Novelty vs. Beauty

[pangolin]

In music (and cinema), there seems to be a dichotomy of people who prefer the beautiful and people who prefer novelty, though of course both qualities are necessary in some degree to have an agreeable experience. I hypothesize that this may be connected to N/S differences. S's seem to prefer novelty, which one supposes to be due to the fact that, having absorbed specific sensory data, they are ready for more, whereas N's seem to prefer the beautiful (or perhaps more generally, the Sublime) as the perception of beauty is a more abstract relational form of perception.

Thoughts?

[aphemix]

I think if anything, intuition would contribute more to the appreciation of novelty, because novelty is more a product of implication and relies more on comparisons between values to exist. Just some thoughts. Other than that it's a strange subject and I really have no idea. I could see a sensory preference contributing to the appreciation of both novelty and beauty. I'm sure novelty is likely to mean something completely different to intuitives than to sensors, too. And I haven't seen any of these correlations demonstrated personally. I don't even know that this dichotomy exists. Post more details.

[stuck]

I think that any attempted linkage of MBTI to aesthetics is doomed from the start.

[Hermione]

Actually, his theory is correct. The S does look for the novelty and the N for the beauty, or aesthetics, There may be more useful and precise words to describe it. It's been soooo long since I studied this stuff. But I do actually remember those things being said in class and were in the readings. That doesn't make it "so", but it does make it part of the theory.

[stuck]

I don't mean to be [too] difficult. From experience working with people who would fall on the extreme ends of this dichotomy, I have found that probably the only things that differ are breadth vs. depth of taste (which may be the novelty/beauty thing) and then the specific words used to convey the distinction.

Personally, I crave novelty quite deeply, and I would very much be considered an N.

[aphemix]

Actually, his theory is correct. The S does look for the novelty and the N for the beauty, or aesthetics, There may be more useful and precise words to describe it. It's been soooo long since I studied this stuff. But I do actually remember those things being said in class and were in the readings. That doesn't make it "so", but it does make it part of the theory.I feel like.....what you're saying probably lines up with this little tidbit from that one INTP profile (http://www.intpcentral.com/?mode=content&action=profile)


the INTP will become quickly bored with anything that he has successfully analysed to the point of understanding it. Once understood, it has nothing left to offer, once the satisfaction which comes with achieving the goal of understanding diminishes. Indeed, most primary interests of an INTP are things which he cannot fully understand, usually because they are highly complex or have some exotic, mystical element that does not yield to analysis.

[Hermione]

But Stuck, you have been "into" both Music and even Cinema probably way way more than most. Of course you would seek the novel.
But FIRST and foremost, you were about Quality.. style, the state and traits, the aesthetics. And really, you still are. You chose it as your life's work, silly.
Just referring back up to the OP about people in Music and cinema tendencies, etc. So anyway, you do get what I'm saying right?
Your work, your taste in music .. to me it seems always about the "beauty" in it. Oh, well I"m biased --you musical genius, you.
I mean, damn. The quality, the beauty is so much a natural part of it for you, you barely notice that it's the MAIN thing for you. Maybe.

[stuck]

well when you put it THAT way <3<3

[Melody]

i think both Ne and Se are novelty and quality. novelty because those functions are experiential, and quality because those functions are right-brained and have the particular kind of horse power that helps to assess in the first place the likes of "quality" in thorough ways

[Resonance]

as I learn more about how the brain actually works I care less and less about this sort of thing.

I'd probably actually say that novelty and beauty are both entirely subjective and nebulous concepts and therefore could easily be attributed to either function.

Novelty seems a bit more solid to me, so I'll address it preemptively: your brain recognizes something as novel when it doesn't fit into an existing pattern, right, but the patterns your brain recognizes are entirely subjective and you can weigh them differently when assessing the value of a piece of art - this is why your opinion may change after hearing a friend's opinion, say, directly after a movie.

[qualia]

I really don't know. I mean, I have a secret (oops) love of couture, which I love because it can be both novel and beautiful.

http://blendnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/alexander_mcqueen_f-08.jpg
http://images.smarter.com/blogs/Alexander&#37;20McQueen.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01364/alexander-mcqueen3_1364278i.jpg

Christ, it's a shame he killed himself.

Anyway, what kind of novel? I really doubt an SJ parent of mine would want me to be any sort of novel and wouldn't find me beautiful if I were. An NT parent would be disappointed if I didn't intellectually surprise once in a while. There's something very harmonious about the idea of beauty, which I appreciate, but isn't required to be interesting, is it? Can't we love Pre-Raphaelites AND Rubens?

