Commodity and Beauty

The beauty in man and object-- paintings, lips, breasts, sculptures, muscles-- is systematized, I am beginning to think. I am beginning to think that beauty rarely exists in objects. The power is in the people. When an object is universally esteemed with beauty, it becomes capable of convincing people of its beauty solely by name, or canon. This phenomenon is imbued in culture. Culture conditions values for beauty. For instance:

Is this beautiful?

If Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was not universally esteemed, it quite literally would be less beautiful. What do you think?

Michelangelo's Creation of Adam

Is it beautiful?

 When something is exalted so much, when it becomes a commodity, an accessory. Its beauty becomes expected. It is no longer discovered but imposed. Michelangelo’s work is expected to be beautiful and most of the world has been convinced of it. 

Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon

Do you find this beautiful?

Muscular men have become accessories, expectations of beauty, not discovered, inspired beauty. Large breasts, light eyes, blond hair: expected, uninspired, and systematized, in most cases. 

Was her beauty discovered or sold? 

Or is she just a Campbell's Soup Can?

Look at her over, 

and over,

and over,

and over,

and over,

and over,

and over,

and over again.

I am attempting to ask: "What is beautiful?" And what have we been told to find beautiful. And for those that don't fit the canon for beautiful, where does it leave them?

Jen Davis/ photographer

What is real beauty?

                     

Who wants to be a Campbell's Soup Can? Who is envious?

So, should we feel bad for like what we do? Is it okay to continue to exalt and adore only our tastes, conditioned or not? Does this thinking leave other's out? Or is it just a nature, objective truth that some traits are ugly and some are beautiful? Where do you fall in the canon? Where do your children? What message are they receiving?

or