Aristotle and Plato have disagreed on the definition of beauty. But in general, they agree that it is a combination of qualities that provide pleasure to the senses. However, there is a great deal of variation in what is considered beautiful, and the term is often associated with something more mundane than aesthetics.
In the early twentieth century, the concept of beauty was associated with capitalism, and it became a subject of moral and political critique. The concept is important in politics because it is central to a range of concrete dimensions of oppression. Beauty has been criticized for its association with wealth and hedonism, and for its relationship with gender, race and class. During the last two decades, social justice movements have attempted to address this issue. Despite this, the political associations of beauty have still not been accounted for in modern philosophy.
One of the earliest treatments of beauty was in the form of a mathematical ratio, and the classic conception of beauty consists of symmetry. Symmetry is considered the beauty of a whole towards its parts. When a piece of architecture is constructed in a symmetrical manner, the result is an attractive structure. It is also the basis for ancient Greek architecture.
Another treatment of beauty is the creation of a mathematical formula to boil the essence of an object into a model. This is the rational version of the old “oh, it’s beautiful!” adage. Of course, when a building is built in a brutally exploitative fashion, the austere formalism of classical conceptions of beauty is largely irrelevant.
Some hedonists argue that beauty is the experience of pleasure. They see the connection between pleasure and beauty in the idea of ‘love’. For instance, in the Renaissance era, plumpness was regarded as a sign of wealth. By the middle of the century, the idea of beauty had become more associated with romance than with practicality.
The ecstatic neo-Platonism of Plotinus includes the aforementioned fact, along with a number of other related matters. Specifically, he defines beauty as a form of delight and wonder. Also, he notes that beauty calls out the ‘famous’ to everyone.
The ecstatic neo-Platonism also mentions a number of other related phenomena, such as love and delicious trouble. These are not to be confused with the aforementioned ‘big’ and’stupidum’.
While the ecstatic neo-Platonism is a fascinating account of the aesthetic, there are some lingering doubts about the usefulness of its various elements. Especially, the concept of love and the “famous” may be overstated.
There is a growing body of evidence that the “big” is not actually the big as it is claimed, and the “famous” may be an overstated measure of a small feat. As a result, the simplest ‘famous’ is not really the most impressive.
Although the ‘big’ might be a small matter, the’mimic’ is a big thing. For example, if a cubist painting of a woman is the same size as the same woman painted by a cubist artist, it is not the same woman, but a composite image.