This is a very interesting question because I am not really sure how income effects people’s perception of beauty. But when I try to come to a conclusion, I think that in the end money corrupts people’s sense of what is beautiful. The more money people make, the more they are able to experience different parts of the world. But the things they experience are going to be sheltered. For example, they can spend the money to travel to a remote island to experience its beauty but they will also spend money to stay in a nice and classy hotel to look at nature and appreciate its beauty as opposed to hiking or camping in it. On the other hand, I feel that with little money, you can experience the true beauty of things because it is not consumed with the corruption of money. I can see the beauty of a dried up rose, where I feel that if I had a ton of money, I would not appreciate it and would probably go to the store to buy a new rose. I do believe that money has an effect on people’s perception of beauty. I think money corrupts people’s sense of beauty because they feel like they can buy beauty and than enjoy it instead of just experiencing the beauty in everyday things.
Although income may or may not be a great determinate of how people see beauty I think it can factor in sometimes. Mostly it seems when people have higher incomes they have more leisure time in which to experience and enjoy more things be it in nature or not. For example someone with a lot of leisure time may be able to dedicate a lot of time to bird watching or cloud identifying where as someone who has to work a lot may not. That being said,with a lower income the majority of a person's time is probably dedicated to working and making enough money to get buy so stopping to enjoy certain things may prove to be a bit more difficult. On another note, people with money may not appreciate some things that people with lower incomes do because what may be a luxury to some may be a normality to others. Lots of money also does not always entail lots of leisure time so perhaps the perception of beauty is simply up to the individual perceiving it.
The predetermined attitude of this question regarding the wealthy person’s perception of beauty is very much so a stereotype. Not all affluent people will have the same definition of beauty. Beauty is all in the eye of the beholder. Simply because someone has an income does not imply that their view of nature is different than someone who does not. All humans radiate individuality whether they try to or not. However, that being said, the way you are raised reflects your individuality. Whether you are poor or rich your perception of beauty is forever evolving.
I think a person with alot of excessive wealth can have a positive or negative impact on their perception of beauty depending on what they choose to do with their wealth. Beauty for rich person A may be a nice Jaguar car. Beauty for rich person B could be starting a charity organization in a 3rd world country or putting a continous and significant percentage of their wealth towards finding a cure for a fatal disease. Person B might find a more substancial and humanistic sense of beauty by seeing how their successes have impacted and helped others succeed. But that's not to completely disregard person A, since a Jaguar car is indeed something of beauty. But that is the difference- a jaguar is a 'thing' while the feeling or success of another because of your fiscal contributions is not a thing-rather it is a feeling, an emotion, a positive interaction and experience.
If you let wealth get to your head and lead an over the top extravagant life based on materialism, you are going to have no grasp on reality and therefore on beauty.
Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; people who are poor. Poor person A might never be able to focus on the beauty in their lives because they are so wrapped up in the materialistic qualities they dont have (like a Jaguar) that rich person A does posses. Poor person B, on the other hand, might indeed be aware that they dont have all the materialistic beauty but be able to appreciate all of the natural things that surround them in their world. They can look at the beautiful trees, ocean, clouds and appreciate them in a way that someone (rich person A) doesnt spend the time doing. In a way, poor person B might have a greater grasp on real beauty because they are distracted with such bogus materials. On the other hand, poor person B might have aspirations of helping a 3rd world country or giving to charities or their community but dont have the resources and means to do so like rich person b does.
Basically, in both examples, the "a' person is too wrapped up in other things to appreciate what is real and true beauty. While both 'b' examples seem to be able to attain a more natural and humanistic sense of beauty. There are positives and negatives in each scenario, which is important to keep in mind.
How can you say what people find beautiful and if their income effects it? I don’t always see the beauty in nature as some of the other students in class do. I don’t think the fact that I have to pay for school and some don’t matters. After Dillard wrote Pilgram at Tinker Creek and became wealthy from it, I highly doubt her view of nature has changed just because her income increased. My friends from back home, I all view as beautiful because they mean something to me. But I know that some aren’t the nicest people as others see them as ugly. People can find beauty in anything. Money might make people appreciate different types beauties but it doesn’t mean that a person with money incapable of seeing the same beauty a poor person has or vice versa. I believe that money has an effect on everything; if a dress is $10,000 it’s perceived as more beautiful then a similar dress that’s only $100. Because it is more expensive people give it more credit. I think society has a larger effect on what people perceive as beautiful then money does.
