After watching the TED Talks video, I wanted to discuss in my post what it is to believe something as beautiful and how humans determine the beauty in things. So what does it mean for something to be beautiful? That is the question posed by Denis Dutton in his 2010 presentation. He begins his presentation by stating the misconceptions of beauty and then addresses the true root of beauty—Darwinism. He states that natural selection is in fact the way to beauty’s discovery. More specifically, survival of the fittest got the ball rolling and helped to make beauty a priority. Be that through strength, size, or other physical attributes beauty is determined through Darwinism during its first introduction.
Dutton goes on to develop the experience of beauty. He states, “…beauty is nature’s way of acting at a distance.” This is his method of illustrating the how evolution determined beauty’s outlook. The example that I found most interesting was the paintings that all depict an idyllic view of an “ideal savanna landscape.” Dutton highlights that no matter the region this view of an ideal outdoor landscape is commonly seen as the most attractive. It depicts sloping grassy hills and trees sprinkled throughout with a road winding through the middle of the image off into the distance as if leading to a better place.
Towards the end of his presentation, he drives home the origins of artistic beauty and it’s connection to Homo erectus’ invention of hand axes. He reiterates, “The best available explanation is they are literally the earliest known works of art.” This is because Homo erectus are believed to have taken pride in the craftsmanship and “elegant shape” of the hand axes they made, similarly to artists today. The reading by Dissanayake also addresses the importance of art and it’s purpose in society, “To think of art as a behavior of making special is truly a change of paradigm.” This quote exemplifies the claim of Dutton that Homo erectus prided themselves on making specially and individually unique hand axes similar to artists of today’s pride for a sculpture or painting. Each share similarities but are individually special and unlike the next, which is the true purpose of art.
Sources:
1. Video: https://youtu.be/PktUzdnBqWI
Well said, I also responded to the video, so we have some similar points. I enjoyed reading your response to the more evolutionary side of Ted’s argument, however. I focused most of my attention to the artistic side of his case and how that has developed over time. I think that both of these two components to his argument brought on an interesting question. As you said in your post, Ted is illustrating how evolution determined beauty’s outlook. Assuming that species evolve and go through significant changes, does the same apply to art and beauty? Or does that play into the “eye of the beholder” concept? The reference to the grassy hills and trees image Ted created would suggest that beauty hasn’t really changed, its something we are all familiar with. But today some art is also much more complex and people tend to see things very differently. I’ll leave it to you to see what you think, well done in your response. It was refreshing to read a response to a different aspect of Ted’s argument.
Going off of the questions you posed, I think art and beauty do evolve in the same way as species in some respects. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly was determines how something is perceived as beautiful, but it’s clear that evolution has changed it’s perception. For example, Homo erectus were hairy, very primitive individuals, whereas now, humans are cultured, domesticated people. Art and beauty has had a similar evolution. Cave drawings are prime examples of the types of art that was circulating during pre-historic times approximately 40,000 years ago. Today, evolution has taken place and art is captured in paintings on canvases, display sculptures, and other objects or ways that can be perceived as modern beauty. In some respects, much like the Savanna landscape example that Dutton uses, art is still representationally the same no matter when it was made, yet in others the beautiful attributes that art carries has evolved due to cultural taste shifts over the years.
The whole concept of art and beauty being defined by natural selection to me is still a little odd to me, and hard to fall in line behind. I do see the examples that Dennis has in his video and how, in some cases, the more beautiful animal would win out in the situation of find a better mate. This would in turn lead that animal to be able to transfer his genetic properties on to the offspring; this basically sums up evolution. I am just not too sure I see how the creative process of expression fits into the basic human survival instincts, at least not in the terms of beauty. There almost seems to be a missing link (pun intended). I do like your write up and enjoyed reading it. I have to say one of the funny parts to the video that I noticed was how Dennis commented on the tree in the ideal landscape. This tree, to be perceived as beautiful to us humans, would have branches forking out at a low level. I also like how there was a saber-toothed tiger there that a human was hiding from. I guess the forked tree is beautiful to us humans because we can climb it easier.