The canons of beauty will become more flexible and diverse, fashion historian Olga Weinstein is convinced. This meets not only the humanistic imperative of our days “Different identities – equal opportunities”, but also the requirements of the market. And there is no such category as “objective attractiveness” at all.
Our consultants
Olga Weinstein – Doctor of Philology, author of the book “Dandy: Fashion, Literature, Lifestyle” (UFO, 2005), compiler of the collection “Aromas and smells in culture” (UFO, 2003).
Psychologies: How did the concept of “physical beauty” come about?
Olga Weinstein: The original ideas about beauty are connected with functionality: the more a person is better suited for his purpose, the more beautiful he is. That is why, say, the archaic standard of female beauty is the image of a woman-mother: wide hips, large breasts, a bulging belly. However, the aestheticization of functional features is only one facet in the process of forming ideas about beauty. The other is the aestheticization of various kinds of distinctive signs that mark the status of their bearer: beads, tattoos, manners, clothes, etc. Initially, they also had a utilitarian meaning – they oriented in a social situation, but over time, signs corresponding to a high status began to be perceived as more beautiful. This is how the orientation towards the representatives of the elite as the ideal of beauty arises.
What other factors contribute to the formation of certain canons of beauty?
O.V.: On this score, there are several theories that agree on one thing: two types of attractiveness always alternate in history: spiritual and painful (you can call it “Gothic”) and healthy, flowering and lush. The first is generally inherent in unstable eras – it manifests itself most clearly in the aesthetics of the Middle Ages. The second accompanies more or less prosperous periods – for example, the 50s, when the world was recovering after the Second World War. At the same time, it has been noted that it is the life-affirming standard of beauty, together with the accompanying bareness of the figure (primarily female), that also manifests itself in troubled times: this is due to the fact that such a “mundane” type is associated with sexuality and reproduction, and troubled eras require faster population growth. This view is confirmed, in particular, by the period of the Napoleonic wars at the turn of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, when the so-called nude fashion flourished – tight-fitting tunics, deep necklines, open ankles. Despite the significant regression that followed (crinolines, bustles, corsets, etc.), our ideas about female beauty as an expression of the individuality of its owner go back to this historical period.
And since when can we talk about the “legalization” of the male body?
O.V.: I would attribute this event to the last third of the XNUMXth century, to the so-called era of pre-romanticism, when dandies appeared – secular fashionistas who proclaimed concern for the appearance of one of the main duties of an enlightened person and fixed the fashion for a suit emphasizing the natural anatomy of the male figure. By the way, pre-romanticism is generally the most important era: from it, appearance, and individuality in general, becomes something more than just a set of social identities – the appearance of a person for the first time becomes a metaphor for his spiritual world.
For centuries, beauty has been associated with the idea of personal happiness. Why?
O.V.: I would look for the roots of this phenomenon in mythological thinking. Beauty is a symbol of divinity, marked by higher powers, something like a magical amulet that protects its wearer from dangers.
What is your prediction: how will our ideas about beauty change in the near future?
O.V.: In essence, there is no such category as “objective attractiveness”: beauty is nothing more than a certain setting of our vision, due to the historical and cultural background. Recently, this view of this phenomenon has become increasingly popular. Therefore, I am sure that beauty standards will become more diverse. This meets not only the humanistic imperative of our days: “Different identities – equal opportunities”, but also the requirements of the market. The current “model” standards date back to the 60s of the XX century, when the first generation grew up, able to flaunt their well-being – to emphasize that they are undernourished not out of necessity, but of their own free will. People who do not meet this aesthetic standard feel their own disadvantage: they doubt their well-being, it is more difficult for them to choose clothes for themselves, and this is unprofitable for manufacturers. So the movement towards greater polymorphism in ideas about beauty is inevitable, and there are both moral and economic reasons for this.