Physical beauty versus the Sublime

S

s1rrah

Member
I saw a rather astonishing youtube video today which I thought I'd share here in this community.

Mostly because this is, I'm assuming, a community concerned with ideas (be they mundane or profound)

And if I'm not mistaken, good film making (I pray) can truly be something more than skin deep.

So back to the video ...

It's not a film per se ... but it is a rather shining example of how one's personal axioms regarding beauty, passion and even the human soul (if you believe in such) are far more complex and challenging to understand than is a simple physical response to sensory impulse.

And, I think the applications to film making in general should be rather obvious.

I guess the main question this following operatic performance begs, sung by the the most unassuming, unattractive (and clearly humble) mobile phone salesmen you could ever imagine, is:

"What exactly is real beauty?"

And even further:

"Where does beauty separate from the physical and begin to join with the spiritual or sublime?"

Click the image, below to see the Youtube video:

...



...

:)

(thanks dude. whoever you are)
 
i guess he is supposed to be really handsome; but to be honest, i couldn't understand a word he was singing.
 
his voice alone is outstanding, but add his passionate, raw emotion that he sings with and you have one of those truly transcendent moments.
 
He should quit that day job of his. I think that's a given. I would imagine if he devoted more time to actually performing instead of wasting his days at some phone sales job, then his talent would really shine.
 
That was a great clip. Thanks for sharing that.

The female host almost seemed turned on by his voice. Goes to show, singers always get the chicks. :o)
 
ugafan said:
i guess he is supposed to be really handsome; but to be honest, i couldn't understand a word he was singing.
Click to expand...


ugafan said:
i guess he is supposed to be really handsome; but to be honest, i couldn't understand a word he was singing.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was singing in italian ...

Here's a breakdown/translation:


Il Principe:
Nessun dorma!... Nessun dorma!...
Tu pure, o Principessa,
nella tua fredda stanza
guardi le stelle che tremano
d'amore e di speranza!
Ma il mio mistero
è chiuso in me,
il nome mio nessun saprà!
No, no, sulla tua bocca lo dirò,
quando la luce splenderà!
Ed il mio bacio scoglierà
il silenzio che ti fa mia! Coro donne:
Il nome suo nessun saprà...
E noi dovrem ahimè, morir, morir!...
Il Principe:
Dilegua, o notte! tramontate, stelle!
Tramontate, stelle! All'alba vincerò!
Vincerò! Vincerò!


ENGLISH:

 The Prince:
No one sleeps!... No one sleeps!... *)
Nor do you, o princess
in your cold room
Look the stars that tremble
with love and hope!
But my mystery
it is locked in me,
my name no one will know!
No, no, only on your mouth I will reveal it,
when dawn's light will shine!
My kiss will break the silence
and make you mine! Female choir:
His name no one will know...
And we shall have, alas, to die, to die...!
The Prince:
Disperse, o night! Set, you stars!
Set, you stars! With the dawn I will win!
I'll win! I'll win!



And of course the guy ain't handsome! That was my point with physical beauty versus the sublime or spiritual beauty in art ...

He becomes something else as soon as he starts singing.

:)
 
I really want to hear this guy sing but YouTube is blocked here. Does anyone have his name or anything I can use to search for it on Yahoo Video or any other video sites?
 
Well, how deep do you want your response? the answer can be both in depth and also simple, so I'll give you both solutions:

In depth

Let us denote beauty as a function X, let us now further describe the properties of that function as such:

X(n1,n2, n(x+1)...) where n describes one property,

Now let us describe perceived beauty as P, also within this perceived beauty must lie a set of equalities that describe the acceptable ranges of subset properties of the original function X.

eg:

L = tU > n1 < tL where tU is the upper limit, and tL is the lower limit.

thus :

P(L1,L2,Ln(n+1)...)

If we where to plot these data sets we could demonstrate them as shown in the following graph (Fig 1.0):

3d_graph.jpg


Fig 1.0

Where one plane describes the complex sets of factors and the other plane describes the tolerances, clearly where the planes intersect are ranges within the bounds and those areas is seen as "Beauty" those that lie outside of these is seen as non "Beauty".

Now of course, there is a fundamental error in this logical approach, and that is to assume X as a set ideal standard, when in fact is should be simply a set of physical attributes that are measurable, (e.g. height, weight, eye color etc..) further more the P values can be totally arbitrary, and not set to any mutual standards other than to itself. Which leads me to the simple solution:

Simple

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ,because P and its subset Ln’s are independent from person to person.
 
Anhar Miah said:
Well, how deep do you want your response? the answer can be both in depth and also simple, so I'll give you both solutions:

In depth

Let us denote beauty as a function X, let us now further describe the properties of that function as such:

X(n1,n2, n(x+1)...) where n describes one property,

Now let us describe perceived beauty as P, also within this perceived beauty must lie a set of equalities that describe the acceptable ranges of subset properties of the original function X.

eg:

L = tU > n1 < tL where tU is the upper limit, and tL is the lower limit.

thus :

P(L1,L2,Ln(n+1)...)

If we where to plot these data sets we could demonstrate them as shown in the following graph (Fig 1.0):

3d_graph.jpg


Fig 1.0

Where one plane describes the complex sets of factors and the other plane describes the tolerances, clearly where the planes intersect are ranges within the bounds and those areas is seen as "Beauty" those that lie outside of these is seen as non "Beauty".

Now of course, there is a fundamental error in this logical approach, and that is to assume X as a set ideal standard, when in fact is should be simply a set of physical attributes that are measurable, (e.g. height, weight, eye color etc..) further more the P values can be totally arbitrary, and not set to any mutual standards other than to itself. Which leads me to the simple solution:

Simple

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ,because P and its subset Ln’s are independent from person to person.
Click to expand...

Dude, lol.
 
PK Gillock said:
I really want to hear this guy sing but YouTube is blocked here. Does anyone have his name or anything I can use to search for it on Yahoo Video or any other video sites?
Click to expand...

The show in Britain the guy auditioned on: Britain has Talent
The guy's name: Paul Potts
The aurea he sang: Nessun Dorma

That should give you enough to locate it on other vid sites ...

:thumbup:
 
Sort of reminds me of Jim Neighbors, kind of goofy to look at, but what a powerful voice.

And Anhar... dude, you need to tone down the geek-talk! LOL! That was too funny :)
 
man that female judge was a $%^&...... she calld him a frog and a lump of coal...... I mean cmon.... hes not brad pitt, but be nice at least.....
 
rlm7189 said:
That was a great clip. Thanks for sharing that.

The female host almost seemed turned on by his voice. Goes to show, singers always get the chicks. :o)
Click to expand...
The opera is Turandot by Puccini. Pavarotti, Jose Cura, whoever, sings it, women really get off on it.
 
Ahhh... but it wasn't truly a Rickroll in that he didn't disguise it as being something else. He clearly stated it was a scrawny guy with a powerful voice which he is. Therefore, no Rickrolling can be claimed.

I'd do the 3-D map and formualaic breakdown, but I've got other threads to read and posts to write. :cheesy: :)

Oh yeah... that dude can sing. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top