The canons of beauty will become more flexible and diverse, the fashion historian Olga Weinstein is convinced. This meets not only the humanistic imperative of our days “different identity – equal opportunities”, but also market requirements. And there is no such category as “objective attractiveness” at all.
Our consultants
Olga Weinstein – Doctor of Philological Sciences, author of the book “Dandy: Fashion, Literature, Life Life” (UFO, 2005), compiler of the collection “Fragrances and smells in culture” (UFO, 2003).
Psychologies: How the very concept of “physical beauty” arose?
Olga Weinstein: Initial ideas about beauty are related to functionality: the better a person is suitable for his purpose, the more beautiful. That is why, say, the archaic standard of female beauty is the image of a woman-mother: wide hips, big breasts, a convex stomach. However, the aesthetization of functional features is only one line in the process of forming ideas about beauty. The other is the aesthetization of various kinds of distinguishing signs marked the status of their
https://excellencegroupofcompanies.com/2023/12/05/lucky-jet-na-dengi-sekrety-i-algoritm-igry/
carrier: beads, tattoos, manners, clothes, etc.D. Initially, they also had utilitarian significance – they oriented in the social situation, but over time, signs corresponding to the high status began to be perceived as more beautiful. This is how orientation arises towards representatives of the elite as an ideal of beauty.
What other factors contribute to the formation of certain canons of beauty?
ABOUT. IN.: There are several theories on this score that converge in one thing: in history, two types of attractiveness always alternate: spiritual and painful (it can be called “Gothic”) and healthy, blooming and magnificent. The first is generally inherent in unstable eras – it is most clearly manifested in the aesthetics of the Middle Ages. The second is accompanied by more or less prosperous periods-for example, the 50s, when the world was restored after the Second World War. At the same time, it was noted that it is the life -affirming standard of beauty, along with the accompanying the fencing of the figure (primarily female), and in vivid times: this is due to the fact that such a “mundane” type is associated with sexuality and reproduction, and troubled eras requiresfaster reproduction of the population. This view is confirmed, in particular, by the period of the Napoleonic wars of the line of the XVIII-XIX centuries, when the so-called naga fashion flourished-tight-fitting tunics, deep neckline, open ankles. Despite the subsequent significant regression (crinolines, tourists, corsets, etc.D.), it is to this historical period that our ideas about female beauty as an expression of the individuality of its owner dates back.
And from what time can we talk about the “legalization” of the male body?
ABOUT. IN.: I would attribute this event to the last third of the 18th century, to the so -called era of pre -romantism, when the dandy appeared – secular modes who proclaimed the appearance of one of the main duties of an enlightened person and consolidated the fashion for a suit, emphasizing the natural anatomy of the male figure. By the way, pre-romanticism is generally the most important era: with her appearance, and the individuality as a whole, becomes something more than just a set of social identities-the appearance of a person for the first time becomes the metaphor of his spiritual world.
For many centuries, beauty has been associated with the idea of personal happiness. Why?
ABOUT. IN.: I would look for the roots of this phenomenon in mythological thinking. Beauty is a symbol of divinity, the marks of higher powers, something like a magical amulet that protects its carrier from dangers.
What is your forecast: how will our ideas about beauty will change in the near future?
ABOUT. IN.: In essence, there is no such category as “objective attractiveness”: beauty is nothing more than a certain setting of our vision, due to the historical and cultural background. Recently, it is this view of this phenomenon that has become more and more popular. Therefore, I am sure that beauty standards will become more diverse. This meets not only the humanistic imperative of our days: “Different identities are equal opportunities”, but also the market requirements. The current “fashion model” standards dates back to the 60s of the XX century, when the first generation has grown, capable of browing with their well-being-to emphasize that they are not due to necessity, but of their own free will. People who do not correspond to this aesthetic standard feel their own infringement: they doubt their well -being, it is more difficult for them to choose their clothes, and this is unprofitable for manufacturers. So the movement towards greater polymorphic in ideas about beauty is inevitable, and there are both moral and economic reasons for this.