[cripple]

I look for beauty since it's timeless. Novelty is just a wisp in the wind.

[Resonance]

your beauty isn't timeless, Cripple

[cripple]

Only looking for it. I take pictures. One day i'll find it!

[Resonance]

conceded

[floid]

Novelty is an addiction of a passively bored, dilettante mind.

Sarah Palin is novel.

Maya Angelou is beautiful.

[Notsweetynice]

I correlate novelty to creativity, the asymmetric, genes for schizophrenia and maybe bipolar disorder and artistic genius.
I correlate beauty to symmetry and even temperament, a placid soul, the Libra, an agreement on what's right vs. wrong.

[YHWH]

Broadly:

SPs: Aesthetic originality
SJ: Aesthetic beauty
NTs: Conceptual originality
NFs: Inconsistent mess of all of the above.

[Notsweetynice]

Broadly:

SPs: Aesthetic originality
SJ: Aesthetic beauty
NTs: Conceptual originality
NFs: Inconsistent mess of all of the above.

Why not keep it consistent and say NFs would be conceptual beauty? You could say that's what idealism is.

[YHWH]

Because they're inconsistent, I believe I made that clear by stating it.

[pangolin]

I feel like.....what you're saying probably lines up with this little tidbit from that one INTP profile (http://www.intpcentral.com/?mode=content&action=profile)

this is not actually where I'm coming from at all at this time.

To be sure, P's definitively prefer novelty over J's, and are probably better at appreciating Beauty as well.

I don't think novelty relates directly to N as in Aphemix's initial analysis, since we're not talking about the recognition of subtle differences, but simple the desire to move on to a new artist or a new song. And actually, that sort of comparison is more in the realm of the Si.

In reference to Stuck's comment on Breadth vs. Depth, you may be on to something. I know that the person's I'm thinking about oriented towards beauty tend to get stuck on a few artists or styles and get really into them, whereas the kind of persons I'm think about re: novelty tend not to look to closely at the structure or meaning of the music, but just either like the sound or not, and get bored with it easily.

Maybe it is just a strictly J/P thing. hmmm.....

Qualia: Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Maybe, no on the oversized lips.

Cripple, I would agree Beauty is timeless, though the ability to perceive it is somewhat subjective.

Notsweetynice, symmetry vs. asymmetry is way to specific a thing to be related to what I'm talking about, aside from which beauty is not simply a matter of symmetry, though this can be involved. Anyway, we're talking about music here primarily.

[Notsweetynice]

Because they're inconsistent, I believe I made that clear by stating it.

Clear, yes. Persuasive, no.

[euterpenc]

I like novelty and beauty. However, novelty without beauty is ugly. There is a difference between a new work of art and finding a new way to shove a spoon up your ass.

[1104]

no one likes novelty if he doesnt find beauty in it. beauty is a null factor here.

the true discussion is of novelty alone.

[ApeTheDog]

I far more appreciate novelty than I do beauty. I think the people who like beauty, or think you can't appreciate novelty without secretly only appreciating the beauty in that there novelty - are the same people who think elves are cool. When they are decidedly very much NOT, and never have been.

[s0978]

this is not actually where I'm coming from at all at this time.

Still, pretty interesting idea to consider values of beauty vs innovation along mbti lines. I thought "avant garde" when I read "novelty" in your OP.

I thought this was very clever and probably quite right:


Broadly:

SPs: Aesthetic originality
SJ: Aesthetic beauty
NTs: Conceptual originality
NFs: Inconsistent mess of all of the above.

[MisterLiver]

I just read the title of this thread, so correct if I'm not being contextual as relative to this particular thread, buuuuuuuuuut:
I believe certain things are beautiful based on their novelty. Da Vinci was one of the first artists to use perspective, so that novelty of that makes his artwork beautiful, Dali was one of the first surrealists, and, in my opinion, one of the best artists in history. The Beatles used inventive and creative music and lyrics, which made them a novelty and therefor popular. Elvis was the first artist to explore "rockabilly" with such a dynamic, versatile vocie. Freddy Mercury had an over four octave vocie range, making him a novelty. Don Quixote was the first novel to employ realism in an age where fantasy prevailed. Catcher In The Rye was one of the first novels to use a speaking tone, rather thn one of formality. Charley Chaplain was an inventive, dynamic director/actor/producer than thought of new ways to improve cinema, thus making him a beautiful novelty. SO I guess they could usually be considered the same thing.

[kali]

In music (and cinema), there seems to be a dichotomy of people who prefer the beautiful and people who prefer novelty
Eh?


