Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?

[fugueistkdf]

The answer is yes, in relative terms, No, in absolute terms. Ditto "is beauty really in the ear of the listener?" An example from my philosophy-teaching in the area of aesthetics: I explain to students that I have no problem with anyone saying "I think Beethoven's music is trash". I have a huge problem with anyone saying "Beethoven's music is trash." Anyone saying that is a musical ignoramus, and is dead wrong (I'm excluding trifles like "Wellington's Victory"-one must look at any artist's best work e.g. this composer's Symphony 7, for example). It can be easily seen that the first statement above is valid, but only to the speaker. The second statement is invalid, as any person with knowledge of music would not hold such an absurd opinion.
Let's apply the definition of "knowledge" to this old saw about beauty. Pace Gettier, who is simply wrong, but that's a topic for a different forum, knowledge is "true, justified belief". That is, for someone to know something, one must believe it to be true, they must be justified in believing it, and it must be true. Apply these critieria to the ignorant listener, and to the
informed listener, and it is clear that my thesis is correct, viz. "Beauty, in absolute terms, is NOT, necessarily in the eye of the beholder." Note that one doesn't have to like a work of genius, to acknowledge that it is great art. See John Stuart Mill on "higher and lower pleasures", and Plato (The Republic) on
Ignorance, Opinion (Belief), and Knowledge. I invite debate on this issue.

[Lance]

Welcome, fugueistkdf! We are delighted you are here and I can tell by your post that you will add substantially to the value of this board. We do hope you enjoy yourself. Apparently, you are a teacher! You may even be able to keep some of us on toes!

Your points are well taken. If you have traversed this board at all, you probably know that everyone seems to have their "favourites," for lack of something better to call it. We also have a number of people who are quite outspoken about our favourites who are not their favourites. Whether these opinions are based on musical knowledge, serious personal study, or just because someone "likes" a performing artist for "non-musical" reasons (appearance, etc.), it's hard to tell. While my own interests fall from the Baroque through the Romantic periods (about 250-300 years all told), the heaviest emphasis is on the Romantic period. It's where my heart is. I have little tolerance for 20th-21st century music (but I do listen ... I listen to learn so that I can appreciate—even more—the music from the periods that I wholeheartedly love!)

I can't say I've heard anyone (with a brain) ever say "Beethoven is trash." I probably have heard the comment that "I think Beethoven (or Mozart) are highly overrated. I may even hear similiar comments about performing artists who are well established and internationally recognized but not thought of very highly by individuals for whatever reason. For many of us, our blood pressures could go up considerably, but we bite our tongues and say ... "live and let live ... it's their loss if they choose not to 'understand' or appreciate it." You are, apparently, in a unique position of helping mold younger minds (maybe older ones, too) to embrace many facets of life pertaining to the arts and to the art of living. That I admire. It must be heartwarming Do you find wonderful young "inquiring" minds today, or is that a thing of the past, especially regarding classical music or great visual art?

The answer is yes, in relative terms, No, in absolute terms. Ditto "is beauty really in the ear of the listener?" An example from my philosophy-teaching in the area of aesthetics: I explain to students that I have no problem with anyone saying "I think Beethoven's music is trash". I have a huge problem with anyone saying "Beethoven's music is trash." Anyone saying that is a musical ignoramus, and is dead wrong (I'm excluding trifles like "Wellington's Victory"-one must look at any artist's best work e.g. this composer's Symphony 7, for example). It can be easily seen that the first statement above is valid, but only to the speaker. The second statement is invalid, as any person with knowledge of music would not hold such an absurd opinion.
Let's apply the definition of "knowledge" to this old saw about beauty. Pace Gettier, who is simply wrong, but that's a topic for a different forum, knowledge is "true, justified belief". That is, for someone to know something, one must believe it to be true, they must be justified in believing it, and it must be true. Apply these critieria to the ignorant listener, and to the
informed listener, and it is clear that my thesis is correct, viz. "Beauty, in absolute terms, is NOT, necessarily in the eye of the beholder." Note that one doesn't have to like a work of genius, to acknowledge that it is great art. See John Stuart Mill on "higher and lower pleasures", and Plato (The Republic) on
Ignorance, Opinion (Belief), and Knowledge. I invite debate on this issue.

