The Twilight Zone : Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

The "beauty eye beholder" saying is true to a point, but I know that are some people that thinks "if someone really is hideous enough looking, does that saying still apply?" Depends how shallow the person looking at the so called hideous person is. I'm saying so called cause I dont like to call anyone hideous if they are a good person, no matter their looks. Not everyone's like that unfortionately. How people view things also depends on what the norm is. In the TZ " eye beholder" world, all those "pig faces" are the norm and beautiful Ms. Tyler and the good looking guy at the end of the episode are the ones that are considered hideous. I'm not a shallow person and would never treat someone poorly just because of thier looks, but I know that there are a lot of people (especially today, it's getting worse) that would. Anyway, my point is that some people do not go with the "beauty is in the eye of beholder" saying because in their shallow mind, they simply cannot imagine anyone liking a "hideous looking" person no matter how good a person they are inside. More and more people today are thinking that way today and it's sad.

Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a Marxist approach to art, to say that any form of "artistic expression" is art, and that there is no objectivity in art. It's because of this expression and the sentiment behind it that nowadays we have such messed up arts, that "performance art" equates to people tying their mouths to someone else's anus by a leather belt, or crapping in a tin can in front of an audience. It's as crap as the "art" that it is responsible for.

If before industrial era took hold we legitimately believed that beauty is all just a matter of perspective, then imagine how low quality the great artists would have been. Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Donatello .. if they had no quality standard, no objectivity, they would have probably been more akin to what people call "art" nowadays. Crap like "pure white paintings," scat smeared across canvases, people rubbing clay and paint on their skin and calling that "art," even though there's no product aside from the obscenity that they then wash down the drain and pat themselves on the back for their latest transgression against art. Imagine Beethoven or Bach if they didn't have to try and make something both rhythmic and beautiful, and instead just made disjointed noise and called it dubstep.

There is most definitely an objective measure of that which we call beauty, and the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" should have been wholly rejected the moment it was uttered, instead other "artists" who draw the equivalent of crayon doodles really took a liking to the idea that even they could be considered great artists while putting in no effort to improve or gain objective talent which could be measured or analysed. The David, bodybuilders or Hercules would never have been considered the pinnacle of masculinity.

If you've ever looked at something and felt revulsion or heard something and were filled with repugnance, then you are living proof that beauty has objectivity and anyone who says otherwise has an ulterior motive.

Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

Yes, that makes sense. Also, art doesn't have the same classic feel to it anymore now that we are getting very deep into the computer and internet age where creating graphic artwork on a screen seems to, at least with me, take away the traditional classic beauty that art once had. It's the same with special effects and trick photography in films, it was much more impressive to people back during an era where many people truely were taken away in total awe and saying "wow! how did they do that!?" where today it's closer to a shrug and saying unenthusiastically "eh, computer graphics".

You made a good point with how Hurcules would never have had the same impact if he wasn't so handsome and muscular. I may have been wrong on one point I made in my first comment about how shallowness is so much worse today than decades ago. I think it still is worse today but not as drastically different as I posted before. Even long ago, people yearned to be beautiful and were taken aback and smiitten more so with easy on the eyes visuals. With art, decorations, material things (cars, etc), and with people. It now's come to me about how so many women during Hollywood's golden age were forever desperately striving to be beautiful such as Lana Turner, Judy Garland, Ruby Keeler, Vivian Leigh, etc. And the most beautiful were the most admired, Ginger Rogers, Una Merkel, Gloria Stewart, Keeler, and Turner being very high on the list. And the most handsome men most certainly did have more women ogling at them such as Robert Taylor, Clark Gable, Nelson Eddie, and Gene Kelly. I guess that some of shallowness is just a natural inbuilt mechanism in all of us. Some people have learned how to force politeness over their inner shallow feelings better than others and some people have softer hearts and more sensitivity than others but that certain degree of shallowness is still there in all of us. It can't be helped.

Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

I agree with you about CGI, richspenc. (I prefer the stop-motion puppetry of "King Kong" (1933) to today's CGI special effects.) I also agree with you regarding the Hollywood beauty stars you've mentioned in your post. Today's stars are too dowdy and appear in films with messy, miserable hairstyles. Standards have definitely been lowered. Nicole Kidman is missing the beauty of Ginger Rogers, and George Clooney is missing the handsomeness of Clark Gable. Regarding musclemen, give me David and Hercules over Stallone and Schwarzenegger's steroid-induced fake testosterone bodies any old day.

Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

I love Ginger Rogers and Judy Garland, the sweet, natural old fashioned beauty that just isn't the same in many women today. I am one of those guys that does NOT think that a woman has to wear super low cut tops and super short shorts to look good. I really like the traditional feminine beauty from the 30s and 40s such as all those beautiful, wide, floor length dresses that old fashioned women wore. The 30s and 40s was about grace and beauty and charm. Now it's about hot and sexy and game playing. I'm unusually old fashioned in some ways preferring the 30s and 40s way.

Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

shakespear coined this saying so he was not only a brilliant writer but a truth sayer on something truly deep about mankind. ever notice how almost every person who a lot of people say is amazingly beautiful has a lot of people who say they are extraornidarily beautiful and some people who think they are not that beautiful or even ugly? it's bc beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

there are a lot of unique things that people find beautiful.


Re: Beauty is in eye of beholder, is that saying really true?

i always thought it was "booty is in the thighs of the bee holder."