It's been a constant grouse for me why it's easier for physically attractive people to get attention much more than for people who are mentally capable. For example, it's not uncommon for fashion models to have millions of followers on Instagram. Comparatively, an artist should consider himself fortunate if he can garner even a few thousand followers.
In fact, the attitude that the world seems to have for intellectuals (in which I include those who make their living using their mental capability; this would include teachers, scientists, creative professionals like artists, writers, film and theatre directors and even bureaucrats to some extent) is more than just lack of interest. Instead, I see a certain degree of animosity and intolerance too. The world around us as we see it is the product of the the thoughts and work of intellectuals. So, no one can simply ignore the existence of intellectual beings. However people seem to prefer having nothing to do with this aspect of their being, thus trying to restrict their relation to intellect as a transactional thing. Where intellectuals must be dealt with at a social level, they are boxed into stereotypes of being geeks, nerds, studious, scholars etc. amounting to grumpy, mean, serious, sever, belligerent to being socially inept and insufferable to some extent.
This animosity and unfair bias against intellectuals -- often known as anti-intellectualism -- placed vis-a-vis the enormous appetite that the world has for anything glamour has appeared very unfortunate to me to the extent of causing me great and enduring pain.
Here, I try to make peace with this predicament by trying to explain it based on psychology, to the I extent that I understand it.
So, I would like to distinguish virtues in terms of being associated with mind or matter. There are human qualities that cause immediate sensual pleasure. A beautiful body, apart from the neutral aesthetic angle, causes sexual titillation. Cooking done well leads to pleasurable eating. A beautiful painting or sketch leads to a visual treat for the viewer. A piece of music is nice to the ears whether one understands music or not. All these, I would like to call the experiences of the matter. Experiencing these involves no training or preparation.
A level above these involves aspirations, arguably a thing of the mind, with which we are born. Aspirations to look good, to be rich and influential, to be accepted and respected in our social surroundings -- these aspirations lead us to see beauty in things which otherwise may not be having any apparent beauty. For example, being rich draws looks of admiration because people aspire to be rich. Possessions -- cars, gadgets, house, properly jewellery, dresses -- receive compliments and admiring looks from those who wish to have these for themselves. Of course, as a rejoinder, let me add that it would not be completely correct to say that the above things of possession have no inherent beauty of their own: а house can be really pretty and grand; a car may be majestic, sleek, fast and powerful; a gadget may be sleek, a piece of jewellery or garment can be really fine. Yet, I would say that a large majority of humans aren't so concerned about how inherently beautiful these objects are -- at least not until they find them well within their financial reach -- but what it entails to possess them.
Collectively, the above two forms of admirations, I would like to categorise as those of the matter. They would evoke reactions from almost anyone, with or without any special training, education, talent or intelligence.
The other form of beauty is the beauty of mind. This form of beauty, in order to be admired, demands us to get into the semantics -- the structure and the kinetics -- of the object in question.
To sense this form of beauty one certainly needs to get into a state where he concerns himself as much with the process that creates the object of beauty as with the object itself. The process that created a piece of beauty is an arbitrarily deep thing. For example, to be able is sing a particular song, the singer must go through a prolonged and rigorous training in music. The poet must feel something extraordinary or something ordinary extraordinarily that he expresses through the song. The music composer, the orchestra and the singer must internalize the details of the song -- both the technical and the emotion to put together a performance powerful enough to grab the notice of the most insolent of hearts. While the song itself has the beauty of the matter, the process that creates it is unboundedly more beautiful. But it is accessible to the person only with his mind's eye open.
Unfortunately, staying in a state where the mind's eye is open is not effortless in most cases. In fact, most of us spend only a small part of our conscious life in that wakeful state. For most part, we are in an unconscious state, a mist of insolence and apathy surrounding us. I suspect that for most unfortunate people, this wakeful state happens for a disappearingly small period of time. I am unprepared to believe that there are people who never experience this wakefulness. You may consider it my form of faith that says that each one of us is blessed with that spark of divinity that can be stoked into a blazing fire with the right kind of nurturing. But anyway, what's important here is that statistically most people have their mind's eyes closed. Hence, appreciation for the beauty of the mind is so difficult to find. Places like Facebook or Instagram are where most of us spend the moments when we are in no condition or mood to perceive anything that's not out on the surface or doesn't assert itself loudly.
Sometimes creators of the beauty of mind, in their frustration of not being able to garner are kind of popularity that those with the beauty of the matter do, try to assert themselves in all sorts of ways. Unfortunately, this hardly ever ends well. In most cases, they are judged as belligerent, that is, pushing their supremacy on others. One question is: is indeed this belligerence there? Hard to say if it's right to interpret this behaviour as belligerence. It's definitely born out of anger and frustration, and has an element of violence in it. But belligerence?Belligerence amounts to an act of aggression in an attempt to force someone to to do something without his consent. What is an overassertive creator of beauty of mind trying to force people to do by making a noise about his creation? It's hard to point out. It's often construed as an attempt to force people to acknowledge the superiority of such a person. This mayn't be the case though. Such a claim, if at all there (which I doubt it is) as vacuously true and is in no need of validation. If someone is wilfully denying this, it's clearly a mean act. For most creators, their so called belligerence is really an act of retaliation against this meanness. But interestingly, to begin with, the denial of the above acknowledgement doesn't originate from meanness, but from intellectual incapacity. When intellect is slumbering, where is the question of it seeing below the surface?
The other, even more unfortunate, way the creative mind asserts its presence to the intellectually asleep majority is by commodifying itself. 'Become so good that the brilliance of your goodness pierces through the thickest of the wall of intellectual slumber', that's the maxim. This commodification is the unfortunate mechanism that drives the commercial world. It legitimises consumerism which is the advanced state of intellectual slumber; and it legitimises the alienation caused by the non-interest in the deeply beautiful thing in favour of that whose beauty is shallow and of the material. It also normalises the claim that there's no fundamental difference between the beauty of the mind and that of the matter.
Before I close, I would like to return to the infinite potential of the experience involving the beauty of the mind. There is really no limit to what you are allowed to see and experience behind an act of creativity. In fact, it's completely legal to perceive things that even the creator may not have perceived. Experiencing the beauty of mind is an act of creation.
On a completely tangential note, this may provide at least a partial resolution to the following conundrum: 'Does a copy (probably produced mechanically) have the same beauty as the original creation? Beauty of matter: yes! Beauty of mind. no! Beauty of mind can't be copied. It can't be manufactured. Process of creation happens only once -- in the mind of the creator, in the mind of the experiencer. In fact, beauty of mind is not a thing, but a process. Ephemeral. Unique. Unreplicatable.
Final word: Beauty of mind is not meant to be popular in the manner the beauty of matter is. It is sacred, and trying to push it through the wall of the widely prevailing intellectual slumber may sometimes work, but often will break it, defile it, turning it into the beauty of matter.