[josé echenique]

The answer is yes, in relative terms, No, in absolute terms. Ditto "is beauty really in the ear of the listener?" An example from my philosophy-teaching in the area of aesthetics: I explain to students that I have no problem with anyone saying "I think Beethoven's music is trash". I have a huge problem with anyone saying "Beethoven's music is trash." Anyone saying that is a musical ignoramus, and is dead wrong (I'm excluding trifles like "Wellington's Victory"-one must look at any artist's best work e.g. this composer's Symphony 7, for example). It can be easily seen that the first statement above is valid, but only to the speaker. The second statement is invalid, as any person with knowledge of music would not hold such an absurd opinion.
Let's apply the definition of "knowledge" to this old saw about beauty. Pace Gettier, who is simply wrong, but that's a topic for a different forum, knowledge is "true, justified belief". That is, for someone to know something, one must believe it to be true, they must be justified in believing it, and it must be true. Apply these critieria to the ignorant listener, and to the
informed listener, and it is clear that my thesis is correct, viz. "Beauty, in absolute terms, is NOT, necessarily in the eye of the beholder." Note that one doesn't have to like a work of genius, to acknowledge that it is great art. See John Stuart Mill on "higher and lower pleasures", and Plato (The Republic) on
Ignorance, Opinion (Belief), and Knowledge. I invite debate on this issue.

Welcome to the Forum Fugue. As you will soon find out from the varied opinions of the members, there is hardly ANYTHING we unanimously agree on. Some of us love Maria Callas, others think her voice was ugly. Others (me included) adore Mozart, but Glenn Gould thought his sonatas were no good (he once said Mozart didn´t die too soon but rather too late...whatever that means...), and then Alfred Brendel thought Gould was rather stupid and not so great as a pianist. So, expect to hear (read) anything, but try to inform yourself. I really don´t care what Glenn Gould said, I have loved Mozart all my life and I am quite sure I will love him to the end of Time. The Mozart is an example of just how far people can go. They are entitled to their opinions, and no, there are no absolutes.

[some guy]

It's not that hard, logically. Beauty is the type of word that identifies a relationship. Beauty is neither in the object NOR in the eye but in the relationship between eye and object.

This is easy to illustrate in music, as I've said before, with this simple equation:

Listener A hears a piece and says it's hideous.
Listener B hears the same piece and says it's gorgeous.

In both cases, the notes are identical. The difference is not in the piece.

So, since it's so easy, there must be something else, and of course, it's not far to find. Bias and prejudice.

And there's the rub. How does one combat bias and prejudice? With logic? That hasn't worked so well so far. (Though some of us continue to use it, as there are always spectators who can be wooed with sweet reason. Or at least that's what I tell myself!) Encouragement to "give it another try," whatever the "it" is? Well, that's had pretty limited success, too.

Well, many people clearly need "beauty" to reside in the object, regardless of any eyes. (Or, at best, regarding a consensus of eyes.) I haven't ever figured out how to address that need. It's humiliating!!

Oh well, I know what I like. I know that there are lots of things I don't like that are nevertheless perfectly good. Other listeners assure me of that every day. And, what's more, I believe them. I guess all that really matters at the end of the day is if each of us is satisfied, if each of us has our musical needs fulfilled by the musics we love. It would be nice to be able to share that love, but if we can't, there's still the music.

I feel another Karkowski fit coming on. Better go take care of that right now!!

[HoustonDavid]

Welcome to our usually civilized but very opnionated forum Fugue. Do we take that name in
the musical sense or the psychiatric sense? (just a bit of nonsense to lighten the discourse).