S's seem to prefer novelty, which one supposes to be due to the fact that, having absorbed specific sensory data, they are ready for more, whereas N's seem to prefer the beautiful
Ehhhhh?

[Resonance]

the pore old thread upon the hill
its door hold dead begone a thrill

[YHWH]

I just read the title of this thread, so correct if I'm not being contextual as relative to this particular thread, buuuuuuuuuut:
I believe certain things are beautiful based on their novelty. Da Vinci was one of the first artists to use perspective, so that novelty of that makes his artwork beautiful, Dali was one of the first surrealists, and, in my opinion, one of the best artists in history. The Beatles used inventive and creative music and lyrics, which made them a novelty and therefor popular. Elvis was the first artist to explore "rockabilly" with such a dynamic, versatile vocie. Freddy Mercury had an over four octave vocie range, making him a novelty. Don Quixote was the first novel to employ realism in an age where fantasy prevailed. Catcher In The Rye was one of the first novels to use a speaking tone, rather thn one of formality. Charley Chaplain was an inventive, dynamic director/actor/producer than thought of new ways to improve cinema, thus making him a beautiful novelty. SO I guess they could usually be considered the same thing.

Terrible examples.

[auriel]

To be sure, P's definitively prefer novelty over J's, and are probably better at appreciating Beauty as well.

Wat? Would you say INFJ's are bad at appreciating beauty then???

[deathwarmedup]

SJ: Aesthetic beauty


I'm not sure aesthetics and 'beauty' should be conflated. I think the former is appreciated while the latter is felt. Aesthetics are at most a scaffolding for the experience of beauty. The aesthetic is what can be analysed. It's the stuff that can be regressed to the computational modules of the brain. Beauty comes from the Heart (or Feeling) Center of Intelligence (which is different again from the raw emotionalism of the brain) and is entirely nebulous.

I regard this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYeaskp55Pk) as deeply beautiful but I think it would be hard to argue for it on purely aesthetic grounds. It speaks to the the Heart Center and perhaps, secondarily, a combination of the Heart Center with the Intellectual Center

[YHWH]

I'm not sure aesthetics and 'beauty' should be conflated. I think the former is appreciated while the latter is felt. Aesthetics are at most a scaffolding for the experience of beauty. The aesthetic is what can be analysed. It's the stuff that can be regressed to the computational modules of the brain. Beauty comes from the Heart (or Feeling) Center of Intelligence (which is different again from the raw emotionalism of the brain) and is entirely nebulous.

I regard this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYeaskp55Pk) as deeply beautiful but I think it would be hard to argue for it on purely aesthetic grounds. It speaks to the the Heart Center and perhaps, secondarily, a combination of the Heart Center with the Intellectual Center

They weren't conflated, it's an association. But still I completely disagree with your statement, aesthetics are the study of art and beauty and those cannot be dissociated from feelings, so aesthetics are also the study of form in relation to feelings, hence I believe in a hierarchy for aesthetic values.
Anyhow in that statement I meant what SJs view as formally beautiful, which is usually some kitsch shit.

I didn't watch this Tarkovsky film yet, i don't want to see any spoilers.

[fduniho]

I just came across this thread tonight even though it is a year old. I would say that an interest in beauty is central to me, but I also enjoy novelty, not so much novelty for its own sake, but I enjoy expanding my horizons. I seek out new experiences in beauty. There are times when I just want to enjoy the beauty of something long familiar, such as Novus Magnificat by Constance Demby, but I'm also regularly listening to new music, largely classical music, but also other styles

[fduniho]

While preparing for bed, some more thoughts on this subject gelled for me. There are two main ways I'll seek out variety. Note that I'm using the term variety, not novelty, because I think there is a difference between them. One way is to seek out more of what is like something I already know I like. I do this a lot. When I discovered Asia in the early 80's, my interest in Asia led me to discover many related bands and get into progressive rock. My interest in particular composers has led me to examine many other works by them. I've listened to lots of Bach, Mozart, Hadyn, Beethoven, Debussy, Bax, and Sibelius. I own large boxed sets of some and at least complete symphony cycles of others. I'm more likely to collect many works by composers with consistent styles. I love a couple pieces by Stravinsky, but by him caring so much for novelty, most of his works lack what I like about the Firebird and the Rite of Spring. More recently, my discovery of SNSD led me to delve into K-POP and discover more bands that I like, and watching one Korean drama led me to watch one after another, because I keep enjoying them. The other way of seeking out variety is to seek out actual novelty. I sometimes let myself try something entirely new, such as when I first listened to SNSD or when I first watched a Korean drama. I do this kind of thing less often, because once I find something I like, I dig into it, as I described above.