A person’s income does most likely influences ones perception of beauty. I will preface my opinion with the fact that there are exceptions to every stereotype. However, in general, a person’s perception of beauty can change depending on income and the socioeconomic class in which he or she was raised. Overall, a person with less income tends to accept and appreciate beauty in created, finished objects. In contrast, a person with higher income creates beauty for him or herself because he or she has the ability to adjust and modify objects in which he or she acquires. For example, a wealthy person has the option of purchasing a “mediocre” painting and modifying it to suit his or her needs by reframing it or re-matting it. A person with less income doesn’t have the means to adjust a painting and appreciates the beauty that it already has. Similarly, this theory can be applied to the natural environment. In my experience, a person who has money may look for the most beautiful plot of land, and then build within it and landscape however he or she wishes. A person from lesser means may search for house in a chosen, affordable area, but most likely will need to chose a house and accept it as is. It seems to me that this person will find natural beauty in what he or she has and not be as likely to try and change things.
I do not want to be the one to judge how income reflects the perception of beauty. I often wonder what it would be like to travel with an endless supply of money. I think about the places I could go and all the beautiful sunrises and sunsets I could enjoy in different cities around the world. On the other hand if that were the case I would not have enjoyed the beauty in my own back yard. I agree with what Jamie said, “I feel that with little money, you can experience the true beauty of things because it is not consumed with the corruption of money.” If I do not have sufficient funds to stay in a nice hotel then I am pretty limited to where I am going to sleep at night when I am out on the road. I enjoy camping and being outside as much as possible because there are so many things to see, there is not an option to sit indoors and watch the television. Spending more time outdoors means seeing things in nature, seeing the beautiful stars at night, hearing the birds sing beautiful songs, and enjoying the sparkling water running down the stream with the sunshine reflecting off the rocks. I am not trying to say that people with a lot of money do not see nature the way that I see it; I just feel that people who have a lot of money may not enjoy the simplicity and the beauty that nature brings. All in all I feel that people with a higher income may have a confined perception of beauty.
Beauty to some people is how nice things look or how expensive something is. So the ones who have higher income can spend it on the most luxurious and expensive things like cars, clothes, houses, etc. To them all of these are beautiful. But not beautiful in the same sense to someone with a lower income. Lets call the higher income person A and the lower income person B. Person B wouldn't see the same beauty in all of those things because they cant own them, they cant touch them. These are things that Person B cant afford. So instead Person B might see the beauty in his family, his surroundings because these are things that he can touch and hold. So income reflection on people's perception of beauty isn't that great, cause why Person A is enjoying his beautiful things, he is missing out on true beauty.
I think that money doesn’t make one thing less beautiful, but it can put emphasize on its beauty based on the circumstances the object is put. People like what’s beautiful; they like to portray it, buy it, preserve it, imitate it and create things that are considered beautiful. When it comes to possess something that is considered beautiful, like the tulip- during the Tulipmania that Pollan describes in the chapter about the Tulip (61-109); money is a factor because it influences our view of the object as beautiful in two ways- rareness or appreciation. When something is expensive- beyond someone’s income the object is like a rough diamond or the forbidden fruit- its inaccessibility adds to a mysterious, almost exotic beauty to it. Then it becomes something like a symbol of status, which is evident when we see exquisitely crafted and painted china dishes or glass sculptures in an old manor turned museum. We are drawn to things because they are unknown or strange to us, and if they are have a monetary access some people tend to impulsively buy them off to possess that thing that was strange to them- again, like what happened with the Tulip mania in Holland. An object can also be seen as beautiful from a monetary perspective based on effort to get it; like a doll is beautiful to a little girl of a low-income family; the girl finds the doll beautiful not because of the brand or the specific features; but because it represented the monetary sacrifice her parents made to give it to her; so it is also beautiful it is appreciated and taken good care of. so in perspective, money only enhances the different aspects or sides of an object's beauty.
