What We're Missing When We Love and Acquire What is Beautiful

Beauty is insidious. There is an almost impossible to arrest and nearly imperceptible shift that takes place in the gap between appreciation and acquisitiveness. Once spied, beauty is hardly left alone on shelf in the store, in the images of a foreign land, in the lines of the body and curve of a face that one admires. Even of books, we say we “devour” them if we like them. We want to possess the beauty we see. I may have a perfectly sublime set of dishes at home, clear crystal, but when I happen upon a completely gorgeous set of tea cups -- white porcelain with gold metal accents—or a new innovative and specialized gadget that at once clutters and complicates cleaning yet makes my job of slicing, dicing, blending, or concocting just that much easier, I am tempted.

If a person has disposable income to any extent, the impulse soon translates into a purchase. Why oughtn’t I to buy such and such if I can just reach out or click and it is mine? The failure to question minimizes the already miniscule window between appreciation of beauty and the possession of it. The (relatively) rich may therefore morph these two to such a degree that appreciation becomes only the motive to acquire. Beauty in-itself is lost. Those who are unable to purchase at every whim yet observe that there are plenty in the world who can and do, may develop a serious case of envy. Then the desire and the lack in their lives becomes the focus, or else if they are particularly perseverant individuals, the desire and the ambition to resolve it in purchases becomes a goal. Such is the quest to become wealthy.

The closing of the gap between appreciation of beauty and acquisition of it is particularly problematic when it concerns the beauty of human beings. To desire to possess a person teeters on disregard for their humanity, and to desire to look like the person – if only I had her body, his muscles, her hair color, to just have his hair! – oh then! Then, what? Then I would be, if not happy, satisfied. Maybe not completely, but for a moment the focus on the desire fades and there is relief from wanting. Relief from wanting is a type of happiness, and it is peace. But the peace only lasts as long as there is no other desire to acquire that takes its place. And it often lasts no more than a few moments.

What then is the solution? Is it wrong to want to possess something beautiful? To hang an inspiring painting on your wall, to dress as if you’re a Hollywood star, to get that second set of electronics or dishes, or whatnot? To what degree it’s wrong is something worthy of analysis but not my focus here. My focus here is rather on what we lose when we lose that almost imperceptibly tiny gap between the appreciation of beauty and possession of it. For beauty surely shines bright in itself, regardless of who is in possession of it, because in some sense, whoever sees something beautiful, participates in it for the time that they are in adoration of it, rather than possessing it. We become more beautiful ourselves by lingering on the appreciation without thought to the possession of it. We become freer and stronger, as well. The easiest way to experience this shift, in my experience, is to become the wholehearted creator of beauty that is not yours. So throw yourself into making something. It could be anything at all -- a picture slideshow for a friend, a craft with your kids, a sandcastle or a gardening project. Choose to create and give to see the wonderful shift that occurs when wanting is waning and beauty in-itself is joy.

 

The Philosophical Questions:

What is beauty? To what extent are we missing out when we become possessors of or desirous of beautiful objects? Where is the line between necessity and frivolity? To what extent do our characters suffer when we indulge? Does the creation of beauty free us from acquisitive desire? Do we dehumanize others and ourselves when we want to possess someone or become like someone else?  

Animal Print: Sexy She-Power or She-Degrades-Herself?

When I was about six years old (back in 1984) there was a woman in my apartment complex who would wear a leopard-print swimsuit to the pool. My mom told us that it was gaudy and degrading for a woman to wear animal print, and I believed her. There was something trashy about the look; it was overtly sexual, uncool and unfeminist. It reeked of trying too hard to get (particularly male) attention.
(Yes, I was six and thinking through such issues. I didn't like dolls or the color pink, either, because, by golly, I was a feminist and a rebel.) So when animal prints slowly came into fashion in the late 2000s, I had a hard time shaking that feeling that they were degrading and inappropriate. It's now almost 2014 and animal print has proven its staying power in popular fashion over the past five years or so. What's more, it's featured prominently in clothing for little girls.

If you think that animal print is sexy, you might make one of two judgements. (1) Our society has become more accepting of sexual expression, and the stigma behind overt sexuality as unacceptable is outdated. Now women can freely express themselves, embracing their power, both as feminine and sexual creatures. (2) Our society has become oversexed to the point where it has become publicly acceptable that fashion degrades women and reduces them to nothing more than sexual objects. Animal prints that make women look like cats or bunnies or other creatures dehumanizes them and turns them into a playmate for those who exercise power over women. Society hasn't "accepted" women's sexuality so much as it has attempted to make them feel that if they do not become sexual enough, for the enjoyment of men or society at large, that they will be worthless. And then there is a third option which divorces animal prints from sexuality. (3) Animal prints are no longer seen as sexual. Leopard, snakeskin, and other prints which used to carry a sexual edge to them are now no more enticing than other prints, and that renders them at least as harmless as other prints, such as hearts, stars and polka dots.

