somehow, surrounded by so much ugliness, cheapness, kitsch?
perhaps the notion of 'beauty' isn't helpful here, or in any case we need some more terms. maybe what is behind most advertising isn't so much beauty as the notion of the 'cool', but i'm not sure how to relate the form of the cool to the form of the beuatiful (the true, the good and the cool?)
in any case, what should we make of the use of beauty in producing and selling things? on the one hand, it seems good that in making things -whether clothes or cars or chairs- we should try to make these things well-designed, aesthetically appealing, even beautiful. to bring artistic craftsmanship and beauty into our everyday lives seems a worthy goal, especially if the alternative is cold, 'functional' material culture epitomized by much office furniture.
on the other hand, isn't there something essentially misguided about trying to 'consume' beauty? isn't part of the wonder and mystery of beauty that it has no 'use'?
perhaps we should say that beauty is not 'for' something else in the sense that, qua beauty, it is not the means to some other end. and yet, this need not mean that the only appropriate venue for the experience of beauty is a museum, where one sits and 'does nothing' but appreciate the beauty of something. rather, we can create and appreciate beauty in contexts of consumption and use -such as a meal or a building- while recognizing that the beauty of such things is valuable and wonderful in a way that cannot (or ought not) be seen as merely a means to an end, even if in some way the object itself is a means to an end.
posted by micah at 10:10 AM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Micah:
Hello. Hope all is well in Chicago. I read your posts with interest and wanted to submit one suggestion on the nature of beauty that has occured to me in the past. Specifically, I think beauty is temporal, fleeting (perhaps pointing to our mortality). By extension it is also fragile and rare.
That's why the human body is deemed beautiful--and specifically why the faces of children or the bodies of young women are more beautiful than most. Good weather is beautiful, sunsets most of all. Though gold and jewels are durable substances, their beauty stems from rarity and fragility (jewelry is easy to damage and easier to lose). Most traditional art reflects some external beauty that is fleeting (a nude, a landscape, the fruit in a still life). And much of the modern art that still qualifies as beautiful seeks to capture a moment (Jackson Pollock, contemporary interest in the haiku). Finally, music is the most fleeting beauty of all--almost as soon as we perceive it, it is gone (recorded music, like a sculpture seeks to capture some other beauty).
So how does this relate to consumerism? In some sense, people who sell nominally beautiful items are unwitting hucksters. Those fashionable things created to be beautiful themselves fall quickly out of style or into disrepair (most are fragile themselves). Those that accentuate the beauty of the wearer or their surroundings last longer, but still cannot halt age or atrophy. Merchants, of course, benefit from changes in fashion and have tried to introduce it to a variety of items (can a toaster be beautiful, a tv?).
How does this relate to the personal, afashionable beauty you've discussed? Sometimes we perceive beauty in objects because it echoes personal beauty. Take architecture for instance. I'm not sure we find buildings beautiful so often as we respect them as displays of power. However, some are beautiful in that they testify to the minds and the muscles (both fleeting) that conceived and created them. In a similar way, a piece of fine lace is an object echo of the personality trait of patience that created it.
But there's something else, too. I think it's also true that internal, personal beauty is fleeting--or more so than we'd like to think. Sometimes this is because we want for opportunities to act courageously or to show charity. More often it is that we overlook opportunities because they are not in fashion. There is a quote to this effect in the Pirandello play I just finished: Each in His Own Way. Something like: we convince ourselves that the key moments in life, those that attest to our character, are the few when we acted bravely or rightly and not the thousand when we decided to compromise. The notion that internal beauty is also temporal doesn't have to be as dark as all that, but it has merit. We think of character as innate, but no one would say it is completely intransigent.
i wonder though whether beauty is sometimes a means to worship...to a spirit of worshipfulness in a person. in that way it would kind of be a means to an end.
i also am not sure i fully agree with the comment to your post that "the faces of children or the bodies of young women are more beautiful than most." i do think those things are often quite beautiful, but not necessarily moreso than the face of an old man or the body of an old woman. even just speaking in a physical sense. it seems subjective to me; and i don't think everyone only appreciates fleeting beauty. (there is a different kind (?) of beauty in an old, worn pair of shoes than in a shiny, new pair; though both, to me, have beautiful aspects.)
but, you're right, consumerism and the quest for beauty do seem intricately connected. just watching tv commercials...most of them are about how to get whiter teeth, a smaller waistline, non-gray hair, reduced wrinkles, or fuller, sultry lashes. and i am interested in the fact that it is in manipulating the beauty God gave us that we can achieve "real" beauty. that seems strange on so many levels.
maybe she's born with it, maybe it's maybelline.
Post a Comment
<< Home