'The MOLE' on 'The BEAUTY'...as AR described such

[John Dailey]

WARNING for nude-presentation avoiders (some would say 'hard-core'; I wouldn't; ntl...): skip this thread.

WARNING: this is a set of photos, not a set of paintings/sculptures/etc (aka O'ist 'art'.) Yet, my concern is as if these photos WERE 'paintings.'

WARNING: you may, if checking the URL, 'think twice' about what you had already thought re Rand's exemplifying the 'beautiful woman with a mole on her lip' painting as her example of...you fill in the rest.

[NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR: Link removed.]

~ For those with the...non-resentful fortitude to have checked such out, My 1st question is: "Is she, or isn't she?" 'beautiful?'

~ If not, is it 'because' of her lip-mole?

~ Further: is the mole 'irrelevent' to her beauty, or, 'important' to it?

LLAP

J:D

PS: Mike/Kat: if you delete this thread, np; I'll understand.

[Victor Pross]

John,

What mole? I wasn't looking? :turned:

Anyway, it was a cold sore that Rand was speaking of in her essay.

-Victor

p.s.

My god, my god, don't take this thread away!

[CNA]

I wasn't going to post to this thread but decided to post my opinion real quick. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of each individual and what they see as being beautiful. Is she beautiful to me, no, she's not. She's a pretty girl. But by no means worthy of the title Beautiful based on her looks. What I consider beautiful or my standards of beauty are a bit harsh. Each person has their own definition of what they consider beautiful.

As for the mole on her face, yes, it is a distraction and detracts. When looking at her face, that is the first thing your eyes are drawn to or at least for me it is. Would most men look at it, probably to an extent but would say no, it doesn't distract or detract. Being naked, men's eyes will be drawn to other areas of her body, especially the more revealing shots. But since I don't have the hormones of a man and thoughts of sex often as most men do and men being more receptive and turned on more easily, I can be a bit more objective. The picture is a bit decieving as there are other areas that will draw the eyes away from the face quickly. The picture that should be up is her clothed and perhaps only a head shot or a shot where you can see her upper body and face clearly. Then make the decision if it is a distraction or detracts from her "beauty" or not. For me, yes, it is a distraction and makes her less attractive.

Edited April 8, 2007 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

John, I was wondering if there is any general point you wished to convey with this post. If so, I am not sure of it. Still, I would like to offer a few thoughts regarding Rand’s essay of the beautiful women with the COLD SORE—not a mole.

I am well aware of Ayn Rand’s referring to a painting of a beautiful women and a cold sore in her quest to illustrate a point. She argued that a painting of this cold sore would evoke a more intense response than would the reality of a woman with a cold sore. “That minor affliction”, she argued, “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance” by virtue of being included in a painting.*(1.1)

The point of her argument is that particular details do assume greater significance in a work of art than they would possess in reality, because the viewer is aware that their presence is intentional, and that the artist must have considered them important, [“Art is selectivity”] and so Rand’s summery of this hypothetical painting is therefore negative. This painting expresses, Rand declares, that a women’s beauty and her efforts to achieve glamour (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar them at any moment and that this is reality’s mockery of human beings.*(1.2)

As a visual artist, I can appreciate this. When I paint, I don’t leave anything to chance, I am aware of everything I’m doing and why I include in a given painting what I do include—and exclude. With this in consideration, we come to the issue of an artist’s “sense of life” and the corresponding issue of “selectivity.” I have many thoughts regarding the Objectivist concept of a “sense of life” and “selectivity” and their ties to abstraction and concretes. I am apprehensive of the conception of a given viewer “knowing” what an artist’s sense of life may be. However, I am a strong advocate of the importance of “selectivity” (the over all idea of it) in art and the bridging of abstract themes to concretes. But before I continue on, I await to hear your thoughts.

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1) (p. 49)

Rand now returns to the question of

why

the painting of a beautiful woman with a cold sore would evoke a more intense response than would such a woman in reality. That minor affliction, she argues, engaging once again in exaggeration, “acquires a monstrous metaphysical significance by virtue of being included in a painting."

(1.2) (p. 49)

Rand's rhetoric aside, the principle of her argument is no doubt valid: particular details do assume greater significance in a work of art than they would possess in reality, because the viewer is at least subliminally aware that their presence is

intentional

, and that the artist must therefore have considered them important. It declares that a woman's beauty and her efforts to achieve glamor (the beautiful evening gown) are a futile illusion undercut by a seed of corruption which can mar and destroy them at any moment—that this is reality's mockery of man..."

