Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bethberry
You are quite right that certain images of beauty are shoved down our throats via the mass media. But what has changed is that we are not culturally dependent upon one image, one form, one source any more, much as Madison Avenue or Hollywood would have us believe. There really is a wider appreciation (at least in my culture) of a variety of forms of beauty. IQ tests no longer have questions based upon prioritizing one form (white) over another (Amerind or Black), just as art no longer has to be "modern" in order to make it into art galleries and just as music has its alternative genres, even in country music! Cultural Studies has widened our concept of possibilities, as has Multi-culturalism. At least here.
|
I think certainly for those who are culturally educated (for want of a better term) that this would hold true, but even if there are different ideals to choose from, there are still dominant ideals. And it takes a brave person to fly in the face of those; certainly for actresses, they are expected to conform to an ideal, witness what happened to Julia Roberts a few years ago when she went out with au naturel body hair! I think the difference now is that we are more aware of the pressures to conform, and aware of the sometimes sinister meanings behind cultural messages being forced upon us via seemingly innocent ideals of fashion.
I certainly appreciate that in terms of music and art in particular the idea of beauty has been turned on its head. Much of what we now enjoy is nothing short of brutalist, and art and music are all the better for it. Sometimes something more visceral makes us
think.
But in terms of fashion and beauty the ideal is still incredibly narrow.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bethberry
And, in fact, I think one reason why so many do traipse around your ruins is that in North America we tend not to have so many--and those we do have don't go back two thousand years!
|
Hmm, many of those traipsing around our ruins (which aren't necessarily ruins
) are British people. When Prince Charles made his famous statement about modern architecture reminding him of 'carbuncles' the majority agreed with his statements. Alas much of the beauty in British architecture comprises of the seemingly 'low', the terraced street, the dry stone wall, the 19th century artisans' workshop, things that aren't protected. The 'ruins' are safe, it's the ordinary but charming that goes.
And I do think Tolkien admired the ordinary yet attractive features of our landscape. The Shire is quite 'ordinary', which is why it is so sad that it is almost destroyed. That Tolkien had little pleasures such as a 'favourite tree' rather than a favourite mansion sums his idea up.