I disagree with Denis Dutton’s TED talk on beauty. Dutton claims that beauty is something we inherit from our ancestors and that there are deeply rooted reasons why we think things are beautiful. Dutton described beauty as, “it’s deep in our minds, it’s a gift handed down from the intelligent skills and rich emotional lives of our most ancient ancestors” (15:00). An example he gives in his talk, is that people all over the world think that the sensory of the Savannas is beautiful. According to Denis, the Savannas are where we evolved, therefore we enjoy looking at pictures of it. He claims that people tend to like this particular landscape because of this. However, I disagree. I would much rather look at a picture or painting of the beach, a sunset, green mountains, snowy forests, or fields full of flowers. A picture of the Savannas would not even cross my mind when looking for artwork. I rarely see pictures of this type of landscape in other peoples homes, in school, or in stores as well. The second point I disagree with is the idea that we like the image and shape of the ancient Acheulian hand axes. Dutton states that people today still find this artifact beautiful. However I do not find this artifact “beautiful”. I think it is very interesting, however it does not give me the emotional response that beauty does. He continues by making a bold claim that the reason why we like diamonds today, is because the shape reminds us of these hand axes. To me, the shapes of diamonds, are not what intrigue me to them. The sparkle and shine of diamonds are what catch my eye. I do agree with some of Dutton’s points, like the concept that we find beauty in something done well, but overall I disagree with his points about beauty being inherited through evolution.
I also disagree with what Dutton had to say. He defines beauty as, “Beauty is an adaptive affect in which we extend and intensify in the creation and enjoyment in the works of art and entertainment”. I would say that my definition is a little different compared to his because I think that beauty is seen differently from every person because not everyone thinks that the same people or things are beautiful. My definition of beautiful is anything that is appealing to one’s eye. Like you said, what each person finds beautiful has nothing to do with genes or what their parents think is beautiful and also, not everyone enjoys looking at a photo of the Savannas just because that is where we evolved. I know personally that I would much rather look at a picture of the beach than a picture of the Savannas. Beauty relates to art because art can be seen through beauty and beauty can be seen through art. Art has beauty and art is not art unless there is beauty. No one would appreciate art if it had no beauty, so therefore art needs beauty in order to exist. Beauty is very universal. Dutton also said that “we find beauty in things done well.” All the things we find beautiful have a common thread that link each other. All in all, I can say that we both agree that beauty in not inherited through evolution.
I understand where you are coming from and how it may seem hard to understand all of Dutton’s points. While some of the evolutionary concepts regarding the way we find things beautiful seem a little far-fetched, they do seem to have some truth behind them. While you and I may not find hand axes beautiful, I think Dutton is just trying to make a connection by explaining how they were beautiful to our ancestors. They were an early form of art and it was the crafting that was so interesting to many people. A quality hand axe meant more than just a well-crafted object, it meant that a person had desirable personal qualities (skill, intelligence, motor control, planning ability, etc.). The way that they were interested in these things are similar to the way we are interested in things now. While we may not find the same things beautiful as our ancestors, we do have the same admiration for beauty in skilled performances (an ancestral personality trait that we share). I hope some of my points make sense!
You bring up some good arguments about Dutton’s discussion. After reading your post, I reevaluated some of his points and saw some truth to them, that I initially did not. For example, you brought up the reason why our ancestors thought that the hand axes were beautiful. It makes sense that they would think they were beautiful because they represented the skill and talent it took to make them. From my original post, I stated that I agreed with Dutton that people find beauty in something done well, however I did not apply this to the hand axes. Even though hand axes are not specifically beautiful to us, we can apply the concept of finding beauty in something well-crafted to life today. For example, a lot of times people find artist, musician, and athletes as more attractive because of their talents, than they would have if they did not have these talents. Now looking back to our ancestors, I can see why these crafted hand axe would be seen as beautiful.
You have some good points about how you disagree with what Dutton states as reasons for why things are considered beautiful. I would though question what is it about the landscapes that make them so beautiful to you? When he uses the term savanna in this way I think that it is more of a general name for the environment, as opposed to a specific location. Those things that you mentioned, such as a beach, or a green mountain range, consist of similar concepts that were related to the painting. These are locations that not only we were potentially born from, but at the same time they are locations that are ideal for survival past that point. As for the blades, I can see what you mean that the draw to them is not the sharp linear features, but instead the sparkle and shine. It is interesting though that many of the most precious gems that we look at in life have those same angular designs, even if they are not as shiny or clear.