9 comments:
This is a very interesting question because I am not really sure how income effects people’s perception of beauty. But when I try to come to a conclusion, I think that in the end money corrupts people’s sense of what is beautiful. The more money people make, the more they are able to experience different parts of the world. But the things they experience are going to be sheltered. For example, they can spend the money to travel to a remote island to experience its beauty but they will also spend money to stay in a nice and classy hotel to look at nature and appreciate its beauty as opposed to hiking or camping in it. On the other hand, I feel that with little money, you can experience the true beauty of things because it is not consumed with the corruption of money. I can see the beauty of a dried up rose, where I feel that if I had a ton of money, I would not appreciate it and would probably go to the store to buy a new rose. I do believe that money has an effect on people’s perception of beauty. I think money corrupts people’s sense of beauty because they feel like they can buy beauty and than enjoy it instead of just experiencing the beauty in everyday things.
Although income may or may not be a great determinate of how people see beauty I think it can factor in sometimes. Mostly it seems when people have higher incomes they have more leisure time in which to experience and enjoy more things be it in nature or not. For example someone with a lot of leisure time may be able to dedicate a lot of time to bird watching or cloud identifying where as someone who has to work a lot may not. That being said,with a lower income the majority of a person's time is probably dedicated to working and making enough money to get buy so stopping to enjoy certain things may prove to be a bit more difficult. On another note, people with money may not appreciate some things that people with lower incomes do because what may be a luxury to some may be a normality to others. Lots of money also does not always entail lots of leisure time so perhaps the perception of beauty is simply up to the individual perceiving it.
The predetermined attitude of this question regarding the wealthy person’s perception of beauty is very much so a stereotype. Not all affluent people will have the same definition of beauty. Beauty is all in the eye of the beholder. Simply because someone has an income does not imply that their view of nature is different than someone who does not. All humans radiate individuality whether they try to or not. However, that being said, the way you are raised reflects your individuality. Whether you are poor or rich your perception of beauty is forever evolving.
I think a person with alot of excessive wealth can have a positive or negative impact on their perception of beauty depending on what they choose to do with their wealth.
Beauty for rich person A may be a nice Jaguar car. Beauty for rich person B could be starting a charity organization in a 3rd world country or putting a continous and significant percentage of their wealth towards finding a cure for a fatal disease. Person B might find a more substancial and humanistic sense of beauty by seeing how their successes have impacted and helped others succeed. But that's not to completely disregard person A, since a Jaguar car is indeed something of beauty. But that is the difference- a jaguar is a 'thing' while the feeling or success of another because of your fiscal contributions is not a thing-rather it is a feeling, an emotion, a positive interaction and experience.
If you let wealth get to your head and lead an over the top extravagant life based on materialism, you are going to have no grasp on reality and therefore on beauty.
Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; people who are poor. Poor person A might never be able to focus on the beauty in their lives because they are so wrapped up in the materialistic qualities they dont have (like a Jaguar) that rich person A does posses. Poor person B, on the other hand, might indeed be aware that they dont have all the materialistic beauty but be able to appreciate all of the natural things that surround them in their world. They can look at the beautiful trees, ocean, clouds and appreciate them in a way that someone (rich person A) doesnt spend the time doing. In a way, poor person B might have a greater grasp on real beauty because they are distracted with such bogus materials. On the other hand, poor person B might have aspirations of helping a 3rd world country or giving to charities or their community but dont have the resources and means to do so like rich person b does.
Basically, in both examples, the "a' person is too wrapped up in other things to appreciate what is real and true beauty.
While both 'b' examples seem to be able to attain a more natural and humanistic sense of beauty.
There are positives and negatives in each scenario, which is important to keep in mind.
How can you say what people find beautiful and if their income effects it? I don’t always see the beauty in nature as some of the other students in class do. I don’t think the fact that I have to pay for school and some don’t matters. After Dillard wrote Pilgram at Tinker Creek and became wealthy from it, I highly doubt her view of nature has changed just because her income increased. My friends from back home, I all view as beautiful because they mean something to me. But I know that some aren’t the nicest people as others see them as ugly. People can find beauty in anything. Money might make people appreciate different types beauties but it doesn’t mean that a person with money incapable of seeing the same beauty a poor person has or vice versa. I believe that money has an effect on everything; if a dress is $10,000 it’s perceived as more beautiful then a similar dress that’s only $100. Because it is more expensive people give it more credit. I think society has a larger effect on what people perceive as beautiful then money does.