In my opinion, visual beauty is more generaly accepted and agreed upon than listening beauty.
It is probably because - again my opinion - there is a greater variety of it and there are so many
agreed-upon categories of visual beauty. Beauty in things heard is much more selective and
opinions vary a great deal when it comes to something as simple and complex as music. Here on
the Forum pretty much everyone has well informed - often differing - opinions on the subject of
music, particularly classical.

[Carnivorous Sheep]

Listener A hears a piece and says it's hideous.
Listener B hears the same piece and says it's gorgeous.

In both cases, the notes are identical. The difference is not in the piece.

So, since it's so easy, there must be something else, and of course, it's not far to find. Bias and prejudice.

And there's the rub. How does one combat bias and prejudice? With logic? That hasn't worked so well so far. (Though some of us continue to use it, as there are always spectators who can be wooed with sweet reason. Or at least that's what I tell myself!) Encouragement to "give it another try," whatever the "it" is? Well, that's had pretty limited success, too.

This post starts from the premise that Listener B is "correct," yet the whole point being raised here is that it is impossible to say if one person is "correct" in such a subjective matter. "Bias and prejudice?" You make it sound like everyone with intelligence should have to appreciate X, where again, it's been established that personal taste is, well, personal. We both took a sip from the same pot of coffee - I disliked the taste because I don't like coffee - I must be biased and prejudiced! There must be deep-rooted ignorance that needs to be combated!

[MJWal]

I agree with Carnivorous Sheep (brrr!) here. I would add that without a discussion of a) socio-cultural interpretative communities and b) personal bio-chemical dispositions - we are not going to get very far here. The hierarchical tensions involved in a) are considerable, and they are, I would suggest, complicated by b). Of course, liking coffee and liking, say, Mozart, are not really comparable, since liking coffee involves b) almost exclusively. Rather than speak of prejudice I would prefer the term predisposition, which may involve both a) and b). As a child I had no particular predisposition to like Mozart, but my parents (who liked Wagner, Rachmaninoff and Fats Waller) had 78s of Denis Mathews playing K.488. I played that (with a fibre needle) and was hooked. [As I had at the time no a) predisposition, something rather problematic we might call "natural musicality" must have played a part in combination with b).] A French friend of mine loathes Mozart - he says - I think it has something to do with sheer bloody-mindedness (hierarchical tensions =a) and nervousness about those pearly scales and the elegance, which he somehow associates with the Ancien Régime but also finds physically unsatisfactory: there is often no immediate discharge of affect as in Beethoven etc, i.e. both a) and b) are involved.
I cannot really see the big difference between 1)"Mozart is awful" and 2)"I think Mozart is awful". The problem is when the speaker extrapolates from his own experience and imposes it on others as a kind of law i.e. "How can you have the effrontery to like Mozart, you pretentious mountebank?" My friend does say 1) but he never suggests I am a mountebank. I actually believe I could get him to modify his attitude if I played him certain pieces by Mozart blindfold, as it were, but I am far too polite to insist on testing him.

[some guy]

If there were ever a comment that deserved the eye-rolling "smiley," then this is it:

This post starts from the premise that Listener B is "correct," yet the whole point being raised here is that it is impossible to say if one person is "correct" in such a subjective matter. "Bias and prejudice?" You make it sound like everyone with intelligence should have to appreciate X, where again, it's been established that personal taste is, well, personal. We both took a sip from the same pot of coffee - I disliked the taste because I don't like coffee - I must be biased and prejudiced! There must be deep-rooted ignorance that needs to be combated!

My post in no way suggests or implies or presumes that Listener B is correct. The premise is that since the actual sounds, the actual vibrations, are identical, what both A and B are talking about is something other than the actual sounds. I propose that they're talking about their relationships with the sounds. There may be something to choose between the two relationships, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the phenomenon of taking one's own biasses and prejudices for descriptions. And that is equally true (and equally bad) for both A and B.

The premise of Carnivorous Sheep's post, tit for tat, is that the unidentified "piece" in my equation is a modern piece. But the equation, to be valid, must work equally well with any piece, hence my purposeful and obvious avoidance of any such identification.

