Philharmonic Rehearsal

On Thursday, November 19, the New York Philharmonic held an open rehearsal for their performance occurring the next week, on Tuesday the 24th. The high attendance, even of its practice session, speaks to the well-earned renown of the orchestra. The works, played in fragments, repeated and corrected and repeated, were beautifully played to the ear of a student with no musical education. For several hours, the orchestra performed slices of Liszt’s Les Préludes, Symphonic Poem No. 3, Elgar’s In the South, and selections from Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the rehearsal, particularly to the untrained ear, was the ability of the members to change so quickly. It was plenty surprising to watch them simply follow the music, as it rose and as it plunged with the seemingly capricious moods of three quite dead composers tugging the musicians bows and sending their fingers flying along their instruments. Working off each other, the relentless conductor, and the music, the musicians could rapidly alter their pace, from creeping to galloping through the notes, the volume, from whisper to great booming noise that bounded through the hall and against hundreds of ear drums, the mood, from melancholy, timid, sweet, to dark, foreboding, passionate, triumphant. In one moment, their instruments could evoke peace and nature, in another, violent uproar.

Almost as impressive as their collective path through the music was the way these many individuals, so human-seeming in their pedestrian dress, could pull together faster than iron filings on a magnet. Some older men wore tweed suits, brown shoes, wire-rimmed eyeglasses. One women on the right wore purple mary janes; a matching sweater was draped carelessly over her chair, from which it gradually slid to a puddle on the floor by intermission. Some hair was neat, some messy, pushed up, to the side. Make-up was undone, and the colors of everyday life splashed across the stage. Before the conductor arrived, the stage emitted so many different noises of instruments tuning and adjusting that the sound of all the papers rustling and chairs adjusting and greetings slipping between breaths were barely audible. But upon the raise of the conductor’s energetic hand, instruments were poised, hands steady and the entire stage near still. So quickly, these disparate elements of humanity, at first glance no different the average person on the subway, created awe-inspiring sound. The first moments of In the South seemed to lift a person’s heart, entrance their mind with some great and captivating landscape of sound. And the slightly chilling opening of Romeo at Juliet’s grave, before the thunderous landing of doom, seems to absorb the oxygen out of the air, leaving even the musically ignorant breathless.

Beauty and Biology

Beauty is a fascinating attribute due to its relativity; something “beautiful” to an ape would certainly not be considered beautiful by a human being. Even amongst humans, the term beauty can differ: an object may be considered beautiful by one human being, but not the other. Beauty can be linked to attractiveness. Scientists believe that our attractiveness to one another originates as an evolutionary predisposition to be attracted to those who are most able to produce healthy offspring. Common “attractive features,” such as a muscular body for a man, indicates healthiness and the ability to produce offspring, making women biologically attracted to this feature. Common “unattractive features,” such as large amounts of acne or skin lesions, place the individual’s health into question and cause people to not be attracted to these features.

A common psychological study dealing with beauty usually involves pictures of many different women shown to men (or vice versa). The men are then asked to determine which female in the pictures is the most beautiful. One of the pictures, however, will be a computer-generated woman consisting of the “average features” of all the other women. In other words, the computer will superimpose all the faces of the women and produce a composite photo of a female with the average traits of all the other women. The men will almost always pick this computer-generated photo for being the most attractive, proving that we find normality to be most appealing.

Beauty affects our judgment, although we may not realize it. Subconsciously, we feel more comfortable around “beautiful” people/objects and have a greater disposition to liking them more than “ugly” people/objects. We are essentially hard-wired to both reproduce and find the best suitable environment for ourselves. Because of this, a beautiful person or piece or artwork will instantly affect our judgment towards that person or artwork. Obviously, however, exceptions do exist, with people finding someone with “unattractive” traits to be beautiful and “ugly” pieces of artwork to be amazing. The trends described in this essay, however, refer to the majority of judgments made by people toward other humans and artwork based on their physical appearance.

The Beast

Herbert Spencer was not alone in his evaluation of George Eliot’s appearance. Henry James once reported that Eliot was “magnificently ugly – deliciously hideous.” His conclusion differed. He wrote, “Now in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a few minutes, steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end as I ended, in falling in love with her. Yes behold me literally in love with this great horse-faced bluestocking.” While looks indubitably matter for humans, and rarely go unnoticed, the standards of beauty are far from our sole measurement for judging other people or art. As James suggests, the very contradiction of beauty may occasionally fascinate, even entice us as much as beauty itself, though in a divergent fashion.

