Being Gay

[meridannight]

I was thinking about art when I wrote about the male form, art as well as the men we see in other forms of media too. Like no one looks at Michelangelo's David and says, wow, what a great personality.

In this case we are talking about beauty of an object and not of man. It also implies high capacity of the artist's skill, which will enhance and bleed into our perception of the beauty of work of art. (It's also influenced by how long it has lasted through history, previous reception and praise from influential men, etc, but for simplicity's sake I will not go into that here).

But works of art, even if they mimic nature faithfully, are devoid of personality. Thus it is never a component there nor can it be. David's beauty is uninfluenced by personality, because David has no personality. It is, all the way through, a beauty of an object, lifeless and dead. But in case of actual live men that you know, their beauty is influenced by said personality. (I disagree that it is actual personality that is the influence, but that is a different subject and if I explained my post would run too long for this reply).

In sum, what I'm trying to say: you can objectify live people (treat their beauty as just that of looks), but you can't do it the other way around: there is no internal beauty to objects including works of art. Which means it's nonsensical to talk about Michelangelo's David and his personality; nobody does that because it's not possible. There is only one beauty to him, and that is of his looks.


PS. I prefer Perseus. David has a nice trunk and legs, but it has too long right arm and too huge right hand (both are clearly out of proportion with the rest of the body). And David's face is awful. Perseus, on the other hand, is perfection. There is nothing wrong with it. It has a beautiful body in its entirety, and its face too is pleasant.

Cellini was a master of the male physique. This is evident not only in Perseus but also in the rest of his works depicting the masculine body. His males look real and alive. Michelangelo was just an admirer (albeit not one without skill). Michelangelo liked the male body, Cellini understood it. It's the difference between one who admires from afar, and one who has touched and loved his object of affection, one who possesses knowledge of it. (Had to make this clear, Michelangelo is so over-rated, in my opinion).

Im all about a good personality and brains to match personally, but when we are talking about the idealized male form in comparison to the idealized female form, men are shown as having physical strength and muscle, women are shown as being delicate and not athletic.

Yes, the male form itself is an object too. I don't disagree that you can find beauty in the male form separate from his person. It is there. What I was trying to pass on, was that it is inferior to the internal beauty that a man has. Which is not to say that looks is a bad thing, just that its value is relative to the internal beauty.

As for the comparison, how does an idealized female form differ from an athletic female form? I am asking this seriously from you.