Talk:Semiotics of Ideal Beauty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on June 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus) -- merge/redirect, rename, split are all possible options.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am curious what the other side of the argument. I nether agree, nor disagree. Just looking for a balanced viewpoint. Roodog2k 22:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • For instance, this seems to be very euro-centric. What about Asia, Africa? Roodog2k 14:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Editorialising

I have made a start and have constructed a general introduction to the topic. The original material remains untouched at this time. I will return tomorrow and write the original material into a more general application of the concepts now defined.

David91

  • So far, so good. But, the remainder of the article referencing the "white male" is the bit that really needs the POV cleanup. First, it is certainly an arguable point, and both sides should be expresses vis-a-vis Western European culture. Second, in China, white males had nothing to do with bound feet. I know that in Africa there is some tribe, where men dress-up in colorful makeup and dance to attract a woman. Saw it on National Geographic. So, I guess, in short, what would be interesting would be to do 1) Compare and contrast each side of the issue in Western Culture, 2) the same in other cultures, and 3) Look at Native American culture at the role of homosexuality, which was often considered shamanistic and carried its own unique gender role... Roodog2k 20:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I have completed the work

I have now wikified and hopefully clarified the original page and so have removed those two notices. The question remains as to whether I have eliminated the bias so I now leave it to the world to judge. All comments and corrections welcomed.

David91

  • Nice! I would say thats its now reasonably NPOV. Removing NPOV notice, if there are no objections.... Roodog2k 17:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racialisation?

This word seems to be nonexistent. At least not in any dictionary I can find. Perhaps the author meant something along the line of rationalism or - since it is in the context of racism - racialism? Please confirm. Istabraq

[edit] Definitions?

Représentation des différences entre les groupes humains comme dues à des facteurs biologiques, tels qu’ils sont définis ou supposés dans les doctrines raciales. La hiérarchie sociale ou les classes sociales peuvent être racialisées. La racialisation, qui biologise les interactions sociales, doit être distinguée de l’ethnicisation, qui érige certaines caractéristiques culturelles (langue, religion, mœurs) en attributs essentiels des groupes.

ra·cial·ise (r?'sh?-l?z') tr.v., -ised, -is·ing, -is·es. To differentiate or categorise according to race. To impose a racial character or context on. To perceive or experience in racial terms: “It is impossible to be an American and not racialise how you feel” (Cornell West). ra'cial·i·sa'tion (-l?-z?'sh?n) n.

Sadly, it is a relatively common word in my dictionaries. Sorry. -David91 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift answer. I'm curious: what dictionaries did you use? I tried the verb this time (had been looking for the noun only) and all I could find was the American version of the word (racialize) in -surprise- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition 2000 complete with the quote by Cornell West. All the printed dictionaries both at home and at university failed me and only one out of 16 online dictionaries used by www.onelook.com could help. So much for relatively common. But thanks, I learned something today. ;) --Istabraq 23:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The word is interesting as you might gather from my offering both a French and an English definition since the word not only has the same spelling but the same meaning in both languages. Frankly, as a word, I cannot say I like it that much. It is a relatively recent and, dare I say, faintly meretricious construct that has gained some popularity among postmodern academic writers. But, when pushed into shorthand for this 'pedia kind of writing, it gets the job done. Like most words that have been invented for technical or domain-limited uses, the specific coding of racial seems not to feature in generalised dictionaries. I confess that I had expected it to be in more on-line dictionaries. I apologise for implying that it was more widely defined. Perhaps this is one of those lacunae that Foucault would have been interested in. Are the editors of dictionaries censoring even the words that refer to abuses of power in the hope that the general discourse will proceed along in happy ignorance? -David91 06:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, interesting you mention lexicographic treatment of words dealing with abuse of power. The Oxford Dictionary makes repeated use of the word "right-wing" in the definition for "fascism," yet there is no such use in The American Heritage Dictionary. --Slac 04:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where did this article come from? May Recommend for Deletion

