'Symmetry,’ she said at last. ‘The golden ratio. Shapes that imitate nature. Complementary colours. Harmonising notes.’
I nodded, relieved that the
conversation was back on the rails again but knowing I’d have a hard time
forgiving myself for that slip.
‘Or in architecture, where you have
functional shapes,’ she went on. ‘Which are actually the same as shapes that
imitate nature. The hexagonal cells in a beehive. The beaver’s regulatory dam.
The fox’s network of tunnels. The woodpecker’s hole of a nest which becomes a
home for other birds. None of these are built to be beautiful, and yet they
are. A house that’s good to live in is beautiful. It’s actually as simple as
that.’
Symmetry, which is a geometric concept, is essential to define Beauty. Therefore, Beauty would be something objective, outward and superior to human beings. Pure Maths are this way somehow . This is something you can withhold from Nesbo´s text. All the attempts of breaking this harmony in Music, Painting, can’t help being a naughty childish behaviour. Not only is there the famous Golden Ratio named in the text but also there is another proportion in the Alhanmbra ,called Arabian by some people , which appears in most of the rectangles of this monument. Or, maybe, it´s just the opposite, who knows, and so Beauty is the quality most affected by subjectivity and full of prejudices , as it is said in this passage We were the Mulvaneys, by Joyce Carol Oates:
Of course, he knew beauty doesn't exist. He hadn't known then but he knew now. Beauty is a matter of perspective, subjectivity. Cultural prejudice. You require a human eye, a human brain, a human vocabulary. In nature, there's nothing.
Still, beauty gives comfort. Who knows
why?
No comments:
Post a Comment