OL extends its deepest apologies to Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Chris Grieb]

John; Victor is right. It was a beautiful woman with a cold sore that Miss Rand talked about. A mole is something permanent whereas a cold sore should go away.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Since discussion on this thread started, I merely removed the link to the porn site. Many of the photos were too focused on women in poses emphasizing shaved vaginas (spread-eagles, thrust out front, etc.) to be considered art.

This does not mean I find the nude female body inappropriate. I can even see how some people might consider some of those photos as art. But the preponderance of photos aimed exclusively at sexually exciting men (which is the real purpose of porn) by displaying frontal nudity in lewd poses and not glorifying the female body puts the site in the porn category in my book.

Also, I do not want to encourage this kind of thing on OL. We already have a huge problem with robot programs and spammers bombarding the site with porn, penis enlargement ads, etc., and it is a headache to remove them all the time (most people don't see them because we have been able to isolate where they mostly attack and moderated those areas.)

This discussion is a valid one, though.

1. Is a cultivated defect like a mole on an otherwise beautiful woman an aesthetic statement? (This used to be a French fad.)

2. Is a photograph, which obviously can be touched up, of a beautiful woman used for aesthetic enjoyment (or even porn), but includes a physical defect, an aesthetic statement?

3. By extension, is photography art?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I don't think that the question whether some blemish is temporary or permanent is that relevant, it isn't always an either-or question: particular blemishes may be temporary, but when they disappear new ones are formed, or the "temporary" may be a rather long period (warts, acne, etc.). Another question is what is an "essential" feature? Every face has some blemishes. In art and in photography we can remove them, but is the result really better than the original? I don't think so. I find few things as boring as those "perfect", smooth plastic doll faces without any blemish you see in glamour pictures. I prefer them warts and all. That's not only a question of skin: too perfect teeth have also something unnatural which I dislike. An irregular tooth or a slight squint can be very charming. A face that is too perfectly symmetric (like a doll's face) is lifeless and boring. Leave those "perfect" faces to Nazi art.

[Jonathan]

Will someone please post a link to the image in question which doesn't include the shaved 'ginas which MSK finds objectionable? Or send me a private message which includes the original link?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

There are several considerations, but one of them is not that I find shaved vaginas objectionable.

Probably the gravest consideration is that this site has been paid for by Kat and she has a daughter in her mid-teens who is a member of OL. Kat does not want to pay for porn for her daughter's consumption. That is fully her right.

There are other considerations. This is a philosophy site (albeit with a light side). It is more appropriate for aesthetics, sexuality, etc., to be discussed, not consumed, on this site.

Some members of our audience find porn to be an issue. Since it is not the primary purpose of the site, stubbornly insisting on it would not result in any of the purposes of the site while driving away valued members.

That's for starters.

btw and for the record - I personally do not find porn offensive. On the contrary, I directed the audio dubbing on several porn films back in my movie days and I did Portuguese subtitles for several porn videos. To me, it was simply free-lance work that was offered and I used it to pay my rent. Actually, the whole experience was educational and very amusing. I wouldn't want a career in this field and I would never perform sex for money like some of the people I met did, but I do not regret the work I did do. It even helped me learn technical issues—sort of like paid practicing.

In Brazil, when I did the dubbing, there were no professional dubbers in English to speak of. So we had to use the wives of American businessmen working in Brazil, English teachers, etc. You would be surprised at how many of them accepted an opportunity to do something like that, sort of reluctantly but not really, with the proviso that what was being dubbed would not be disclosed to their friends and family. Since these films would appear in the middle of large mainstream projects, it was easy to keep it quiet. Most all of the dubbers were working on the mainstream projects anyway. Also, the housewives in particular were usually up tight at the start, but once they loosened up, I am pretty jaded but some of them started making even me blush... The human race is a very curious species...

Michael

[Jonathan]

There are several considerations, but one of them is not that I find shaved vaginas objectionable...

Okay, I didn't word my post carefully enough. I didn't mean to imply anything about you, MSK. I simply wanted to ask if someone would post either a "clean" image for public consumption (one of just the woman's face) or a link to the site in a private message to me. I can appreciate that you and Kat would prefer not to have it on your site.

I've been sent the link, so, regarding John Dailey's questions:

My 1st question is: "Is she, or isn't she?" 'beautiful?'

Personally, I'd say that she's beautiful, and I think she's got the type of face that will look even better with age. (And, regarding her shorn regions, I'd prefer to paint her rather than Courbet's model for L'Origine du monde.)

~ If not, is it 'because' of her lip-mole?

~ Further: is the mole 'irrelevent' to her beauty, or, 'important' to it?