Where does the terminology "semiotics of ideal beauty" come from? A google search turns up only results from Wikipedia! Also, I am taking a Philosophy of Aesthetics course at the moment (while planning edits for the Aesthetics article and it links to) and I must say this article looks odd. I am also a reader of linguistics and "semiotics" and "beauty" do not seem like words that should go together. I may recommend this for deletion under the grounds that it looks like original work. --Slac 04:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original page was a precis of one section in Kim Hall's book — the term is a description of her work. Not unnaturally, this was thought to lack NPOV so I rewrote it (without renaming the page) to address the issue. When doing the rewrite, I tried to limit myself to ideas that have had common currency over the last fifty years. As far as I know, there is nothing particularly original about what ended up on this page (although you can flatter me all you like — at my age, it is no longer relevant). The idea that a semiotician cannot properly talk about beauty is odd, though. The criteria by which one attributes the label "beauty" must, by definition, depend on the presence or absence of signifiers thought to comprise the current paradigm. But, to address the point I think you are making, I also tend to agree that the title of the page is a bit heavy handed and somewhat esoteric. I raised this as an abstract problem on the policy page a while ago and was advised that I should consider retitling more often. Would you like to suggest a title and, if agreeable, we can move the page. Alternatively, we could consider merging the material into other relevant pages if you can argue the case for this not being acceptable as a stand-alone page. -David91 05:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

" The criteria by which one attributes the label "beauty" must, by definition, depend on the presence or absence of signifiers thought to comprise the current paradigm. " - No, I don't think so. You are either using a very unconventional dictionary or I am not understanding your statement. My Oxford says beauty is "a combination of qualities..." and my American Heritage says beauty is "the quality..." Nowhere do I see any necessity or even mention of signs, signifiers, or semiotics. Thank you for answering my question on the source, though, as it was somewhat ambiguous in the main article that Kim Hall's book made the topic a theme or simply mentioned things relating to it. I will look for it my next visit to the library. Regardless, a change will be necessary, since a search for this title on the internet should turn up something other than this article. I look forward to working with you, David. --Slac 20:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, wait, did you mean the definition of "criteria?" Where the criteria are enumerated using words (or other signs) and thus change as the words and their meanings change? The reason why I am confused is because whether or not there is a standard of beauty is not necessarily dependent on signs, but merely a reference. This is a basic question in Aesthetics and should first be described in that article, then with links to works like Hume's Of the Standard of Taste. (I am working on revamping the Aesthetics article as we speak). But the question of whether or not such a yardstick changes over time... is that the essence of this article? --Slac 21:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I regret to say that I rarely use a dictionary. The words came out of my head as do the following, so please forgive me if some of my meanings are not standard dictionary. Kant's great insight was to remove psychology from epistemology, arguing that knowledge is inevitably mediated by space, time and forms within our minds. He believed that reflective judgement determines whether something is or is not beautiful, excluding the idea of beauty as a determinate thing. So, "judgements" must have rationality, i.e. the audience forms hypotheses, tests by reference to evidence and reaches reasoned conclusions, thereby avoiding arbitrariness and this requires the audience to articulate a set of synthetic a priori propositions or criteria as to space and forms (albeit mediated over time) which can deliver a posteriori knowledge based on the contingent experience (which will include the evaluation of signifiers). etc. I am sorry that your dictionary definition of "beauty" does not address this great philosophical sweep of debate over the centuries. Beginning with the Platonic view that true beauty exists if a material form partly matches the ideal of beauty, travelling past Hume's dispositional analysis if you wish (which distinguishes beauty from our approval of it), we can come to the proposition that a work of art is, ipso facto, a materialisation of the artist's aesthetic analysis and judgement and, as such, it is just as much a proper target for semiotic analysis as any other signifier — an academic endeavour which has been proposed by several semioticians including Kim Hall.

