Is there a word which describes something being both beautiful and ugly at the same time?

Question

Few days back, I saw some sculptures and paintings which were beautifully made. The characters which were depicted were ugly. When I inquired about the making of the sculptures and paintings, one of my friend told me that it is made using golden ratio (Now, I have to inquire about what is golden ratio). Those sculptures and paintings were beautifully made, but obviously they had ugly faces.

Is there any word which describes both ugly and beautiful at the same time?

This picture is not real sculptor or painting I saw, it is somewhat similar what I saw in fair. Example:

Now, I want to tell my mom that I saw beautiful but ugly troll sculptures and paintings.

Can you give an example of a sentence where you would use the word? It’s not clear to me if you’re looking for a word thats ok to say to their face or not. — Laurel, Jul 31 '18 at 01:52
@Laurel please check the link. It is not real sculptor I saw, but somewhat similar. — , Jul 31 '18 at 01:54
@Laurel Now, I want to tell my mom that I saw beautiful but ugly troll sculptures. — , Jul 31 '18 at 02:00
I doubt it. I remember a question like this before, and as a starting point I wondered whether there was any word that encompassed opposites of anything, and the only thing I could come up with was "bittersweet". I have a feeling you'd need to use more than one word, but I'm probably wrong. Or you could do what the Germans do and just mash words together. — Zebrafish, Jul 31 '18 at 02:17
Possible duplicate: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/152722/word-for-something-being-both-beautiful-and-terrible-at-the-same-time — Kris, Jul 31 '18 at 06:39
Those images are not "ugly" -- there's nothing visually or morally repugnant about them. They mostly are gnomes, by the way. … — Kris, Jul 31 '18 at 06:48
@Kris thinking something is 'ugly' or 'beautiful' is relative in nature. For someone, it can be ugly, but for you it can be normal. For a mountaineers climbing a steep cliff is a beautiful experience, but for me it is a terrible idea. Also, this question is not duplicate questions of the one you pointed out. There is a difference between 'ugly' and 'terrible'. — Ubi.B, Jul 31 '18 at 07:09
"'Tis not a Lip, or Eye, we Beauty call, / But the joint Force and Full result of all." -- Alexander Pope — JEL, Jul 31 '18 at 07:45
Please include attribution (name of the source) for images used as examples. — Kris, Jul 31 '18 at 11:04
I know this is "English Language" but the English language does not have a term for those two things combined, however, French does with "Jolie laide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolie_laide — Mark Kirby, Jul 31 '18 at 23:18
You are lumping two very different things together: The artistry and the subject. The artistry is beautiful the subject is ugly. Therefore: an exquisitely drawn ugly gnome. A beautifully sculpted, but very disturbing... — Jim, Jan 03 '20 at 19:03
I vaguely recall a portmanteau along the lines of "bugly" (beautiful-ugly) being used for this concept, but I'm not sure of the precise term. — Hot Licks, Feb 07 '20 at 03:24

Kris · Answer 1 · 2020-01-06T14:16:26.210

7

A beautiful caricature may be rendered in a grotesque style in an aesthetically appealing way.

- -

Gnomes as sculptures are purposely created that way, so they are adorably abnormal.

What the OP has mentioned in the comment, trolls:

As mentioned, these trolls are "abnormal" (for a shock-and-thrill effect?), not ugly.

edited Jan 06 '20 at 14:16

answered Jul 31 '18 at 07:00

Kris

37,386

1

My answer is not about Trolls alone. I have use Troll as an example to describe something which is both beautiful and ugly. I already received nice answer. Also, it is not about image but about the sculptor which I happen to see few days back. Beautiful caricature??? I am not talking about cartoons here. Anyways, thanks for your effort and explanations. Thanks for uploading fugly pictures :) and please don't down vote my question as I have not accepted your answer. – Jul 31 '18 at 08:14
3

Kris can I ask you something? Why your answer receive upvote, if your answer is not related at all to the questions I have asked? How can that be?? – Jul 31 '18 at 09:42
You mean "my question is not ...." 2. "Caricature" is not about cartoons at all, look up the word in a dictionary.

Kris

Jul 31 '18 at 10:06

meta: 3. Good point. You see, there's a rethinking needed from your side. Try to take what is useful and helpful to you from the different answers, rather than focus on what is not relevant to you in them. There are things that you did not understand correctly to start with. A positive attitude always helps. Do not feel hurt if others seem to disagree with you. Good Luck. – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 10:10

1

@Kris Caricature is the part of Cartooning. "A cartoon is a simplified illustration that has a quick, whimsical style to it. Anything can be drawn as a cartoon whether it’s a person, animal or scenery. A caricature is specifically an illustration of a person drawn in an exaggerated style to play up their distinctive features. " – Jul 31 '18 at 11:01

