Do we really have to be scared of ugliness anymore?

In Beauty, Scurton posses the question, “What is ugliness and why do we flee from it?” (Scurton 4). From the readings it appears that ugliness is continually determined in relation to beauty. This binary serves as a rigid way of understanding the world around us. In History of Beauty, Umberto Eco surmises that this binary originated from the portrayal of ideal beauty. He explains, “Beauty has been identified with proportion” (History of Beauty, 61). From the perspective of ancient Greek culture, beauty had a distinct composition. Therefore, he argues, “it’s natural that all beings who did not embody such proportions were thought of as ugly” (On Ugliness, 23). In this sense, beauty does create a specific space that is marked by the inclusion of some and the exclusion of others. Hence, Eco is arguing that ugliness only exists as a response or lack of beauty.

As Eco observes, the process of demonization has always taken place to depict “the Other, the foreigner” (On Ugliness 185). The other is interpreted as a deviation to what has been deemed the “norm”. However this deviation is emphasized mainly through the physicality and is seen as intrinsic attributes that are immutable. Hence the physical features have come to be associated with one’s character, extending the non-physical to the physical. In this sense, one’s character is defined from the outside in.

In Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality, Ewen & Ewen discuss the photographic research of Alphonse Bertillon in the late 19^th century. Photography was seen as a way to capture “irrefutable proof of essential human differences” (Typecasting 226). Furthermore Ewen & Ewen argue that photography served to support the theory that “the taxonomic order of living things was predicated on the idea that the character of each individual organism was defined by its relationship to a clearly demarcated physical standard” (Typecasting 223). Therefore, individuals could be classified by these physical differences. Like the ancient Greek culture, perfection or the lack thereof was determined by a physical standard as a means to identify and compartmentalize individuals. In Bertillon’s opinion, an individual’s identity was fixed, an “immutable legacy” that served as a means to “see an individual in the milieu of the crowd” (Typecasting 230, 234).

In today’s society is one’s physical appearance truly immutable? With the development of various products and procedures can one’s character truly be determined from the outside? Can ugliness be detected from the physical appearance?

One example of this ability to alter ones appearance can be seen in Spanx products. While the change might be slight in this case, the individual is still able to have control over his or her appearance. One of the brand’s slogans declares, “Super-duper shaping… Get instantly transformed!” (www.spanx.com). In this sense, is there really a fear of ugliness anymore?

Bibliography:

Eco, Umberto. On Ugliness. Trans. Alastair McEwen. New York: Rizzoli, 2007. Print.

Ewen, and Ewen. "Finding the Individual Within the Group." Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality. 223-34. Print.

Scruton, Richard. Beauty. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.