I make no judgement at this time on whether the substance of the page "needs" revision. I saw a request for Wikification and acted, but I do not have any particular propietary interest in this work. So, if your concern is that Google (an arbiter of impeccable stature on matters of philosophy) does not hit these particular words (which is not that surprising since this is a fairly esoteric area of knowledge covered mainly in hard copy periodicals and books), I repeat my request for you to suggest a more appropriate title which the Google algorhythm band might sing along with. Inherent in this suggestion will be a view on what good is served by this knowledge. If you can argue a case that no public good is served, I will not oppose deletion. If you propose to merely to reedit it, that is your right as a member of this community. -David91 06:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, David. And, truly, thank you for your work that has gone into this article, for it has made me interested in the subject. You mentioned other thinkers in the field and how they relate to the topic, and that has helped me to understand what this article is about. After all, if there is only one author to draw upon for this topic, then the article is better categorized as a branch from articles about that author. If indeed it is a field, however, where there are many academics contributing, then we should be able to draw upon the work of many academics. "Semiotics of Ideal Beauty," if you will forgive me, sounds more like a chapter in a book than a field of academic analysis. "Semiotics of Beauty" sounds closer, perhaps. What do you think of the title, "Semiotic Aesthetics" ... is that an accurate description for this field? And, would you say that it is more of a branch of semiotics than of aesthetics? I am asking so that I can do research and contribute. --Slac 16:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The field, if such it be in its own right, is yet one more application of paradigmatic analysis which is one of the standard deconstruction methods used in semiotics. Most people began by applying it to texts but, in more recent years, it has been applied across a wider range of activities from art (including less obvious manifestations such as fashion photography) to psychology (dealing with cognition and interpretation systems) to areas like soft systems methodology where organisational culture is interrogated through metaphors. Hence, although Ms Hall's book may look novel, it is actually no more than a continuing strand of broadly-based academic activity. I would be not unhappy to retitle as "Semtiotics of Beauty" if that is your proposal. The reason for the original title is actually quite simple. The deconstruction is to determine the Kantian synthetic a priori propositions or the Platonic ideal applied in the 16th century by identifying the signifiers in the paintings. This would give us a potentially meaningful insight into the then contemporary metrication systems for assessing actual beauty and, in the antithetical sense, also allow inferences from the absence of certain signifiers as to how a person might be lowered in the public's estimation. The modern application would be to analyse the paparazzi photographs of "stars". What brands of clothing or accessories are for the nonce indelibly associated with stardom? With whom is the "star" photographed? Location? Body language? etc etc. For those that follow that part of culture, what is "in" is as ephemeral as the star seen with it. The names change (when I was young, the test was u and non-u) but the assessment process remains the same as it was in the 16th century and it is always by reference to the contemporary "ideal". I thought the original title sufficiently apt that I elected not to change it. If we retitle to the generality of semiotics as applied to beauty, you are inviting a lot of work to capture all its manifestations rather than maintaining the focus I had in mind for the page. But since I seem to have become the local Taraxippus, I will follow the general will on this. -David91 17:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your reply. Although I still have a basic question. Is this article a philosophical or semiotic one? Although the article says "semiotic," the opening paragraph describes a question that can also be asked in philosophy of beauty and various philosophers are mentioned. So, it seems to be a semiotic approach to answering a philosophical question. But the article does not say that. The same question can be analyzed in other philosophies aside from semiotics. However, the article makes many definitive statements saying that this is not so - that beauty necessarily relies on signs. These kinds of statements are fine for independent authors in papers and journals, but not for an encyclopedia. (Your own replies are also rife with these statements, but that is not contemptible, of course, because we are speaking personally). I do not assume malicious intent on your part, nor do I assume stupidity, because you are obviously knowledgable. Merely, I recognize that Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress and that there are things we need to fix, add, or jettison. This article needs to be clear that a particular person analyzed a particular something in a particular way and came to particular conclusions. It does not, and instead it reads as a primary work, as if the particular person wrote it. If this work is primarily from Kim Hall, regardless of whether or not she is continuing a strand of broad academic thinking, then Kim Hall is our primary focus. If Kim Hall is part of an academic movement the semiotic analysis of idea beauty, then we need to include the other movers and shakers as well. You seemed to say these others exists, what are their names so that I may look them up? --Slac 21:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to write a "simple" article that would be understood by someone without any detailed knowledge or understanding of the relevant academic fields. Being new to this game, I thought the point was to enable a naive user to peek over the wall and look into a broader pastures without being limited by a lot of jargon and abstruse explanations. Hence, it makes some assertions that would not be appropriate simply because it would take too long to explain (ironically, I'm currently struggling to distill a page of enormous rambling length on Adorno with similar problems). Then we arrive at an interesting assumption on your part: that philosophy and semiotics can and should be distinguished in some meaningfull way. Although it is convenient to place knowledge in appropriately marked boxes, that is not how it works in the real world. Take a statement referring to symmetry as an indicator of beauty. Are we talking about a philosophical ideal, an aesthetic judgement or a semiotic analysis of the signifiers (both present and absent)? Symmetry is also one of the practical yardsticks in rhetoric, but transposing any measure, method or tool between disciplines does not change its inherent nature. The problem I am struggling with here is that neither of us would have written this page from scratch. Whoever first put finger to keyboard wrote exclusively about Hall's work. I attempted to contextualise and respect the original author's intent. It seemed the just editorial approach. I hold no brief for Hall. I have not read any of her work and cannot offer an opinion on her league status. But from the first author's descrption, she is obviously in the field of deconstruction. This places her in a mainstream activity and although her POV may predispose a bias to focus on gender and ethnicity, one assumes some use of Critical Theory to reduce their influence in her own writing. So, it seems that the choice you are offering is: (a) refocus on Hall's contribution to human knowledge; or create an abstract discussion of the methodologies for deconstructing visual imagery, (which could include diverse source material from Lascaux, two dimensional. early perspective, impressionism, cubism and surrealism, and then modern photography/television/cinema) to decode culture — a major "interdisciplinary" undertaking that might be considered too long (or original) for Wikidom(?). I haven't been in an academic library for more than a decade. In any event, I doubt that Hall's work would be on the shelves in the local universities. So the first option rules me out if it is to be Hall-centric. The first two of 110,000 Google hits of "semiotic analysis of art" are http://www.newcastle.edu.au/discipline/fine-art/theory/analysis/semiotic.htm and http://homepage.newschool.edu/~quigleyt/vcs/semiotics.html. But they simply prove my irritating point that attempting to encapsulate this activity will be a major undertaking unless simplistic assertions are made, and random and not necessarily totally representative examples are picked. "Philosophical analysis of art" had more than 2m hits, "aesthetic analysis of art" only 1.1m hits. My apologies for answering at this length and then not giving you a few targeted sources. It is impossible to select unless you specify which aspect of the process you want to examine. If you want someone on Structuralism, try Levi-Srauss. Roland Barthes is good on general theory and the commutation test in particular. Or particular examples like Jim Kitses (1970): Horizons West. London: Secker & Warburg on cinematic iconography in the Western. And you should dip into Lacan and Saussure. My apologies. This is already a reading list without resolution. -David91 06:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Being new to this game, I thought the point was to enable a naive user to peek over the wall and look into a broader pastures without being limited by a lot of jargon and abstruse explanations. Actually, the goal of Wikipedia is stated like this: Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth. So, the jargon should be there by all means and explanations should be complete as can be, else we are sacrificing breadth and depth. Also, one of Wikipedia's main strengths is hot-linking. If a user does not understand a word or phrase, they can click on it (if it is linked) and immediately retrieve insight.
  • I attempted to contextualise and respect the original author's intent. No, you should never feel the need to do that. Wikipedia articles have no singular "first author." Chronologically, there may have been a person who wrote the first version, but that person has no more claim to the article than the second, third, or 307th. That person's intent must not be superior to those of yours or anyone else's. Don't worry about erasing, removing, or "breaking," an article. The data will always be there in the article history. (Unless, of course, if the article undergoes a vote for deletion). I know it sounds corny, but a key to preventing articles from being deleted to be bold in editing them.
  • ...a major "interdisciplinary" undertaking... Yes, that is part of what Wikipedia is. It is incredibly ambitious, astoundingly idealistic, really unfathomably... well, you get the picture. It can't be something that one person does. It's so huge that collaborative efforts must emerge, and that it must be done over time (truly an indefinite amount of time). Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia is a ridiculously massive undertaking, which is why people don't like it when problematic articles get in the way and make things messier than they possibly need to be.
Sorry, suddenly I am sounding like a Wiki posterboy. In truth I am somewhat new here myself, but I have been spending some time reading the guideline and policy pages, as well as other criticisms of Wikipedia around the internet, and I've just decided that it's an experiment that's worth the effort. The prospect of complete strangers of different ages, backgrounds, and timezones coordinating and working together on projects... it's almost scary, isn't it? Anyways, I hope I was of some help. --Slac 08:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then we arrive at an interesting assumption on your part: that philosophy and semiotics can and should be distinguished in some meaningfull way. Although it is convenient to place knowledge in appropriately marked boxes, that is not how it works in the real world. Take a statement referring to symmetry as an indicator of beauty. Are we talking about a philosophical ideal, an aesthetic judgement or a semiotic analysis of the signifiers (both present and absent)? Symmetry is also one of the practical yardsticks in rhetoric, but transposing any measure, method or tool between disciplines does not change its inherent nature. Heh, that's very sly of you. You appear to have just said that since philosophy relies on words, philosophy and semiotics are functionally the same discipline (in the real world, of course). Interesting assumption on your part. Who said the act of philosophizing requires the use of signifiers? --Slac 09:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"You appear to have just said that since philosophy relies on words, philosophy and semiotics are functionally the same discipline (in the real world, of course). Interesting assumption on your part. Who said the act of philosophizing requires the use of signifiers?" We may share similar traits of humour. So where do you suggest we go from here, kemo sabe?

