The swing away from 19th century attitudes to Beauty in Art was greatly assisted by the work of Clive Bell in the early 1900's with the concept of "Significant Form". An idea which interpreted "aesthetic" more in terms of it's original meaning, that is to say, as being something distinct from beauty. Significant form was the inherent and fundamental quality of any visual experience. The perception of beauty, as opposed to Significant Form or aesthetic value (which is increasingly, misrepresented as being simply a degree of beauty), was seen as a relativistic and conditioned response of the viewer. The work of Bell and colleague Roger Fry, with his writings on Narrative painting, laid the essential groundwork for much of Clement Greenberg's work in the 50's - including the "Formal qualities" (Colour, Shape and texture) and "Mimesis" (The mimicking of reality) - Although, neither Bell nor Fry were quite so vehement about their assertions.

Nevertheless, new "fashions" do influence the culture as a whole and some, eventually, percolate through to even the most stalwart of cultural redoubts. Truly innovative and inspired art has undoubtedly been born out the freedom that Aestheticism and then Modernism nurtured; and, equally so, a flood of more questionable work. The tides of change swept along and even abstract expressionism became old news as Post--modernism took this experiment off in yet other directions (Pop Art, the subject for another day).

Greenberg, who wrote about the “Crisis of cultural authority” might have been surprised to see his vision for Modernism realized far more effectively in the parallel world of fashion design; “authority” being embodied, as it is, in a de facto priesthood of fashion Élites. As with realism he may have asserted that fashions too presents a “distraction” from the underlying qualities defining “Art of Value”. The 'value' fashion designers are most concerned with is more likely monetary in nature, however, being wary of distractions in this world of 'beauty', glitz and glamour is probably sound advice generally.

We all have a vulnerability in this area and a real danger lies in the ease with which beauty can be subverted in order to promote some other agenda, particularly when skepticism (reason and rational) is suspended. Some heed should be taken, perhaps, of Proverbs (31:30): "Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain". In the 17th century the puritans shunned such influences for reasons along these lines and the philosphical community of today has it's own rational for dismissing beauty in art as "Kitch"; similarly, those motives too might well be questioned.

Having said this, Beauty in all its varied forms, is no longer linked to any set of values; rather, it seems dependent on the pronouncements of aesthetic “visionaries”. Ironically, although responsibility for defining beauty was ostensibly handed to the individual, in reality, it has been appropriated (in this case) by an industry intent on maintaining a certain position of privilege. As the seasons (read: business cycles) come and go, so too the trends, which are engineered to keep in step. As with art, real beauty should not be subject to fashion. Not surprisingly though, aesthetics in the post-modern era has come to be associated primarily with the world of runway models and the “industry” of beauty. The vagaries of fashion and beauty suit both industry and fashion élites alike

It is the subject of physical beauty that brings us to the heart of the matter - An objective basis for our collective experience of beauty. In discussing the human form we are also, inescapably, talking about nature; and it is to nature - yet another of Aestheticism's orphans - that we must look once again.

The Esthetes believed that nature was crude and lacking in design when compared to art - an idea expressed throughout history in both physical appearance and dress. Fashion is by no means a modern phenomenon; from body adornments and clothing to modifications of physical form and appearance, tanning, tattooing and body piercing - even scarring has recently made something of a comeback. In days gone by the binding of Feet and flattening foreheads also seemed like a good idea. Conversely, the avoidance of excessive sunshine and a plump well fed-appearance were practices which, though more healthy perhaps, were equally contrived; the natural form was then, as it is today, something to be modified and 'improved' upon. The manifestations of beauty most desired were engineered as far away as possibly from the natural state. Trends however, come and go, and always will because that which is man made is unavoidably subject to his caprices. Now of course, there is the additional reality that this is also good for business.

Beneath all of the "dressing" however, lies a universal basis for beauty; something that was recognized thousands of years ago. Vitruvian, the preeminent architect of ancient Greece, demonstrated this fundamental principle through his work. “Man is the measure of all things” he claimed; and, as the proportions of human form were an expression of some divine plan, these same proportions, as much as possible, should be incorporated into the spaces in which men live. This idea was elaborated upon by Leonardo DaVinci in his iconic image Vitruvian man, named in honour of Vitruvian; a representation of the fact that an idealized human form is not simply an arbitrary preference. Human form, like everything else in nature, has a specific underlying structure; in this case, a precise mathematical ratio. In the last piece I touched on Phi, that mysterious number .618 and here we see this same ratio at work. The human body and the human face both, conform to the same proportions that delineated the arrangement of leaves on the stem and seeds in the head of a sunflower; the formation of crystals, pine cones and pineapples.

Vitruvian man Da Vinci's iconic drawing is based on ratio's of the human form. Established by Vitruvian himself and applied in the design of the Acropolis and many other well known classical buildings.

The relative proportions of the human arm and hand. Each dimension is .618 +/- 1% of the adjoining section.

To look at the human hand, from the tip if the finger to the first knuckle is .618 of the length from the first knuckle to the second; and so on, as illustrated in the image above. proportions of the legs and torso also reveal this ratio: the entire body bisected at the navel, and the head relative to the shoulder, etc. So too, the human face is 'constructed' along these same lines. The overall proportions of the head: the eyes to the mouth to the chin, the length of the nose to the chin, the nose to the mouth to the chin. There are variances of course, and a few other ratios too, but it seems that the more closely a human face conforms to this pattern, the more "beautiful" this particular specimen/model will be. (continue reading)