Often mixed with the concept of desirability, beauty can represent the apparent primary factor in choosing mates. In some ways, the more normal a person looks, the more beautiful they are considered. Features are not too large or small, or far apart or near together, or tilted up or down. People who look too different may seem as though they have more genetic divergence from the healthy population.  Symmetry, in particular, is considered an attractive feature, most likely because some genetic malformations and parasites contracted as a child may lead to asymmetrical appearance that broadcasts the poor health of an individual. Other attributes recognized as beautiful, such as lustrous hair, may indicate good nutrition, and a malnourished person is less likely to have a healthy child. Our innate goal is to reproduce our genes, and instinct demands that we seek the best possible chances for our offspring’s survival. By choosing to reproduce with a more symmetrical or beautiful person, we may increase these chances. Evolutionarily, beauty has a place.

Even on the purely physical, biological level, however, beauty is not the only indicator of good health and fitness for reproduction. Strength, agility, resistance to disease, and, in women, ratios of hip to waist size that suggest an ability to survive childbirth are also factors.

Beyond the biology, beauty has a place in society not only as a marker of evolutionary fitness, but also as a status symbol, characterized by different traits according to the community and culture. Further, these traits are sometimes distorted from or irrelevant to what most benefits our biological imperative to reproduce. Ornamentation, coloring of hair or skin, body modification (such as foot binding, neck stretching, piercing, or tattooing), and particular body weight, whether high or low, to indicate wealth. The focus on extremely thin, narrow-hipped women in our society is especially surprising because it so rarely indicates a body prepared for childbirth. This seeming contradiction exemplifies how our societies may fight our natures, and why the standards of beauty are various and imperfect measures. The fact that surgeries, cosmetics, and clothing may be used to make a person appear closer to his or her culture’s ideal lessens even more the usefulness of physical appearances as a measure of a person. Industries revolve our desperate attempt to alter or improve our appearances, and sink constantly changing standards into our minds about the way we should and should not look.

Although rooted in biology, our ideas of beauty are flawed, and our use of them more so. In modern society, many traits lessen the value of beauty in our judgments of others. Although some suggest that employers as well as peers like supposedly attractive people more, numerous qualities overcome beauty. Even in mates, humans must seek not only good physical qualities, but also emotional and mental strengths. Emotional attraction is not against our biological drive. We must expect mates to be capable of caring and providing for young, especially considering the extraordinary span of time humans spend raising offspring. Our species requires over a decade of care before reaching even the biological minimum of independence, which is reproductive age. In our society, the education required to survive and earn a living has children legally dependent on their parents until eighteen years of age, and, according to most professional and graduate schools, financially dependent for more than a decade after that. The persistence, intelligence, and loyalty necessary in a mate to support children become increasingly important as the time of dependence lengthens.

In professional relationships, the non-physical characteristics of a person are valued even more. The work ethic, intellect, and skill of a person are highly esteemed in complex, interdependent societies with specialized duties. Models may be expected to be thin and beautiful, but if someone has an amazing voice, artistic talent, or scientific knowledge and ingenuity, their appearances become nearly irrelevant in our evaluations. While something about George Eliot’s “deliciously hideous” face may have left Henry James “impressed, interested, and pleased,” he was most likely largely captivated with her as a writer. He reviewed many of her works, and considered her a literary genius, though, as all are, imperfect.

Eliot’s language was beautiful, often brilliant. But it was not, and did not portray all in a symmetrical, immediately appealing fashion. Like all good writers, Eliot utilized breaks with balance to make a point to her audience. In art, while the classically symmetrical and euphonious appeals to us, it is not all we seek. The ability to revolt an audience is perhaps as important as the ability to charm it. The asymmetrical composition of a photograph or painting may be used to throw the viewer off. The subject may be horrible or hideous – a remnant of war or disaster, and still inspire an audience. The apparently ugly is often as necessary for a work as the beautiful. In art, as in people, we are ever aware of beauty and its absence, but also of its inability to sustain us alone. When we forget the insufficiency of Beauty, she leaves us in the lurch. Without the dark, the painful, the ugly, our art is empty. Without a better, morally or intellectually based standard for others, our societies and lives wither. Without respect for ourselves as human beings, irrespective of subjective beauty, our energy and possibilities waste away.