Well, the vote for deletion page attracted the attention of Geogre, a Wikipedia administrator, and he has some thoughts I think we should consider. --Slac 00:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. As to the voting page, Geogre correctly diagnoses the style. My last thirty years of working life were as a lecturer, hoping to facilitate learning rather than operate a factory for selling qualifications. I've always been into synthesis which challenges the savoir/pouvoir tribes that want to build their intellectual empires by ring-fencing elements of knowledge. I'm with Hagel and others who think that no discipline of philosophy, aesthetics, semiotics, or any other labelled branch of expetise depends on methods peculiar to itself. That made/makes me a form of anarchist because I believe in metamethodology to select the most appropriate methodologies and/or their methods to interrogate any given concept rather than biasing the inquiry by prejudging/prescribing which methods to apply. So, in a full version of this topic, we would combine Plato (whose bias partially resides in his failure to confront his patriarchal society's dependence on slavery) with Hall's explicitly feminist analysis of the role of slaves in England, to produce an interesting dialectic. I wrote the short version. So, with tongue still firmly in cheek, does Slac want to take from the long spoon in this public forum mating ritual, or will Slac deny the dark side? -David91 10:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just slapped my forehead. This whole time I should've known you were a Hegelian. I must point out that I have not been offering an antithesis except to separate the already existing synthesis. Perhaps for the purposes of re-sythesis into various parts of an online encyclopedic reference volume. I choose the grey side, as paradoxically Hegelian that may sound. The key word was "reference," though. I have not read all of Wikipedia's policy pages, but I don't think synthesis is the mission. Opposite sides are presented together, alongside one another, but so is their disunity. Thank you for your guidance as well, and good luck in your future endeavors here and elsewhere. My university library's only mention of Kim is her essay in an anthology about Feminist interpretations of Kant. Although that might be interesting, I am beginning to think my ability to contribute to this particular topic is waning. --Slac 18:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of which prompts me to ask the question of etiquette: we have been engaging in a somewhat delicate fencing match to test each other's mettle, but in a public forum. While I no longer care about my reputation, is it appropriate to erase this exchange or to edit it down to bare essentials, or should it remain as a terrible warning to all those who contemplate bridging the great generational divide? Whatever you decide, this has been fun and I wish you well. -David91 19:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although our exchange was lengthy, it was certainly not wasteful. One more thing if I may teach you, my young apprentice, Wikpedia is always in flux. Even if one of us erased this entire talk page, someone else might revert the change and bring it back! Take care. --Slac 20:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stet With my lungs, I sound more like General Grievous. Long long, Prospero! -David91 21:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

