So there it was in all its international “glory”: Super Bowl 2010, this year becoming the most-watched show in the whole of television history, broadcasting to the entire world a series of snapshots depicting Americans’ preferred pleasures and pastimes. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article(95 messages)
The more these dweebs try to look different, the more they all look the same.
John asked:
Just curious though, would a diamond stud on an earlobe also be ugly because it resembles a wart?
It would if the artist didn't add any fire to it. Why would he/she add fire to a diamond nose stud? What would that do, other than swell up her nose?
And if the symmetry is the issue, why not two piercings on either side of the nose?
Why, indeed, John? The point appears to be (because no one has offered an explanation as to the qualities of beauty it adds) an effort to distort one's natural symmetry as much as possible, not enhance it. Some have little surgically safe plastic ball bearings implanted under the skin that offer a strange bumpy ridge effect down the nose or across the brow. Other's have their teeth ground to points. Both are perfectly symmetrical, but oddly non-human. Is this merely arbitrary?
If you're saying what we do to ourselves is arbitrary, reflecting nothing epistemological, then you're really saying that one's view of self is also arbitrary. Looks never matter. We're all the same. No one's really any different than anyone else, so why even bother to look (or be) the best you can? "Best" is just arbitrary. There are no real standards when it comes to appearance. I could make up one eye, and leave the other bare. It's all arbitrary, and says nothing important about me at all. That's what I'm reading, but I don't think that's what you really mean.
Getting back to Aristophanes (#62): does anything in the dialog support this stage direction? A quick glance at the first several lines does not. Plays this old had only dialog (I believe this was the practice at least as late as Shakespeare), and any stage directions are a modern editor's or translator's or director's decision. Unless you can find a character saying this, you can't attribute it to Aristophanes.
>>>>Well Maria apparently it's also part of the military culture, even with highly intelligent college educated American special forces. And also a part of pop culture since so many young people have them. Weight-lifting is also a big part of prison culture, and I weight-lift. I don't think I'm comparable to a prison inmate, nor do I think any of these non-prison folk should be fairly linked to prison inmates because they may have tattoos too. <<<<
As I said before (#66), I have problems with growing criminalization of pop culture, rap music in particular. I think it is a part of (conscious or unconscious) brainwashing campaign.
In military culture, yes, tattoos are often used as symbol of belonging to some brotherhood, camaraderie or such, and it's not a problem.
BUT never, never they are a symbol of independent thinking.
Take this girl (your post #62), and imagine her grow older, very probably gaining some weight. The tattoo is not some crazy dress her mother disapproved - it' going to stay when she is 40 years old, 60, 80. Sorry, John, but no sinking person, no matter how young, will do anything like that to her back.
Getting back to Aristophanes (#62): does anything in the dialog support this stage direction? A quick glance at the first several lines does not. Plays this old had only dialog (I believe this was the practice at least as late as Shakespeare), and any stage directions are a modern editor's or translator's or director's decision. Unless you can find a character saying this, you can't attribute it to Aristophanes.
Peter I believe it's a direct translation, and the same I've seen from my copy from college (from Penguin Classics publisher I believe) There's also more instances of that joke within the play. Strepsiadis' son Pheidippides was portrayed as a no-good loser of a son. It was a comedy too, so I think it's within the context of what Aristophanes was trying to do.
But wouldn't you agree that some of the stuff we see is pretty ridiculous, unless you want to say that it doesn't matter esthetically what a person does to his or her body, that it's all radically subjective.
I do think it can get pretty ridiculous. I just don't know exactly where that line is. It's like that Supreme Court decision on what's offensive material "I just know it when I see it", which is why I'm hesitant to say a judgment like that can be objectively arrived at. I do think Steve makes some good points about the psychology of the person who does all those outlandish things to their body. But the small nose studs and the occasional tattoo as Steve says seems to be just current fashion trends.
I'm interested in the "objective beauty" theory, but not yet convinced.
Objective beauty seems a lot like dream psychology. In both cases there could be a strong and a weak claim, neither one being arbitrary, but one being subjective.
Weak claim: Your dreams have meaning, but the code would be almost unique to your individual history, associations, culture, view of the world, etc.
Strong claim: Dreams are encrypted by a code that is (largely) universal to all humans, by nature.
Remember, arbitrary is not the same as subjective.
Maria, please consider the nature of your sample versus the breadth of your claim. Tattoo's are commonly hidden. You probably know a few independent thinkers with tattoos.
I suppose I'm a little partial when it comes to body art and such. I don't wear any jewelry -- no neck chains, no bracelets, no rings or ear studs and, of course, no tattoos. It's not my style, but I don't object to these accoutrements when worn by others in a tasteful manner. Nor do I object to a tattoo or two, but man, having your body covered in tattoos is something else. Why? I mean it's not exactly a pleasant experience getting them, and as I say, they're permanent. I saw a guy in prison whose face was a complete mask of tattoos. Every square inch was covered by them.
Interestingly, my mother didn't even have her ears pierced. I guess it wasn't as popular when she was a young woman.
Take this girl (your post #62), and imagine her grow older, very probably gaining some weight. The tattoo is not some crazy dress her mother disapproved - it' going to stay when she is 40 years old, 60, 80.
What woman looks beautiful at age 80? A lack of tattoos aren't going to do a damn thing for their looks :)
Get used to getting ugly, it's going to happen (unless science....). If wrinkles and scars can be seen to show character, to suggest a noble story, then tattoos fit this aesthetic wonderfully, and with conscious selection.
I share Bill's sentiment about having tattoos personally. But this stems from either a fear of commitment or permanence (in my case) or a lack of self-knowledge. Neither are heroic traits.
While symmetry is generally favored for facial structure and other things, I doubt middle-parted-hair has never been universally favored. Observe also, the poses people make in full-bodied, sexy photos. Hardly ever are they facing the camera for maximum symmetry.
It seems symmetry cannot be the standard of beauty for everything. Mathematical harmony doesn't require it. Nose piercings (not rings), side parted hair, and tattoos can be damn sexy!