2

@RobinBhatta please don't cross your line and start speculating. Everyone is trying to help you. In fact, I was the one who actually up voted Kris's answer. Everyone here is volunteering to help. I wish you delete your comments here. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 11:06

1

It is not discussion, it is a request to OP to delete unwanted comments. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 11:12

@Looper Whoa! My comment was meant for the OP. Which is why there's no @ in the beginning of the comment. – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 11:17

The OP is not automatically notified every time someone posts a comment. But Kris is the author of this post, so they will always be notified. Am I speaking to specifically to Kris though? Or am I speaking to anyone else who might be reading? How to know? Likewise, @Kris leaving a comment without specifically mentioning who it is addressed to is very open to interpretation. – Mari-Lou A Jul 31 '18 at 12:15

1

The (question) OP is not automatically notified. No, they are not. Didn't you know? And I checked back, hence I saw your comment. By the way, your answer has no attributions, no supporting evidence, it's really just your opinion. ~Please cite your sources~ as you have often reminded users to do. P.S I have not cast a single vote, anywhere. I don't think the Q is very well phrased, and none of the answers posted so far convince me. – Mari-Lou A Jul 31 '18 at 12:26

@Mari-LouA I guess, there is sufficient explanation to the OP's question. She later updated her description as well. In fact, questions like this are lacking sufficient explanation and still they have received good attention. Just a thought! – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 13:07

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Jul 31 '18 at 05:00

1

A fitting word could be "grotesque." According to Wikipedia: "Since at least the 18th century (in French and German as well as English), grotesque (or grottoesque) has come to be used as a general adjective for the strange, mysterious, magnificent, fantastic, hideous, ugly, incongruous, unpleasant, or disgusting, and thus is often used to describe weird shapes and distorted forms such as Halloween masks" Grotesque.

edited Jul 31 '18 at 05:00

Ubi.B

1

answered Jul 31 '18 at 03:59

Nikolas Radulovich

55
6

But where is the element of beauty in the word Grotesque? It is about funny (comical) and ugly. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 04:14
That may have been its origin, but I doubt anybody today would use grotesque to describe something as anything other than ugly. – Jason Bassford Jul 31 '18 at 04:17
1

The term is less about something being funny or comical, and more about something being distorted to achieve a particular effect. While trying to describe the trolls that we were presented as beautiful and ugly somewhat captures the experience of seeing the trolls, it fails to capture the intention behind the creation of the trolls, which is to present something as distorted to create an effect. The term "grotesque" acknowledges this intent in a way that does not demean the work for this intention, but rather applauds it for having achieved it. – Nikolas Radulovich Jul 31 '18 at 04:18
@NikolasRadulovich I can not describe grotesque for something ugly and beautiful. I agree more with other answer. – Jul 31 '18 at 05:35
@NikolasRadulovich please read my comment again. I have clearly wrote "funny and ugly" [it is not funny or comical]. Etymologically 'grotesque' is clownishly absurd. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 05:42
The trolls look clownishly absurd. There is not a word to describe beautiful and ugly simultaneously because nothing is ugly and beautiful simultaneously. This is less of an English question and more of an art history question; in the artistic context these trolls are presented in, acknowledgement of their clownish absurdity is recognition of the intention of the artist. A sculptor of gargoyles would be honored by the designation of "grotesque." – Nikolas Radulovich Jul 31 '18 at 18:24

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Jul 31 '18 at 11:16

1

Are you perhaps looking instead for a word to describe your response to the artwork, which is where the perception of beauty or ugliness in fact lies? And perhaps in that case a word that might help would be 'ambivalence' where you are pulled in two directions at once, feeling two contrasting feelings or thoughts. Or even literally, con-fusion.

answered Jul 31 '18 at 11:16

Cypress Butane

106

1

If the answer is ambivalence please put that first; don't ask a question. But I'm not certain that ambivalence could be used in a sentence "I saw some ... pictures today that I really think you should see and avoid!" – Andrew Leach Jul 31 '18 at 16:45
I am suggesting you are trying to render flat an experience that the specific point of, which the artist was making explicit and expressed was that of two incongruous feelings. To find one word would be to unexperience what you say you wish to convey. – Cypress Butane Jul 31 '18 at 23:10

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Jan 06 '20 at 14:30

The word that you want is an oxymoron. An example of an oxymoron is bittersweet.

Now, if I were to describe something that's aesthetic yet depicts something ghastly or grotesque, then for the lack of an oxymoron, I'd just be more descriptive of the figure's features. But bear in mind that one shouldn't totter into purple prose, for that stultifies the essence of the description.

Ubi.B · Answer 5 · 2018-08-02T18:10:57.060

0

The first thought that strike me when I read your question was Picasso. I always had this feeling, that Picasso's art were both ugly and beautiful.

