Beauty

The beauty is ,ironically, a very complex theme to talk about. how can we define what something is beatiful and what is not? for example, there´s Warhol famous Campbell painting, which is just a mere painting of a campbell can of soup. can this be considered art? can this be considered beatiful?

Another more extreme example of how can we define art is that in the medieval ages, being overweight was considered beatiful (this is proven in the painting by some artists) and being skinny was the ugliest thing ever in the existence of the planet. ¿is there something that can really be defined as "dogmatically beatiful"?

In my opinion, no. Human mind is way too influenced by external means that shape our definitions of some concepts. What we see today as beatiful might be tomorrow standard of uglyness.

Some people may argue that "dogmatically beatiful" things such as the sea, or a seashell, are beatiful because they arent created by man. In almost all cultures and periods these things have been considered as beatiful. However, Human mind can also be influenced to see these things as ugly. if we attach bad concepts to nature then we would consider it ugly. ¿But how can we consider these things ugly if nature gives us everything we need, and it seems so beatiful?

Im going to use the book Brave New World to exemplify this. This book main argument is a guess, in the form of science fiction, of what would happen to culture if people refused to think and just accepted what they were told to think. in the book, people are induced to hate nature by giving electric shocks whenever they smile or have pleasant thoughts when they are near nature. this process is repeated as many times as neccesary.

While this may be an extreme example, this exemplifies how we could be induced to think nature is bad and that solid grey buildings are the most beatiful form of art ever created. just my opinion.