Heigh ho. At least this was a good example of how presuppositions can so easily replace observation!

[DavidRoss]

Aesthetics? Good grief--what a mess! Some really smart people have looked into it and no one has ever said anything about that made any sense that wasn't already so obvious that it didn't need saying.

"I like it and here's why" is about as good as it gets.

[karlhenning]

"I like it and here's why" is about as good as it gets.

And has the additional benefit of plain honesty.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Carnivorous Sheep]

If there were ever a comment that deserved the eye-rolling "smiley," then this is it:

This post starts from the premise that Listener B is "correct," yet the whole point being raised here is that it is impossible to say if one person is "correct" in such a subjective matter. "Bias and prejudice?" You make it sound like everyone with intelligence should have to appreciate X, where again, it's been established that personal taste is, well, personal. We both took a sip from the same pot of coffee - I disliked the taste because I don't like coffee - I must be biased and prejudiced! There must be deep-rooted ignorance that needs to be combated!

My post in no way suggests or implies or presumes that Listener B is correct. The premise is that since the actual sounds, the actual vibrations, are identical, what both A and B are talking about is something other than the actual sounds. I propose that they're talking about their relationships with the sounds. There may be something to choose between the two relationships, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the phenomenon of taking one's own biasses and prejudices for descriptions. And that is equally true (and equally bad) for both A and B.

So Listener A should not be allowed to describe the sounds he heard as "grotesque" because Listener B disagrees? All descriptions stem from "personal bias." It is an opinion, which, despite the negative connotations of the word bias, is essentially what a bias is - it is a personal opinion. To "objectively" say that a piece is [beautiful][horrendous][amazing][disgusting][etc.] is impossible. In the end, it all comes down to personal "bias." If we were to remove this "bias," then we might as well not describe music in anything except its rhythm, the notes used, the beat, the key, and the structure. Anything beyond an academic description is personal preference, and I don't understand how that is "bad" for both A and B.

The premise of Carnivorous Sheep's post, tit for tat, is that the unidentified "piece" in my equation is a modern piece. But the equation, to be valid, must work equally well with any piece, hence my purposeful and obvious avoidance of any such identification.

Wrong. Where did I say modern? I said X, and used an example of coffee. I purposefully left out any specifics because the merits of anything in particular is not what we're discussing here.

Heigh ho. At least this was a good example of how presuppositions can so easily replace observation!

Again, you're the one applying presuppositions.

"I like it and here's why" is about as good as it gets.

But if we were to follow some guy's logic, if you said that, you're just ignorant and prejudiced, and you have something wrong with you if what you like disagrees with what person X likes!

[THEHORN]

Words like "beautiful", "ugly" etc, are just highly subjective labels we give to
the works of different composers, or painters,sculptors etc.
De gustibus non est disputandum . Rossini declared that the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique "was not music". Some critics actually questioned Beethoven's sanity when they heard his late works. When Clara Schumann attended a performance of the then new Tristan&Isolde, the declared that it was the most horrible work she had ever heard.Darius Milhaud reviewed an all Wagner concert in Paris, and his review consisted only of the sentence"Down with Wagner!"
As I mentioned earlier, I remember when the late harpsichordist appeared on
Firing Line on television as guest of the late William F. Buckley, he called Bruckner's 5th symphony,which he had just heard,"banal"! and "portentous" and "an abomination". Which did not exactly sit right with me at the time, a teenager who had recently become a passionate Bruckner fan.
Many have praied the beauty of the music of Delius, and it may be beautiful, but I've always found it monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sentimental, with harmonies sugary enough to induce diabetes.
But life would be much duller if everybody agreed on musical taste !

[7flat5]

"I like it and here's why" is about as good as it gets.

But if we were to follow some guy's logic, if you said that, you're just ignorant and prejudiced, and you have something wrong with you if what you like disagrees with what person X likes!

