Even growing up I've encountered numerous discussions/claims telling me that humans are innately attracted to symmetry and "perfection" (whatever that even means? Is that lack of real definition of perfection why I see such cracks in all of these arguments?) and that is the reason supermodels are chosen and thrive in the industry of selling their "perfection".
I struggled with a lot of Dutton's argument for quite some time. I won't say he fully contradicts or confirms my beliefs or values; I don't fully agree or disagree. If beauty is an innately held standard, why do different people consider themselves to have a "type" when it comes to dating, which varies so vastly from peers or many other people in the dating pool? Wouldn't every single person then enjoy the exact same art, or people, or books, or plays, or movies, or landscapes? But that's not the case, is it?
Maybe I'm too much of an artist, too much of a humanist - I believe we all have a free will and our environment, culture, upbringing, and what we expose ourselves to (or are exposed to) do have quite the impact on our behaviors, our beliefs, our lives. I don't believe it's necessarily possible to place art into science - nay, to place 'beauty' into science. Art isn't a science - and I think making people feel something is more important than trying to describe why they're feeling it.
So maybe Dutton is right, in some sense. I do believe many things are widely seen as 'beautiful', whether that be a perfect savanna landscape, physical objects that are well made, or classic literature/plays that have stood the tests of time. But that dress my sister bought that she thought was the most beautiful thing she's ever seen? I think it's hideous.
I agree with you that beauty is subjective and really in the eye of the beholder. I believe that what other's think is beautiful is based on their lives and way of looking at things. The slight nuances of life that give everyone different personalities are the same things that rule our opinions of art. I grew up in an arts environment, I learned to appreciate all aspects of it and accept that even though I may not fully understand the artist's intention, I know that their art was beautiful to them. My mother disagrees with this and needs to find her own reasons to find something beautiful. So maybe there is a certain science behind why something is beautiful or appealing, but I agree that art has to do at least one thing, it has to make you feel. Maybe feeling that something is not beautiful is beauty within itself.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you and Morgan that idea of beauty varies from person to person but I have to disagree with your statement that art isn't science. Maybe as a physics major, I'm biased but seeing how science plays a role in topics not usually focused in STEM is enjoyable. For example (and minor spoiler ahead for GOT fans if you haven't seen season 7), Neil Degrasse Tyson was easily able to point out that the dragon, Viserion, from Game of Thrones had a higher temperature in its fire breathing abilities because blue light has a higher frequency than yellow and therefore outputs more heat as energy. Science and magic working together! That's beautiful to me. In addition, galaxies themselves are nature's work of art. The topic nowadays are usually covered as science news and projects but you can't argue that when you look at a picture of one, there is beauty to it. I understand Dutton's need to quantify our emotions to numbers as a bit irritating, but to him and to others, it's one of the most engaging aspects of the universe.
ReplyDeleteHi Chrys,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your take on Dutton's lecture! I think he kind of tries to make what people perceive to be beautiful seem more uniform than is actually the case. Sure, everyone likes a nice landscape, but, overall, beauty is far from objective and people vary a lot in what everyday objects they think are beautiful. I think his points were all really interesting, but I don't think that he left enough wiggle room in asserting so firmly that people's conception of beauty is completely a result of evolution. I also agree that making people feel something is usually more important than finding a way to describe the reason behind why they feel something. Knowing why something inspires you can be interesting, but wouldn't you rather be inspired than lectured?
Chrys,
ReplyDeleteThese are all well made points. I certainly agree that art is intended to induce an emotional response, and this response is what makes it enjoyable/beautiful. However, I am not convinced that Dutton is claiming that genetics can explain the entirety of the experience of beauty. He leaves his definition of artistic beauty intentionally vague, that we enjoy something "well done."
My reading of his lecture is that genetics predisposes people to a general understanding of what is beautiful. This basic understanding is a starting point (the nature component of nature vs. nurture). However, this also leaves significant room for individual and cultural input into the conception of beauty (the nurture component). My reading (which is certainly biased by my strong lean towards science as opposed to the humanities) is more consistent with a dual nature / nurture interaction than a pure “genetics is all that matters” reading.
You are absolutely right to point out the seemingly huge individual differences in what constitutes beauty. This is not a point that Dutton addresses directly or convincingly in his lecture. I think my retort would be to consider the things you find beautiful. Personally, I have never found a work of art beautiful that I cannot also describe as skillful in some sense (although maybe I’m not thinking hard enough). To your point about variation in the perceptions of human beauty (a certain “type” in dating), I don’t think I have as satisfying of answers. However, my gut tells me that even in modern times, genetics again serves as a strong starting point and environmental factors work to shape these preferences over time.
Lastly, I understand your stance on not intellectualizing art and aesthetics, but I don’t agree with your conclusion. In my opinion, we don’t have to surrender our sense of free will or amazement of art by accepting an evolutionary role in our sense of beauty. On the contrary, I prefer to interpret this as grounding and reassuring of humanity’s shared evolutionary history and background. In this interpretation, explaining the “why” adds further amazement to the human experience, not less.
Thanks for writing this. I enjoyed reading it!
Andrew - thank you for your input! Your thoughts definitely opened my mind and made me think.
ReplyDeleteI guess I really took Dutton's words as to be literal and absolute: thus why I felt his argument was incomplete and unsatisfying. Your take makes me feel more comfortable in this science and ideas. Genetics and science being just a basis for interpretations of beauty that can still change and be personally interpreted makes a lot more sense to me, though I don't know if there will ever be any completely satisfying conclusions from all of this.
Again, thanks for your input and interesting take!