A person’s income does most likely influences ones perception of beauty. I will preface my opinion with the fact that there are exceptions to every stereotype. However, in general, a person’s perception of beauty can change depending on income and the socioeconomic class in which he or she was raised. Overall, a person with less income tends to accept and appreciate beauty in created, finished objects. In contrast, a person with higher income creates beauty for him or herself because he or she has the ability to adjust and modify objects in which he or she acquires. For example, a wealthy person has the option of purchasing a “mediocre” painting and modifying it to suit his or her needs by reframing it or re-matting it. A person with less income doesn’t have the means to adjust a painting and appreciates the beauty that it already has. Similarly, this theory can be applied to the natural environment. In my experience, a person who has money may look for the most beautiful plot of land, and then build within it and landscape however he or she wishes. A person from lesser means may search for house in a chosen, affordable area, but most likely will need to chose a house and accept it as is. It seems to me that this person will find natural beauty in what he or she has and not be as likely to try and change things.
I do not want to be the one to judge how income reflects the perception of beauty. I often wonder what it would be like to travel with an endless supply of money. I think about the places I could go and all the beautiful sunrises and sunsets I could enjoy in different cities around the world. On the other hand if that were the case I would not have enjoyed the beauty in my own back yard. I agree with what Jamie said, “I feel that with little money, you can experience the true beauty of things because it is not consumed with the corruption of money.” If I do not have sufficient funds to stay in a nice hotel then I am pretty limited to where I am going to sleep at night when I am out on the road. I enjoy camping and being outside as much as possible because there are so many things to see, there is not an option to sit indoors and watch the television.
Spending more time outdoors means seeing things in nature, seeing the beautiful stars at night, hearing the birds sing beautiful songs, and enjoying the sparkling water running down the stream with the sunshine reflecting off the rocks. I am not trying to say that people with a lot of money do not see nature the way that I see it; I just feel that people who have a lot of money may not enjoy the simplicity and the beauty that nature brings. All in all I feel that people with a higher income may have a confined perception of beauty.
Beauty to some people is how nice things look or how expensive something is. So the ones who have higher income can spend it on the most luxurious and expensive things like cars, clothes, houses, etc. To them all of these are beautiful. But not beautiful in the same sense to someone with a lower income. Lets call the higher income person A and the lower income person B. Person B wouldn't see the same beauty in all of those things because they cant own them, they cant touch them. These are things that Person B cant afford. So instead Person B might see the beauty in his family, his surroundings because these are things that he can touch and hold. So income reflection on people's perception of beauty isn't that great, cause why Person A is enjoying his beautiful things, he is missing out on true beauty.
I think that money doesn’t make one thing less beautiful, but it can put emphasize on its beauty based on the circumstances the object is put. People like what’s beautiful; they like to portray it, buy it, preserve it, imitate it and create things that are considered beautiful. When it comes to possess something that is considered beautiful, like the tulip- during the Tulipmania that Pollan describes in the chapter about the Tulip (61-109); money is a factor because it influences our view of the object as beautiful in two ways- rareness or appreciation. When something is expensive- beyond someone’s income the object is like a rough diamond or the forbidden fruit- its inaccessibility adds to a mysterious, almost exotic beauty to it. Then it becomes something like a symbol of status, which is evident when we see exquisitely crafted and painted china dishes or glass sculptures in an old manor turned museum. We are drawn to things because they are unknown or strange to us, and if they are have a monetary access some people tend to impulsively buy them off to possess that thing that was strange to them- again, like what happened with the Tulip mania in Holland. An object can also be seen as beautiful from a monetary perspective based on effort to get it; like a doll is beautiful to a little girl of a low-income family; the girl finds the doll beautiful not because of the brand or the specific features; but because it represented the monetary sacrifice her parents made to give it to her; so it is also beautiful it is appreciated and taken good care of.
so in perspective, money only enhances the different aspects or sides of an object's beauty.
Post a Comment