7/17/09 (after watching the movie Domino)
Beauty is supposed to be a passive existence, an experience to reflect upon, a state that suffices as a primary being and purpose within objects. This is why the existences of characters like Domino are so fascinating, because they are active to the point of rage, and it is hard for us to process beauty as so active.
I argue however that beauty is innately active – and it must be some other quality that fascinates. Beauty inspires, it marks us with emotion, it moves us to speak or decide. Beauty is the cause of war and writing and families, discontented with a simple state of being, it moves generations in a show of power over motivation.
Perhaps it is the rage of such a character – a model-turned-bounty hunter – that captivates. Where does beauty get away with being angry or vengeful upon the world, when there are whole age groups of people willing to harm themselves for just one fleeting moment of experiencing it themselves? Along with beauty comes expectation – people’s belief that beauty is a common stock and is wasted on those who refuse to share it, a complicit understanding that beauty is a primary quality and is therefore enough to validate you. But then where does the mind fit in, or creativity? How can one truly feel accepted based no a quality they have no control over and absolutely no responsibility for?
This conversation is one I have often in my head – another side to it involves the very adamant feeling that beauty must be shared, although I often relish disdain for those men at bars they may throw that statement at me like a twirling football and expect me to catch and run with it. And are humans objectively beautiful, or is it their utter imperfection an inherent aspect that makes beauty something more alive than a statue’s pleasant lines? More to follow, I am sure….