Review of Meet the Artist #6:poetry

On November 5, 2009 I was exposed to an form of art that I am not typically fond of, have barely any experience in, and had no intention to follow/pursue. I attended Macaulay’s Meet the Artist #6: poetry readings. Beforehand, I want to establish that I do not intend to create a fixed idea of the poets, their fans, and those who attend, and that this is my opinion. With that said I can finally say that I found borderline distasteful. No, no, I found myself with angst to get out of there and drink my coffee and delicacies that were promised at the end of the session. I attended it with my girlfriend, and several mutual friends, and I can easily say that even she got nothing out of it. And she’s the English lover!

I love science, and history. I have always tended to shy away from English and the “exploration” of the language exactly because I hate when people ‘explore it’ exactly how I saw it ‘performed’ that evening. Don’t get me wrong, I have attended Poetry Slams and do enjoy the occasional Whitman and Tennyson; I am very open to such things because I do want to give it the chance, but the themes and language use that night befuddled me. I do not doubt the talent of these writers of fiction and poetry, but they were way too overrated Macaulay! The guests were Hermine Pinson, Natalie Diaz, Jamaal ‘Versiz’ May, and Khadijah Queen. Ms. Queens was a speaker and master of ceremonies for the occasion, and her poetry was among the many that truly stood out to me as awkward and not inspiring. Among all four of the speakers I found Mrs. Hermine Pinson’s work to be the most moving, natural, and effective. The others strived too hard to make their work be accepted by the audience. Mrs. Pinson was able to move many in the audience with her memorable poem dedicated to her mother who died in a fire when she was young, named ‘Song’. Her fluid voice and the incorporation of actually singing in the poem left me leaving there a bit happier knowing I listened to truly an admirable woman. Not surprisingly, she was the oldest of the four and did not need to ‘enforce’ her words. She was soft and fluid and the words themselves were able to affect the listeners.

The other three poets chose too sick and profound of topics to concentrate on in order to affect the listeners. They were more vocally trained to read their own poetry than have it read. I personally find this sad. I want to be able to know how to feel the intended emotions as I read it and not need for it to be read to me by the poet to understand. There technique was exactly that. They focused on topics that would inevitable ‘hit’ us in the face like in-depth details of war, rape, abuse, and/or a personal way to speak the poem, to make their effect on the audience. I do not attack any of their credentials and/or experience, but I did not enjoy it. It did take on a more modern aspect of poetry which fixes itself around ‘slams’ and rhythm in one’s voice, but even as a partial fan of that, I did not like it. It was the material that disheartened me. Mrs. Prine was definitely the savior at that meeting. If it were up to me, invite her back to the next one, not the others, or entirely change the event to something where REAL artists can come.

BEAUTY:eugenics, art, etc.

Many people believe in the phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. They can relate to it in a situation where there is discord among individuals over the beauty of something/someone. Beauty, however, is topic that is as simple as it is controversial. In genetic engineering, science is heading toward a direction where genetic beauty and perfection are synonymous. The bioethical matter that exists in creating a perfect human through genetic engineering simultaneously is creating a ‘beautiful’ human. In essence explaining what is beautiful and what is not, lies heavily on a premise that society lives off of human consensus and influences the generations to come, but able to evolve and be influenced over time.

There may be dispute over my statement in that beauty truly is innate and there is a biological aspect to it, but I am not fully disqualifying it. I introduce the topic of genetic engineering because genetic beauty applies to a variety of things. It affects both what is inside and outside the individual. The phenotype has to do with the physical aspect of an organism, and this can be seen as beautiful, but is it really genetically beautiful if the genotype has a recessive gene for an “unwanted” trait. Then it may not be ‘genetically’ perfect. And we can even go farther to say ‘yes’ genetic beauty has to do with symmetry in a karyotype, a lack of mutations, along with cells that are healthy and efficient based on their DNA. However, external beauty is subjective and based on the selection by scientists. This selection is influenced by a consensus on what phenotype this organism should display. Beauty is decided by the mass. It is almost like an election. Merely because more people voted for one candidate does not mean that the others are unfavorable and not liked. The term to look at is eugenics, and has to do with selective breeding to produce an organism with specific wanted traits.

There does exist instinct and how one responds to foreign objects. Even though we can say that society develops an image of beauty based on the media, etc., when it comes down to primitive human understanding beauty is simple. It brings joy to oneself. It is not something tangible but does affect receptors in the brain that associates beauty and pleasure. At this point human evolution it has made us so complex that it is harder to trace what one thing can be beautiful universally.