I think the mole is irrelevant. It's neither attactive to me nor revolting. Under the worst lighting conditions, it looks a little unappealing, but in better lighting it looks like a "beauty mark."

J

Edited April 9, 2007 by Jonathan

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ On hindsight, yes, you're probably correct...especially as you and Kat run the place; if I was 'out-of-bounds', really sorry (that is, if anyone, ignoring my WARNINGs were actually 'insulted', and not merely 'offended' [but, that's another thread].) I would have attempted to acquire only 1-3 photos and 'crop' them from waist up or even shoulders up, and uploaded such right into the post; however, I don't know how to do all that, regardless others showed me how.

~ When I ran across these photos all I could think of was Rand's ref and argument, and, photos-as-'art' arguments aside (think of them as a basis for a painting), I wondered at the very idea of the model AS a 'model' for either, as well as the meaning of 'beauty.'

HAPPY BUNNY DAY!

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 11, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

CNA:

~ Thought-provoking response. Re your last statements, yes, I covered that in my response to MSK. I absolutely should have 'thought twice' re considering other potential 'distractions.'

~ Ntl, my concern was how my point re Rand's point related to what was once called 'beauty marks' (and, many were artificial of course, historically going back to the aristocracy of the late middle ages). I've no doubt there were 'natural' ones such was patterned after, and such were no doubt 'moles'...somewhere on the face, usually, but, publicly noticeable. Now, 'mole', 'cold-sore', 'beauty mark', does such really, per se detract from 'beauty', or, is it because of its size being (as I thought, in the pix) Distracting? Make it smaller and it falls right in with some views of facial beauty not being hampered by 'boring' symmetry. (Until the past few decades, the face was considered totally symmetrical.)

~ You are correct though; only a female could be more 'objective' re this...post of mine.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ "What mole?" :ermm:

~ Re my 'general point', it consists of my original questions (which I thought of as being 'thought-provoking'...on hindsight, maybe not as much as the site's pix) plus what I explicated to CNA about the whole subject regarding when something appears to Distract-from vs Add-to a given subject, the latter regarded as 'beautiful', whether it be a cold-sore/mole/beauty-mark. Maybe I should've analogized for the subject re Angelina Jolie's 'eye-patch' in SKY CAPTAIN AND..., the baldness of Perseis Kambata in STAR TREK:TMP, or (were there any females with a noted 'scar' in movies?) maybe even Gerard Butler's scarred face in the movie-musical PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

~ But, I hadn't thought of this subject seeing them, until I had seen this set of pics.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 11, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Dragonfly:

~ Your point about the facial 'symmetry' is an aspect about what I was trying to include in this post, re how some see 'beauty' practically requiring some 'asymmetry' somewhere, especially in faces. (Gah, will I hereforeverafter think twice about introducing potential distractions!)

~ Your point about a 'blemish' (if such that I showed/questioned-about is to be regarded as such) being temporary or permanent is correctly on. Whichever, while there (disappearing naturally later, or, being surgically removed), it adds-to, detracts-from, or is actually ignorable.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ Re your question about 'selectivity' in art: I've lately argued in RoR (link upon request) that, as Rand argued, photos are merely a selective 're-arrangement' of items/objects (or a selective temporal-awaiting 'the-right-moment' for such), and, from my view, can be considered 'artistic', while yet, in toto, not 'art.' Like the Greek pottery with 'art' on the sides, in totality, it's not to be purely or even mainly 'contemplated'; ergo, it's not 'art.' In toto, they're not a 're-creation' (though part of such may be tacked on to it.)

~ Paintings (to iterate my argument) and statues, as music scores, use items (paint daubs, pen-marks, clay-globs, big-rocks, instrument-sounds) that when used themselves become unnoticeable as items, but are parts used to 're-create' an emergent gestalt which is 'THE' ITEM: the picture, the statue, the melody.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

MSK:

~ Re your pertinent last 3 questions:

1) "Is a cultivated defect [loaded term, there, MSK!]...and aesthetic statement?"

--- Your ref to the French fad (presumably 'beauty marks') shows that you know it once was. Part of my implied question re the pix was...is there such a thing as 'too much/too real' before such is properly interpretable in Rand's example?

2) "Is a photo...an aesthetic statement?" --- 'Defect' or not, 'touched up' or not, an aesthetic statement it always is, in my view; even by amateurs doing no more than 'memorable photos' for later personal nostalgia. "THIS is 'important' and worth remembering, as such" is what's going on here; a 'beauty'-of-the-natural-[non-'re-created'] moment, if you will. Now, as to it being 'art'? Of course not.

3) "By extension, is photography art?" --- I believe that I answered that in my last post to Vic.

LLAP

J:D