"The Semiotics of Ideal Beauty asks whether there can ever be a single yardstick of beauty or whether what is recognised as beauty will be in continuous flux as each culture evolves and establishes new measures of social acceptability."

Uh, I'll go for option B. —Ashley Y 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revision

This page seems due for a major reduction in size, so I'm going to undertake it shortly; summaries of what semiotics, ideals, etc. are aren't really called for when we can just link to the pages themselves. Also the final half, which is the true meat of the article, is badly in need of wikifying – many paragraphs are without a single link, although there are some obvious ones.

The discussion above seems to indicate that this has been dumped here from a student paper. I tend to agree, and question whether this deserves a page of its own. Maybe after I'm done, someone would like to merge it into the a Beauty page. I say leave it standing on its own however, merging it would give it weight it doesn't deserve and removing it entirely would only lead to someone recreating it sooner or later.

I'm not saying the topic has no merit, simply that an phrase like "Semiotics of Ideal Beauty" seems to be an as-yet poorly defined mishmash of a very young (but for many increasingly intriguing) field of research and a universal idea that has been around forever and is going to stay that way, even if it eventually turns out that it's utterly subjective. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for essays on it, but also I think that this is the sort of thing that the community will never be able to root out completely and as such it's best to keep them in a holding pattern instead of wasting excessive energy eliminating them. --BlackAndy 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The revisions are done, and I removed a lot more than I expected. There was some good stuff in there, but most of the discussion of Kim Hall's book was on topics other than beauty (e.g. colonialism, race relations, etc.) and as such wasn't appropriate for the page.
I fully expect someone will restore the page before too long, but at least I tried.--BlackAndy 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)