Beauty overall, is determined by the majority. It always has. It does have its individual subtleties, but as soon as a majority agrees on something beautiful it seems to become exactly that for many. This does not mean that nothing else is beautiful. It is open to influence by perhaps a future agreement on what is beautiful, and/or several ‘majorities’ can exist. Countries, or cultures, or towns can have a say on what is beautiful against other countries, cultures, or towns. In art, beauty can exist or not. It all depends on who is judging. Typically, a standard on what is beautiful is constantly set and then re-modified. It may be a cycle (just as the reemergence of neoclassicism) or just in the form of evolution. In all, beauty and art are held together by loose bonds that probably never will nothing more than loose bonds.

Beauty.

The word beauty in today’s society brings certain images to mind (I think we all know what these are). These images aren’t just what all of us think the word beautiful means, however. These images are influenced by so many factors, especially the media and pop culture. There is a certain point up to where biological factors and genetic makeup also affect our definition of beauty. Symmetry has always been a characteristic people look for, along with other general traits that most people as a whole can agree on being attractive.

There’s a point, however, where even if a person doesn’t meet these guidelines or doesn’t possess these traits, they can still be beautiful to you. This is where biology stops and emotions/experiences begin to factor in more. Personally, the more I begin to like a person’s personality, the more attractive they will be to me. Although, I’m sure we all subconsciously do follow some of the standards that have been set in society. I don’t think beauty is necessary in humans, but an attraction is. (If that makes sense.)

In terms of art, I think emotions and the ability to connect to the artist’s emotions/experiences matters more than plain biology and what we chemically find attractive. This is where beauty is more about content than what is physically there. Art forms and styles are constantly changing and it is impossible to define any criteria for what is beautiful in art. There are also so many art forms (what would be beautiful in dance as opposed to a painting? You could never have one set definition across the board) that a demand for a certain kind of beauty would be irrational and honestly, would take the fun out of art. Beauty is where you find it and to each person, a certain piece of art can be beautiful or it cannot.

Beautiology

The concept of beauty seems to hold a lot of importance in our society. We see “beautiful” people in our magazines, TV shows, and fashion runways. Either you have it or you don’t. And if you don’t have it, there are plenty of plastic surgeons ready to give it to you.

Our chemical makeup is the first to determine what we find attractive. DNA, genetics, pheromones; they have the first say in whether we dig the smell of strawberries or are turned off by the sounds of a coffee machine. They trigger a reaction in us, telling us what we do and don’t like.

But sooner or later, we become influenced by outside forces. This includes family, friends, and the media telling us what shirt looks pretty on us, what color we should wear to bring out our eyes, etc. Our natural instincts on what we deem beautiful run through a filter, or even fuse with the perceptions of others.

With art, beauty is optional. An artist’s creation is his or hers alone; what is aesthetically appealing to one may not do it for another. But to respect an artist’s creation for what it is is beautiful in itself. The same goes for humans. Beauty can never be a necessary component in a human being. Its abstract, and brown eyes and freckles may not be everyone’s cup of tea. But depending on how much you take into account others’ ideas of beauty with your own, freckles may not be so bad after all…

Beauty and Biology

Beauty is a unique perception for every individual. What is beautiful to one person can be completely hideous to another. So beauty is all a matter of taste, and each person determines his own idea of beauty in culture. However, certain ideas of beauty have been formed. There are set forms of aesthetics in our culture, such as thinness, hair color, facial symmetry, and other traits that society deems “beautiful.” But still, people’s ideas of beauty vary. I believe that we are determined biologically attracted to beautiful things, but each person’s hormones, endorphins, neurons, and stimuli are all different, so therefore although we biologically attracted to certain things, the attraction is different for everyone.

As we have discussed in class beauty is defined in many different ways. In art, aesthetics are definitely important for the initial attraction to an object, and sometimes it is is necessary for the art to have any appeal at all. But in other circumstances, if the art can speak for itself, and its meaning and intent are clear, then beauty is not always needed to make a point.

Beauty and Biology

All animals, including humans, seek symmetry and proportion in a mate. These qualities indicate a minimal number of genetic defects, and therefore a more “fit” genome. The more “fit” the genome, the better the quality of the eggs or sperm that the mate is able to offer. Symmetry, proportion, thick, shiny hair, long fingernails and eyelashes, and the ability to grow facial hair are cross-cultural indicators of good health. Humans naturally apply these factors of attraction to all objects, including works of art. Our intrinsic desire to produce offspring “fit” enough to propagate the human race lures us toward symmetry, proportion, and even shininess. These basic qualities therefore determine “beauty” and are a necessary component of art.