Going back to the beauty thread, I found this. Thought some of you
might be interested:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Colleagues,
The ISSEI (International Society for the Study of European Ideas)
Conference:
"Approaching a New Millennium: Lessons from the Past - Prospects for
the Future" will take place in Bergen, Norway, from the 14th to 18th
August 2000.
For further details on Programme, Registration and Accommodation, see
http://www.uib.no/issei2000/
At this conference I will chair a workshop on "The Future of Beauty" in
the Arts and Literature.
Much of what is going on in the arts and in literature is not what I
would call beautiful. I find the heritage of realism and naturalism of
the 19th century problematic if it inspires yet another delving into the
abyss of human psychopathology. To argue with German theatre director
Gr=FCndgens: it is eminently easy to write, direct, and perform in such
a way that it is ugly, or that it causes a scandal. Gr=FCndgens' words
about the theatre are true also for the other arts and literature. This
is a personal, subjective view, and there is a problem here, which boils
down to the catch phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder": beauty
is somehow intangible, very subjective, beyond objective (and that
means, scientific) means of gaining knowledge which dominate, and are
thus favoured by, the current (western) mind-set.
This mind-set, however, shows indications of change: in the booming
debate on human consciousness, for example, an Internet-based seminar,
extending over two weeks and generating some 500 pages of text in
printout, was specifically devoted to establishing ways of dealing
scientifically with the subjective realm of the emotions, and there is
basic research into neurophysiological correlates of beauty (i.e.,
changes of neurophysiological parameters when a subject is shown
pictures deemed beautiful or not by the experimenters). Research has
also shown that regarding the beauty of faces, universal patterns seem
to exist: statistically speaking, we tend to agree overall whether a
face shown to us at random is beautiful or not, independent of our own
age, gender, race, culture, etc., or that of the individuals on the
photos.
Common sense would suggest that although beauty is predominantly
associated with things we see, it is not limited to that one sense, or
sensual experience altogether. We may well describe sounds as beautiful
(classical music, for example), or the smell or taste of a favourite
meal, or the touch of a specific fabric. For some of those, most
languages have developed more sense-specific terms, such as delicious
for taste, but the ultimate characteristic implied by those terms is the
same. Intellectual stimulation can be called beautiful, or the creative
acts, say, of writing a paper, poem, or play, or of composing, painting,
etc. Beyond all those manifest objects of beauty, Plato would locate
the form of beauty, beauty as such. It is beauty itself, of itself,
with itself, uniform, and of eternal being. All expressions of beauty
have part in this form of beauty, and all expressions of beauty exist to
enable the direct experience of the form of beauty, as the ultimate
goal.
Is Plato's philosophy relevant for us today, does it have a role in the
future? In the workshop at the conference, I want to provide a broad
basis for a thorough reassessment of the European traditions of beauty
in the arts (fine arts, performing arts, media arts), and in literature,
not as a return to some distant, and allegedly ideal past, but as a
constructive means of realising the potential of the arts for the 21st
century.
I would like to invite interested contributors to submit an abstract of
not more than one page. Deadline: 1 April 2000
***************************************************************
Dr. Daniel Meyer-Dinkgrafe
Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies
University of Wales Aberystwyth
1 Laura Place, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 2AU, UK
Tel. ++44 1970 622835 Fax ++44 1970 622831 email: [log in to unmask]
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:50:07 -0500 Veleka Gray wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:35:16 -0400 paul wiener wrote:
> >
> > If you or any woman
> > could tell me what I may perhaps be missing or overlooking in Liz, or in
> > any other female beauty queen, I'd love to know.
>
> Paul, how much do you look like Liz? Really. Feature for feature.
> Would anyone think you were kin? There was an episode on The Learning
> Channel a few years ago that claimed that people's perception of beauty,
> although complex, had a strong relationship to what the eye beholding
> and the beholden had in common. In fact, I think the episode was called
> "In The Eye Of The Beholder." This is why most of us think spiders and
> roaches are ugly. They don't (usually!) look like us. The more
> something looks like us, the more attractive it is. They say. And I
> agree. If you're interested, I'll look it up. I kept that show because
> it showed how beauty is perceived on an unconscious level. I think it
> would answer most all of your questions and give you some food for
> thought as well.
>
> Veleka
> Web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~veleka/index.html
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
|
