Aesthetics and How Society Has Warped It:
Who benefits from appearances?
Why do we want to attract others?
For hundreds of millions of years, the Earth has been fostering life, constantly evolving for survival and reproduction. Humanity has studied most of the earthly phenomenon, yet we always stumble onto one aspect in nature that is mostly constant to our perception: Aestheticism. Nature uses visual appeals in order to attract, be it for sustenance, reproduction, or protection. However, we are the only ones that marvel at the unintentional allure of the world (and the outside) that surrounds us; so much so that we have corrupted it. We vainly destroy natural aesthetics without reason but flaunt that which is unattainable. But why do we do this? Who benefits from this? When did we corrupt it? What is the meaning behind natural and forced esthetics? Is life imitating art or is art imitating life?
First, we must comprehend what is the meaning of Aestheticism. This is the philosophical branch that converses and views objectively what is beauty to the human eye. It is mostly upheld when criticizing art. Impartially judging and evaluating what constitutes as refined and elegant. Mostly, in modern society, this philosophy is seen as pretentious for their strict definitions and rigorous classifications of artistry, gaining negative notoriety. Contrary to the definition, aesthetics can vary from person to person; as per nature’s function, everyone has a different taste in what is good for their pallet. From the words of Margaret Wolfe Hungerford: “It’s true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Here is where the perversion of the philosophy resides: humanities natural instinct to categorize, separate, and try to understand. But where do we even find beauty?
Beauty, although subjective, can be found anywhere that we can see. At times it is more nuanced with the perception of what is aesthetic; sometimes beauty is sightless and can only be felt through emotions, taste, auditory means, or scent. We understand that nature is the primary source of organic beauty with colorful species, intricate wildlife, and alluring designs. Some animal species utilize color and shapes to attract others in order to mate, and the most common example are of the aviary kind. While in the flora, plants do not have an innate reason for being colorful or exaggerated in design, yet the still excel with vivid hues and extraordinary forms. Outside of reproductive pairing, warding off predator, and evolutionary adaptation, nature has no desire for aesthetic purposes that feed the cathartic sentiments humans yearn for in beauty. But why is it we are the only ones that search for beauty where there could be none?
The adoration of what is considered beautiful can fall onto two categories: divine creation and gradual evolution. Divine creation pertains to the religious aspect that an omnipotent being designed the Earth, and in turn we must worship that creation. The other refers to the simplistic and symmetric growth of nature and how some aspects are rare or unique. The argumentations begin with how nature is too perfect to not be created by a higher being, and the counterargument that there is sufficient evidence that creatures and plants evolve through time. The reason as to why we adore symmetry and simplicity is merely subjective in form, and there are a variety of answers that factor in other variants into the equation. To ascertain a clear response, we must learn when did humanity corrupt aesthetics.
At what point in history did we become aware of what is beautiful and decided to replicate it? The earliest paintings are found in caves dating ~40,000 years, but that is not a sufficient answer. Hieroglyphs, although a method a communication, had aesthetically pleasing designs, yet it is still not a bastardization of beauty. Some would argue that beauty was corrupted the moment humanity started to paint life-like portraits of everything, immortalizing what was unique and making it live forever in a canvas. It is another characteristic of ours to preserve beauty as long as we can in order to admire it more. It is not just mono-aestheticism but often times a conjunction of various themes like a daunting dawn on a warm-morning spring, a conglomerate of stars adorning the night sky, or the feeling of capturing a moment no one else would be able to witness. This glorification of uniqueness throughout history is ever-changing, however, the modern times have had a greater impact.
With a rapid advancement in technology, it should not be surprising that we find a more accurate way of catching instances of beauty and aesthetics like picture and videos. However, the debate of whether beauty should be something to witness once or something that should be kept as a memento becomes more apparent. Moreover, this is yet the instance in which beauty and aestheticism is corrupted, for it is still a capture in the moment and not a bastardization of what it used to be. The real change in modern aestheticism is that particular action of changing something to elevate it above the desired level of beauty. Change as a concept in not the culprit but change as a means to corrupt what already was takes the blame.