Some of the Pablo Picasso's art work which I consider as both ugly and beautiful are Woman with Mustard Pot (1910), Femme assise (1909), or Old Woman (1901) are few examples.

I suspect that there is any single bewildering antinomy term which describes the paradoxical idea of something being both ugly and beautiful at the same time.

But we can give a try!

Merriam Webster defines cosmeticize as:

to make (something unpleasant or ugly) superficially attractive

The other word is ugly-duckling. It doesn't precisely talk about being ugly and beautiful at the same time.

Merriam Webster defines ugly duckling

one that appears very unpromising but often has great potential

The other English phrase that we can use is 'aesthetically ugly'. It accommodates both ugly and beautiful at the same time.

You can also read newspaper article on Ugly is the new beautiful: From aesthetic monstrosity to design masterpiece. The second picture in this article is of toy troll.

Excerpt from the news article:

His book Ugly explores the complexities of ugliness and makes the point that without ugliness, there would be no beauty. He has cherry-picked items for his book, including kitsch flying ducks, hideous pink-haired troll dolls – even the postmodernist architecture of the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery gets singled out. Ugliness is fascinating, he claims – take the repugnant The Ugly Duchess by Quentin Massys – "It's one of the most popular postcards sold in London's National Gallery shop and rivals the sales of Monet's tranquil Water-Lilies," he says.

Secondly, if you want to describe something as beautiful and terrible at the same time then you can read this questions and my answer.

You can read more about golden ratio on wiki article. It certainly talks about aesthetics.

edited Aug 02 '18 at 18:10

answered Jul 31 '18 at 05:11

Ubi.B

1

2

Thank you so much for your wonderful reply. I liked the example and phrase you gave. – Jul 31 '18 at 05:34
1

In summary, you seem to suggest the phrase "aesthetically ugly." However, it just implies "ugly in an aesthetic sense," i.e., "as far as aesthetics are concerned, it ranks as ugly," or "in the scale of aesthetics, it occupies the position at the absolute bottom, that is, Ugly." So that cannot be the answer. – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 06:44
1

"I always use it to describe the Picasso's art work." I would suggest you better not, for being necessarily misunderstood. :D – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 06:45
1

@Kris that can be your opinion. How you thought of ranking in terms of aesthetics is unknown. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 06:45
Grammar also suggest the use of adverb + noun. E.g. (adverb + noun) onlooker or bystander. I am unknown to what you mean "However, it just implies …. absolute bottom, that is, Ugly." It sounded more like opinion. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 06:49
1

@Kris with respect to above comment. I would like to add, that when you do not have a single word to describe the essence of both qualities (here, ugly and beauty) then certainly you can use compound words closest to the meaning of required sense. – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 06:53
1

Sure, so long as you are not accidentally conveying the wrong meaning. – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 07:00
1

Wrong meaning to what? to the opinion that Picasso's art is aesthetically ugly or the word 'aesthetically ugly' itself? Secondly, it is not the possible duplicate of the link you pointed out. There is a huge difference between being something 'ugly' and 'terrible'. I request you to go through the answer, before you half-hearty comment. Thanks! :) – Ubi.B Jul 31 '18 at 07:03

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Jul 31 '18 at 05:56

I doubt there is a word to describe something by two specific antonyms - that's because i doubt the sentiment exist, and thus does not need to be described. Something can have beautiful aspects, and ugly aspects, it's ugliness/beauty being iridiscent in a way, or an object might appear ugly and then again beautiful in fast succeasion, be scintillating in its beauty. Something may induce admiration and fear at the same time, thus being awesome (in its original sense). You could focus on the alienness of the features by describing its beauty as monstrous, obscene, macabre, incongruous, perverted, twisted.

Last resort would be to just transport the impossibilty of the clash of impressions: The troll was phantasmagorical, or dream-like.

thank you for your reply :) I don't have enough point to up vote right now. — , Jul 31 '18 at 05:59

score 0 · Answer 7 · answered Jul 31 '18 at 10:08

0

I'd vouch for "bizarre" even though the meaning is more in line of "defies characterization" rather than "is both beautiful and ugly". But the alternative "grotesque" is quite more negatively connotated.

Dictionary definitions would be somewhat similar and they are partly listed as synonymous but I do feel that there is a meaningful difference.

answered Jul 31 '18 at 10:08

Where's the idea of "beauty" inherent in bizarre? Please cite your sources, else this will be a comment, not an answer. – Kris Jul 31 '18 at 10:11

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Dec 09 '19 at 04:38

0

daedal[ deed-l ]

adjective skillful; ingenious.

cleverly intricate. diversified.

answered Dec 09 '19 at 04:38

Crw

1

1

Welcome to English Language & Usage! Please try to add references to support your answer. Also note that sources need to be attributed. – JJJ Dec 09 '19 at 07:10

Is there a word which describes something being both beautiful and ugly at the same time?

8 Answers8