For me, the only animal prints I've been able to wear have been those that are extremely colorful and rather abstract. I have exactly four pieces of clothing that feature animal prints. Shoes and bags are another issue; snakeskin printed accessories are tres chic in my opinion. (Of the animal prints, I feel snakeskin is probably the least oversexed and the most classy.)  Interestingly, the Dolce and Gabbana label has been using animal prints in clothing since the 1930s and their style has always been that of an ultra-sexy sophisticate. 

The Clothing and Fashion Encyclopedia notes that animal prints have been seen at both ends of the extreme and that animal prints are thought to evoke the characteristics of the animal represented. "Their reputation ranges from classic and sophisticated in high fashion to cheap and trashy in popular fashion. Mainstream fashion articles have suggested that wearers limit animal prints to accents to avoid sending an overly suggestive message." In the images below, you'll see the gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor in an animal print swimsuit shot in 1954 and Nicki Minaj in a leopard bodysuit.



In thinking about what your stance is on this issue, it's important to explore why you feel attracted to or repelled from animal prints, and to ask yourself if people of the opposite gender may feel differently. It's also important to ask whether and to what extent it is right for us to sexualize the youth. In my exploration, I've found that animal prints do in fact seem to be overtly connected to sex, and this seems especially true of leopard prints. However, if we are interested in avoiding the sexual overtones expressed by animal prints, we might be able reduce the impact, as in all fashion, by not showing as much skin, wearing a chunky knit, and pairing the print with a more wholesome hairstyle, makeup pallette, and wearing flats instead of heels.

The Philosophical Questions: Does our focus on sexuality compete with our happiness and flourishing as whole people? How can we accept, respect, and love ourselves as whole people (including our sexuality) best? Is there a time that is too soon to introduce kids to sex and sexualizing clothing? If so, why, and if we are honest, do those same reasons also apply to ourselves and our loved ones? Is emphasis on sexuality limiting us in ways that might not be healthy for ourselves and our society in the long run? To what extent is emphasis on sexuality related to various kinds of repression?

The Ethics of Vintage Fur

Fur was a favorite of Marilyn Monroe's. www.thisismarilyn.com

photo credit: C. Tink

There's something not only lux, comforting, and warm about being wrapped in fur, but also charming, elegant, and old-world. For a long while in our recent history (about 50 or so years) fur has gone from a status symbol that everyone (including men) sought in the 1950's to something that marks a person out as a Cruella DeVil (who is, after all, named for being a Cruel Devil!). Just this year, in 2013, selling fur became illegal in some areas of California.

I was raised on AMC's Movie Classics and I love fur for its association with Old Hollywood glamour and 1950's innocence. I also love animals and I have to say, it is comforting to stroke fur and feel it against my cheek. However, I LOVE ANIMALS! and I've also been largely vegetarian for the past 13 years. The question arises: is it unethical to purchase and wear VINTAGE FUR? In this post, I'll just ask a few relevant questions that raced through my mind as I prepared to purchase a vintage fur this past March. I'll be taking up these questions and others in later blogs, as well as in a book on philosophy of fashion that I'm working on.

Modeling amidst other antiques as I contemplated my choice.

I found this beautiful vintage fur in an antique mall in Phoenix, Arizona with my sister, Summer, during my Spring Break this year, just an hour before I left for the airport. I have to say I was in a bit of a panic about whether to buy such a beautiful piece. Of course, people in Phoenix would sweat in a fur no matter the season, especially a long one like this. What's more, I found it in March, when the temperatures were already in the 80's. Living in Massachusetts, however, I felt that such a purchase could be justified, as it is cold about 7 months of the year in my area. Thankfully, I discovered that the fur was a beautifully made faux fur by a charitable designer, Adolph Schuman, and likely from the early 1970's as evidenced from the tags. However, I still felt that walking around in such a nice coat would likely give the illusion that I was wearing a real fur. And if it's unethical then isn't wearing a good replica also unethical because it is a way of promoting the real deal? If people mistook me for wearing a real fur, isn't it still in a way linking me to Cruella DeVil?  More precisely, does it say something negative about me that I would wear a fur? I joked with my sister that I could make a little hanging tag in back that said "This is a fake" to maintain both my cleanness of character and to discourage any paint or coffee throwing.

I took it home, but have yet to wear it out and about town.

The Ethics Questions: To what extent is fur unethical? And how does it compare ethically to the eating of animals or wearing of leather? Is it unethical to purchase and wear a vintage fur? And does a well made faux fur give off the impression of a bad character or promote cruelty to animals?