Why is everything so Ugly now?

[Age]

Different ideals perhaps. The ideal of beauty vs the ideal of acceptance, maybe?

Perhaps...can you say more? How do beauty ideals 'change' over time?

Just like ALL 'perceptions' and 'ideals' ARE FORMED, and CHANGE.

Is it Mass Media? Commercials, movies, television? Who hires the models?

[Age]

becuz 21rst century capitalism facilitates 'desiring-production' (see Deleuze and Guattari) with much greater frequency and flow than did the capitalism of earlier centuries. the reification, commodification and fetishization of identity through/by the sublimating power of consumerism. an easier way to understand it is as a kind of purposeful hyperinflation of anxiety and duress (by being overworked, made broke and put into debt) which is then alleviated by the superfluous and multifarious rewards provided by consumerism.

lol and here u are ten years later still hoping to blame all this garbage on Marxism and the clowns on the left who claim to be marxists.

Here we have ANOTHER one who can NOT SEE the ACTUAL Truth BECAUSE 'it' can NOT YET SEE PAST 'its' OWN DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

[Wizard22]

becuz 21rst century capitalism facilitates 'desiring-production' (see Deleuze and Guattari) with much greater frequency and flow than did the capitalism of earlier centuries. the reification, commodification and fetishization of identity through/by the sublimating power of consumerism. an easier way to understand it is as a kind of purposeful hyperinflation of anxiety and duress (by being overworked, made broke and put into debt) which is then alleviated by the superfluous and multifarious rewards provided by consumerism.

lol and here u are ten years later still hoping to blame all this garbage on Marxism and the clowns on the left who claim to be marxists.

Ten years and you still misunderstand...

Beauty and ugliness have always been propaganda tools, since forever, like bait on a fishing rod. Postmodernism expanded to included the lower classes and Western mischlings. But since they did not have Media representation before these recent decades, everything had to be rewritten and 'rebooted' (movie reboots) to include them. Their cultural identity has been re-packaged and re-sold. No significant 'change' has been made, with respect to their, your, or my, personal ideals.

Because Media is strictly controlled, as is Speech.

I tend to side with the Technocrats with respect to beauty...

[Wizard22]

The ideal of beauty has fluctuated more or less around the spectrum of society's members who are relatively 'healthy' and 'productive'. That hasn't "changed" a great deal. However, what has changed is the degree of societal acceptance of what is ugly. There has always been a bit of room for ugliness in becoming a public celebrity or icon, however, it's probably more pronounced today to whatever degree than it was in the early to mid-20th Century. Indeed, some now appear to go out of their way to be as ugly as possible. In some senses, we could say we live in a relatively 'sick' and 'unproductive' society. Or we could say we live in a less 'homogenous' or 'idealized' society.

What your picture probably demonstrates is that fashion and iconography were more centered around rejecting ugliness (especially for women) back then than they are now. Ugliness doesn't diminish one's potential for becoming idolized to as great an extent as it did in the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood (for an obvious example). Besides showing more "ugliness" you could equally say that the pictures on the right present more variation than the pictures on the left. In other words, "acceptance" (or even as far as accentuation) of what is not 'beautiful'.

So Western beauty standards haven't changed much, just expanded to include more of the general population, and especially all those (immigrants and new worlders) who climb out of the lower class?

[Wizard22]

ONCE AGAIN, you completely AND utterly MISSED the POINT "wizard22".

Beauty, and ugliness, is in the eye of the beholder.

What you BELIEVE is what you WILL SEE, as well as what you WILL LOOK FOR.

And,

Absolutely EVER 'thing' is relative to the observer.

Therefore, if you SEE 'ugly', when "others" DO NOT, then WHY, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, ANY one could have DECIDED UPON and PICKED OTHER pictures TO USE, to 'try to' FOOL and DECEIVE "others", just like one "them" 'self' has OBVIOUSLY BEEN FOOLED, and DECEIVED, here.

Also, what 'we' ARE NOTICING here, from your threads, is that 'you' are PROVIDING PRIME examples of what 'TROLLING' was, back in the days when this was being written.

So, time traveler, explain why and how anybody prefers one beautiful woman before another.

[Age]

Different ideals perhaps. The ideal of beauty vs the ideal of acceptance, maybe?

Perhaps...can you say more? How do beauty ideals 'change' over time? Is it Mass Media? Commercials, movies, television? Who hires the models?