I'm not sure about someguy's logic (seems right to me), but David's is more than it appears. The "and here's why" is the place where sharing, and the chance for development of appreciation from that sharing, comes. There is no absolute in the "I like it" part, and for that, beauty is from the beholder. But, when there is some vain attempt at describing the why, there is a chance for mutual respect and growth. That's generally what I hear someguy saying as well.

[fugueistkdf]

It is gratifying to have received so many replies to my first ever post. I would like to reply to each individually, but I have no time right now. I am a practicing Church Musician, so this time of year is very hectic. I’m also travelling 200 miles tomorrow morning, to where my daughter lives. She is on a university faculty of music, and they gave her a redundant harpsichord, which was homebuilt, very badly. I am rebuilding it for her. Although I am a recently-retired teacher, I can’t seem to get it out of my blood. While I’m there, I am meeting with my grandson’s school music teacher. She is very excited about my idea of involving the school in this project.

I would like to make a brief reply to my correspondents, however. It seems evident to me, that a) nobody successfully argued against my thesis, because, b) many of you confused “liking” with being “informed”. I suggested that Mill and Plato could be used for reference to my actual thesis. Good arguments would either refute Mill/Plato or produce other evidence from other great writers/thinkers. “Gut reaction” is not philosophical argument.

I also stated clearly that it is not necessary to like a work of art to acknowledge that it is a work of genius. There is unquestionably much great music that I don’t like. However, I do consider myself an informed listener, so I am able to distinguish between art and trash. Incidentally, it is difficult, or maybe impossible to define art, that is state what it is. It is easy to distinguish between art and, e.g. entertainment. Art edifies, entertainment entertains. That is, one can state with certainty what art “does”, but not what it “is”. I personally can, and do like some “trash”. I know it is trash because, from years of study and thinking about art, I am “informed” in this area. The point is I “know” whether the music I might be listening to is art, or not art, because I have a developed sense of discrimination. The musical ignoramus does not; therefore his/her opinion is of no value, except to him/herself.

I would like to respond to “some guy” and to “Lance”.

some guy states that

Listener A hears a piece and says it's hideous.
Listener B hears the same piece and says it's gorgeous.

In both cases, the notes are identical. The difference is not in the piece.

So, since it's so easy, there must be something else, and of course, it's not far to find. Bias and prejudice.

This is actually an invalid syllogism:

Listener A hears a piece and says it’s hideous.
Listener B hears the same piece and says it’s gorgeous.
Therefore bias and prejudice are present.

That is, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In any event, this response has little or nothing to do with my thesis.

“Lance” refers to Glenn Gould. A few facts about me: I am Canadian. I’m a charter member of the “Glenn Gould Society”. I own about 15 books on GG, and I own most of his CD’s.
I would point out that GG wrote a lot, and one must be careful in taking his (sometimes outrageous) statements literally. He proceeded (post anti-Mozart statements) to record all 17 piano sonatas. It is entirely possible that these statements sold a lot of records! His problem with Mozart was that it was not “contrapuntally worked out”, and therefore inferior. He attempted to invent counterpoint in these works, and his recordings are bizarre, to say the least. However, I suggest listening to his performance of the C Minor Piano Concerto. No one who hated Mozart could give such a magnificent performance. He has said nothing about e.g. Mozart’s last symphony (#41 “the Jupiter”), but I’m absolutely certain that he would approve of it, especially the final movement, an enormous fugue!

Finally, I disagree with “Lance” that there are no absolutes. I must retire now, but I’ll get back to it next week.

[some guy]

Hey fugue, you made my little equation into an invalid syllogism by replacing my conclusion with a remark from another part of my post. My conclusion was that the difference is not something in the piece as in both cases the notes are identical.

My original point was to claim that beauty is neither in the object nor in the eye or ear of the beholder. That is, I don't agree with you that the situation is a matter of "absolute" terms and "relative" terms but about what kind of word beauty is, what kind of reality it points to. Anyway, since you had already answered your own question, I thought it was already time to look at the situation differently than you had.

My observation about bias and prejudice was an attempt to account for why many people need words like beautiful and ugly to be descriptions. I think that if we can get past that need, then we will be ready to talk about value, what value means and to what extent it's a quality of the object, if it is.

