Let's translate the above phrase to modern lingo...
Men, who have an understanding of beauty in order, tend -- in all they're organized activities/things -- to seek out order, and hardly ever try to design something chaotic: moreover we think others do the same. In other words, they (we) seek out order, and assume (this order) was intentional to whatever caused it, wherever we see it. We believe chaos (i.e not order) as always an assumption of the lack of orderly design. In contrast, if others have a different sense of beauty, or if they have no sense of it at all, chaos would be labeled as orderly.
So What is Hutcheson Saying about Art, or even Fashion?
Simple, there are two main points that señor Hutcheson makes in the said quote: 1) Humans have a common sense of beauty, in that it is found in order/design, 2) humans assume the order/design was intentional. As an artist, I see these points as important elements in one of the cornerstones of the industry; the concept of the construct of beauty.
Allow me to elaborate on the second point, first. Let's construct a scenario. Imagine a framed landscape painting of a mountain range hanging in a room, and three people from different areas of the world examining it: a Middle Easterner, an Asian, and a European. The painting was made to mimic it's subject, with the paint strokes realistically true to the model. What happens?... As they people examine the wilderness, immediately the elements of design (Texture, Space, Shape, Color, Tone, Line) begin to draw their eyes throughout the composition, and they make analytical observations of the piece. Either consciously or subconsciously, they'll find a sense of order (principles of art: Harmony, Unity, Movement, Balance, Contrast, Proportion, Pattern, and Rhythm) in the wilderness depicted. From this chaos of a painting, a design is understood, by the Asian, Middle Easterner, to be made there by the artist. Thus, there is beauty.
This then leads to the first point. Terms such as "good" or "bad" are based on human preference and have little to do with beauty, rather pre-experienced beauty effects this preference. The Middle Easterner may hate the mountain range depicted, favoring more his native desert oasis, but by no means can call the composition of the masterpiece horrendous. This can further be extended to abstract art, where the subject matter is not necessarily clear. Famous pieces like Picasso's "Three Musicians" (1921) may not be quickly understood, but the same elements and principles of design are still present -- and the world, as history will tell, has deemed his work to be beautiful. In short, design = beauty, and vise versa. The better the design, the more beautiful, but again "better" is based on preference.
So what does fashion have to do with this?
If beauty is a concept that is sensed by humans, order carved out of the chaos of things, then products of mankind, with intended design, are inherently beautiful. This includes today's modern fashion, that consist of anything from Miley Cyrus' teddy bear non-sense to the most covering arabic burka, from an adult actress' slingshot bikini to a nun's habit.
Hutcheson would say, that when properly examined, you might not like all of today's fashion but you'll find some order in the design -- you might be even able to call that odd plaid jerkin beautiful, in some sense or another.
Some links:
Cyrus' Teddy Bear Non-sense
Burka
(You'll have to find a Slingshot Bikini reference on your own)
Nun's Habit
Plaid Jerkin
Some links:
Cyrus' Teddy Bear Non-sense
Burka
(You'll have to find a Slingshot Bikini reference on your own)
Nun's Habit
Plaid Jerkin
Wow. This is an incredible entry. Seriously some professional quality blogging. I really liked how you were able to extract all the ideas about beauty and the human perception of beauty from the reading, and make examples to really illustrate what you were saying. And on top of that, the touch of humor and lightheartedness really tied it all together. You are an incredible writer.
ReplyDeleteSteven, I think that is a very faithful translation. And you hit upon a very crucial idea in Hutcheson, the notion that it is nothing in the object that is inherently beautiful. Rather, we have a sense of a certain type of order, and it is our ability to recognize that order and to see it as a product of a designer that fills us with beauty. I wonder, though, if Hutcheson would argue that it would have been possible for us to have a different sense of beauty--for example, to see more order in a pile of sticks thrown on the ground than one carefully laid against each other in a pattern. Certainly there are some circumstances in which the pile of sticks might be called beautiful, no? Is this simply because they are designed, and we see that design? does this mean that anything designed can be beautiful as long as we see it that way?
ReplyDeleteNatural beauty at first glance seems to be the paragon of Hutchesonian beauty, in that it shows the tendency toward regularity in the universe and our ability to recognize it. But I wonder if in another way modern or postmodern art is not more Hutchesonian? If we walk into a room, and see a cow split in half with blood everywhere, the first thing we will say is probably not: beautiful! But if we walk into a museum, and see the same cow split in half, but suspended in glass tanks instead, we are more inclined to say it is beautiful (see works of Damien Hirst for those of you who do not believe this is an actual strategy).
It seems like Hutcheson implies both things: that there is an objective standard of regularity, established by the deity, but also that we can design around this. I wonder: would Hutcheson consider something so irregular that no matter how much we designed it, it could never be beautiful? What would this require?