The ideal of beauty has fluctuated more or less around the spectrum of society's members who are relatively 'healthy' and 'productive'. That hasn't "changed" a great deal. However, what has changed is the degree of societal acceptance of what is ugly. There has always been a bit of room for ugliness in becoming a public celebrity or icon, however, it's probably more pronounced today to whatever degree than it was in the early to mid-20th Century. Indeed, some now appear to go out of their way to be as ugly as possible. In some senses, we could say we live in a relatively 'sick' and 'unproductive' society. Or we could say we live in a less 'homogenous' or 'idealized' society.

These people, back in the days when this was being written, REALLY COULD NOT SEE through their OWN DISTORTED perspectives.

What your picture probably demonstrates is that fashion and iconography were more centered around rejecting ugliness (especially for women) back then than they are now.

LOL They are SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN pictures. Can 'you', people, here REALLY NOT SEE 'this'?

Ugliness doesn't diminish one's potential for becoming idolized to as great an extent as it did in the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood (for an obvious example). Besides showing more "ugliness" you could equally say that the pictures on the right present more variation than the pictures on the left. In other words, "acceptance" (or even as far as accentuation) of what is not 'beautiful'.

For EACH and EVERY one on the 'right' there would be people who would SAY that 'they' ARE FAR MORE BEAUTIFUL than ANY and EVERY one on the 'left'.

This JUDGING of "others" was VERY COMMON, back then, and a huge reason WHY 'their world' WAS in SUCH A MESS.

[Wizard22]

Beauty invokes an intuitive reaction that people must resist, otherwise we'd fight over it, the Rites to it.

Beauty implies competition, hierarchy, and rank. Those who are superior, gain Rites to it, those who are inferior, do not.

Men and women both judge one-another by their sexual partners and romances.


...but this is only scratching the surface, inn'it?

[Age]

becuz 21rst century capitalism facilitates 'desiring-production' (see Deleuze and Guattari) with much greater frequency and flow than did the capitalism of earlier centuries. the reification, commodification and fetishization of identity through/by the sublimating power of consumerism. an easier way to understand it is as a kind of purposeful hyperinflation of anxiety and duress (by being overworked, made broke and put into debt) which is then alleviated by the superfluous and multifarious rewards provided by consumerism.

lol and here u are ten years later still hoping to blame all this garbage on Marxism and the clowns on the left who claim to be marxists.

Ten years and you still misunderstand...

Beauty and ugliness have always been propaganda tools, since forever, like bait on a fishing rod.

LOL you could NOT be MORE Wrong.

And, I like your REFERENCE TO 'TROLLING', and 'fishing', here.

Postmodernism expanded to included the lower classes and Western mischlings. But since they did not have Media representation before these recent decades, everything had to be rewritten and 'rebooted' (movie reboots) to include them. Their cultural identity has been re-packaged and re-sold. No significant 'change' has been made, with respect to their, your, or my, personal ideals.

Because Media is strictly controlled, as is Speech.

I tend to side with the Technocrats with respect to beauty...

[Wizard22]

How is it trolling?

[Gary Childress]

The ideal of beauty has fluctuated more or less around the spectrum of society's members who are relatively 'healthy' and 'productive'. That hasn't "changed" a great deal. However, what has changed is the degree of societal acceptance of what is ugly. There has always been a bit of room for ugliness in becoming a public celebrity or icon, however, it's probably more pronounced today to whatever degree than it was in the early to mid-20th Century. Indeed, some now appear to go out of their way to be as ugly as possible. In some senses, we could say we live in a relatively 'sick' and 'unproductive' society. Or we could say we live in a less 'homogenous' or 'idealized' society.

What your picture probably demonstrates is that fashion and iconography were more centered around rejecting ugliness (especially for women) back then than they are now. Ugliness doesn't diminish one's potential for becoming idolized to as great an extent as it did in the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood (for an obvious example). Besides showing more "ugliness" you could equally say that the pictures on the right present more variation than the pictures on the left. In other words, "acceptance" (or even as far as accentuation) of what is not 'beautiful'.

So Western beauty standards haven't changed much, just expanded to include more of the general population, and especially all those (immigrants and new worlders) who climb out of the lower class?

We see things differently in some ways. You see a change in the ideal of 'beauty' whereas I see a change in what is considered socially acceptable. However, I think we both agree that the individuals pictured on the right are generally less 'beautiful' (or "uglier") than the ones in the pictures on the left.

[Age]

ONCE AGAIN, you completely AND utterly MISSED the POINT "wizard22".

Beauty, and ugliness, is in the eye of the beholder.

What you BELIEVE is what you WILL SEE, as well as what you WILL LOOK FOR.

And,

Absolutely EVER 'thing' is relative to the observer.

Therefore, if you SEE 'ugly', when "others" DO NOT, then WHY, EXACTLY?