Why are we so confident that Beethoven's seventh (which, just by the way, would not have been my pick to illustrate "best work") is better than his Wellington's Victory? I think we're still quite a long ways from answering that question.

[John F]

My observation about bias and prejudice was an attempt to account for why many people need words like beautiful and ugly to be descriptions. I think that if we can get past that need, then we will be ready to talk about value, what value means and to what extent it's a quality of the object, if it is.

That's a vain hope, since in both art and nature, the beautiful is so fundamental to human perception and responses to what we perceive, not least our assessment of value. If you don't believe that, just ask any car manufacturer, or car buyer - or any mathematician:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

It isn't just the artist, then, who claims that beauty and truth can be inseparable, or (in a Grecian urn) even the same thing.

So you can't just dismiss aesthetics as an important element of value, even if it might help your argument. That would amount to changing the subject. <ducking>

[some guy]

John, I'm not dismissing aesthetics at all. Or even the act of making value judgments.

I agree that

in both art and nature, the beautiful is ... fundamental to human perception and responses to what we perceive, not least our assessment of value.

What I see in discussions of this sort is a static notion of beauty substituted for a dynamic one. (And I think that talking about absolute terms and relative terms is a way to acknowledge the validity of the dynamic without having to give up the static.) Beauty does not describe a quality of the thing perceived. Beauty does not reside in the person perceiving. Beauty (the word "beauty") points to what happens when an object and a perceiver enter into a relationship. As does ugliness (the word "ugliness"). What I'd like to see is a discussion in which the truth is not a static "It's beautiful" (or, more commonly, "It's ugly") but "When I hear X, this is what happens today" (which leaves things open for X having a different effect tomorrow).

Here's an extreme example: I went for several decades not being able to listen to any Tchaikovsky, as Lance may recall me saying awhile back. Was Tchaikovsky for those decades suddenly ugly? Not a bit. For one, other people were happily listening to him during those years. And about three months ago, I discovered that I could listen to Tchaikovsky again. Did he suddenly become beautiful? Not a bit. There are still people who cannot abide him for any length of time.

[Carnivorous Sheep]

John, I'm not dismissing aesthetics at all. Or even the act of making value judgments.

I agree that

in both art and nature, the beautiful is ... fundamental to human perception and responses to what we perceive, not least our assessment of value.

What I see in discussions of this sort is a static notion of beauty substituted for a dynamic one. (And I think that talking about absolute terms and relative terms is a way to acknowledge the validity of the dynamic without having to give up the static.) Beauty does not describe a quality of the thing perceived. Beauty does not reside in the person perceiving. Beauty (the word "beauty") points to what happens when an object and a perceiver enter into a relationship. As does ugliness (the word "ugliness"). What I'd like to see is a discussion in which the truth is not a static "It's beautiful" (or, more commonly, "It's ugly") but "When I hear X, this is what happens today" (which leaves things open for X having a different effect tomorrow).

Here's an extreme example: I went for several decades not being able to listen to any Tchaikovsky, as Lance may recall me saying awhile back. Was Tchaikovsky for those decades suddenly ugly? Not a bit. For one, other people were happily listening to him during those years. And about three months ago, I discovered that I could listen to Tchaikovsky again. Did he suddenly become beautiful? Not a bit. There are still people who cannot abide him for any length of time.

If beauty does -not- reside in the perceiver (in terms of the thread, if it is not in the eye of the beholder), then it follows that either a) beauty does not exist; or b) beauty is inherent. I would wager that a, as far as we see, is untrue. Then we have to accept b, from which follows that beauty is inherent, and can be measured. So some pieces must be more "beautiful" than others.

How, then, do we judge it?

[absinthe]

Beauty is a construct, surely. It exists only in the experience of the "beholder" so it can only be judged by that beholder. There is no standard. Only consensus and that's a socio/cultural issue. It's one of these annoying problems of attempting to intellectualise experiential/mystical matters.