We have gone so far that we have blurred the line between what is beautiful and what is our interpretation of beauty in relation to what others think. Social beings, like ourselves, have found that to socialize we must catch the attention of the other party. Surely enough, the usage of social aestheticism, masquerading as some sort of mob mentality, has definitely changed the natural look of beauty, and changed it to our advantage. This is the controversial dispute of aesthetics versus appearances.
We maintain appearances in order to feign aestheticism. Clothing, art, physical looks, and possessions fall under the umbrella of falsified or forced aestheticism. This means that we take the liberty of simulating the essence and perception of beauty to a collective standpoint as a way to present ourselves as superior and unique. Similar to nature, we acquire material possessions for vanity sake in order to astonish others of the same species. However, contrary to nature, we use any means possible to achieve this style of aestheticism: body modifications, luxurious and shining objects, exaggerated alterations to specific parts, and other adjustments; all in order to attract attention. This forceful way of attaining an aesthetic look is merely a desperate attempt to not acknowledge true aestheticism.
Wealth, fame, power, the basis to false aestheticism have form a type of culture in the modern era called the “Flex Culture”. Flexing, according to the youth and their ever-changing slang, is the act of showing off your wealth to others as a sign of dominance and power; much like the traditional definition, which is to show off the vigor in our muscles. This culture is notorious for their irritating flaunt of clothes, accessories, and lavish lifestyles. It has no inherent meaning other than to demonstrate that they possess more capital than regular people. This type of culture can be found more in capitalistic countries where you are the master of your own profits.
The glamourization of wealth is something only humans do, however, physical beauty is extremely common among other creatures. What separates us from them in the context of aestheticism is that we modify our structure, be it facial, superficial, or inner details in our bodies. This is typically called body dysmorphia, where the person does not feel comfortable in their own body. Nevertheless, there are extreme cases in which their appearances become unnatural, instances where breasts are too large to carry, intoxication from Botox, or muscle weakness when injecting copious amounts of steroids.
Philosophy is the main drive of this concept; therefore, we must also converse about mimesis and anti-mimesis. Mimesis refers to the artistic and philosophical perception that art imitates life in all its glory, mirroring the essence. To further explain the concept, there is a Socratic metaphor based on three beds: one bed exists as an idea made by a creator (Platonic ideal); one is made by a carpenter in imitation of the creator’s idea; and one is made by an artist in imitation of the carpenter's. While on the other hand, anti-mimesis is the opposite, life imitating art. There are plenty of examples, and many differ, but the best that applies to this case is Francis Charles McGrath’s quote: “Poets and painters have taught the loveliness of such effects...They did not exist till art had invented them.” This is in reference to some aspects of nature that no one thought to be beautiful until art made them.
Beauty is so corrupted that we have started to question whether art is imitating life or life imitating art. At some point we start referring paintings as an original source to something in nature and debating if there really is an origin to aestheticism. Perception is key when it comes to identifying what is reality and what is imagery in the context of art and aestheticism. However, one must acknowledge that as a species of consciousness and rationalization we create our own style of likings and desires, complicating the need to find a suitable answer.
Not so much as to corrupt the concept itself but the corruption of our perception of beauty. We prioritized beauty perceived through sight rather than other means in order to validate the existence of such material objectifications. We have forgotten what is in essence beauty and have constructed an imitation of the remnants of it. Beauty is supposed to be natural and original; once it’s corrupted it is no longer considered aesthetic.
In conclusion, Aestheticism being the philosophical artform of balancing the principals of beauty and artistry may or may not be corrupt in accordance with whom oversees it. It is merely a thing of perception that no one has ultimate authority over, but also a collective decision of the few to admire the essence of nature in its full glory. Although we have corrupted aestheticism, there is no turning back now; therefore, we must mold our perception to the warped version of aesthetics in order to appreciate a new form of it, still capturing the essence of beauty until the last visage.