Furthermore, ANY one could have DECIDED UPON and PICKED OTHER pictures TO USE, to 'try to' FOOL and DECEIVE "others", just like one "them" 'self' has OBVIOUSLY BEEN FOOLED, and DECEIVED, here.

Also, what 'we' ARE NOTICING here, from your threads, is that 'you' are PROVIDING PRIME examples of what 'TROLLING' was, back in the days when this was being written.

So, time traveler, explain why and how anybody prefers one beautiful woman before another.

WHY are you USING the word 'beautiful' here?

HOW do you JUDGE 'beautiful', and on 'what', EXACTLY, do you JUDGE 'beauty' AND 'beautiful'?

And, what do you even MEAN by 'anybody' here, and 'prefers one beautiful woman before another'?

Also, YOUR response to me is FURTHER PROOF of just HOW MUCH ASSUMING, JUDGING, and LABELING 'you' REALLY DO DO.

By the way, NOT EVERY one 'prefers' 'one' before "another".

[Age]

Beauty invokes an intuitive reaction that people must resist, otherwise we'd fight over it, the Rites to it.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of just how LITTLE they KNEW ABOUT 'thoughts' and 'thinking', back then.

Beauty implies competition, hierarchy, and rank.

LOL 'competition', 'heirarchy', 'rank' NOR even 'beauty' exist in the 'True and PROPER life'.

But, OBVIOUSLY, 'these things' were BELIEVED to be NEEDED.

Those who are superior, gain Rites to it, those who are inferior, do not.

Here we have FURTHER PROOF that this one ACTUALLY, and VERY LAUGHABLY, BELIEVES that some are 'superior' than "others". And, the Fact that this one BELIEVES that 'it' is MORE, and FAR MORE, SUPERIOR than "others" does NOT go UNNOTICED, NEITHER.

Men and women both judge one-another by their sexual partners and romances.

Are you SAYING 'this' in regards to EVERY one, or just SOME?

...but this is only scratching the surface, inn'it?

[Gary Childress]

Beauty invokes an intuitive reaction that people must resist, otherwise we'd fight over it, the Rites to it.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of just how LITTLE they KNEW ABOUT 'thoughts' and 'thinking', back then.

As long as there are human beings, there will be as much 'ignorance' as 'enlightenment'. The world is never going to be perfectly homogenous, fluid, or anything else unless it is run by computers that are mechanically incapable of doing anything other than specifically what they have been programmed or designed by a particular individual or group of individuals to do.

[Age]

How is it trolling?

Look AT the heading of your threads, and the words that you USE in your threads, you are 'fishing' for people TO BITE.

you ASK QUESTIONS, in the HOPE that you WILL GET OPPOSITION. So then you can EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS, in the hope that you WILL GET TO SHOW that you ARE right and they are wrong, which you HOPE would make you look FAR MORE SUPERIOR than "others" are, which is what you 'currently' BELIEVE is true, right?

[Age]

The ideal of beauty has fluctuated more or less around the spectrum of society's members who are relatively 'healthy' and 'productive'. That hasn't "changed" a great deal. However, what has changed is the degree of societal acceptance of what is ugly. There has always been a bit of room for ugliness in becoming a public celebrity or icon, however, it's probably more pronounced today to whatever degree than it was in the early to mid-20th Century. Indeed, some now appear to go out of their way to be as ugly as possible. In some senses, we could say we live in a relatively 'sick' and 'unproductive' society. Or we could say we live in a less 'homogenous' or 'idealized' society.

What your picture probably demonstrates is that fashion and iconography were more centered around rejecting ugliness (especially for women) back then than they are now. Ugliness doesn't diminish one's potential for becoming idolized to as great an extent as it did in the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood (for an obvious example). Besides showing more "ugliness" you could equally say that the pictures on the right present more variation than the pictures on the left. In other words, "acceptance" (or even as far as accentuation) of what is not 'beautiful'.

So Western beauty standards haven't changed much, just expanded to include more of the general population, and especially all those (immigrants and new worlders) who climb out of the lower class?

We see things differently in some ways. You see a change in the ideal of 'beauty' whereas I see a change in what is considered socially acceptable. However, I think we both agree that the individuals pictured on the right are generally less 'beautiful' (or "uglier") than the ones in the pictures on the left.

AND ANY one here could have CHOSEN OTHER pictures in the same date range, and then WROTE, 'Why is everything so Beautiful now?', and you STILL would have AGREED that the individuals pictured on the left are generally more 'beautiful' (or less 'uglier') than the ones in the pictures on the right.