• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Argument from beauty

I have a feeling (YMMV) that appreciation of art/music/whatever is an accidental aspect of abilities developed for survival (in its widest possible meaning). For example, some sounds in music touch off the same neurons that are linked to sounds in the environment that are signs of something good. Aspects of paintings remind us of good things - good environments or curves that are womanly. If you see what I mean.
 
I think a part of it is the visual equivalent of candy (stick with me for a second)

We have a whole bunch of dispositions to enjoy things that are rare or limited in nature, but beneficial to our survival. We crave sweetness and fat because there is an evolutionary advantage, and at this point in history, we have enough surplus and control over our environment to create pure indulgences of these instincts, hence candy, ice cream etc.

Art tends to bring together a bunch of things that activate our reward centers. Somebody mentioned pattern recognition. Your brain rewards you by making you feel good when you figure something out, even if you have help. This is what happens at the end of a joke.
 
Lonewulf said:
Er...

Why would that cause us to care about art, or find it appealing, though?
Click to expand...

There are several reasons to care about art, without it even being about art itself.

1. What's represented in that picture or sculpture.

As a trivial and silly example, take porn (or the many nude paintings and sculptures which once served as softcore porn and now pass for fine art.) You're not programmed in any way to like porn as such. It's just that your brain can decode the scene in that picture just as well and figure out "mmm, naked woman" or "mmm, people having sex" and that idea triggers your own reproduction pathways.

Same idea for other subjects. There are symbols like food, a tranquil family scene, etc, which remind you of your own needs. Not because it's art, but because your brain decodes the represented scene just as well.

2. As a learned social behaviour. We're social creatures, and we learn to act in whatever ways we think will get us accepted in a certain group.

If that group happens to be audiophiles, we learn to rant about the subtle sound qualities when playing MP3's over an audiophile-grade network cable or off a good hard drive. (Both absurd, but I've actually seen people argue that bass sounds fuller off brand X of hard drive.) If that group happens to be lovers of classic music, we learn to rant and rave about the feelings evoked by a Tschaikowski or Mozart, and if that group happens to be the local high-school hip-hoppers, we do the same about Eminem. Etc.

But equally it could be about belonging to the local Linux User Group or to Slashdot. And I could swear that some people bleat against MS or repeat some memes like a parrot, not because they've actually got any objective reason for either, but just because they got the idea that that's how you show you belong to a nerd group.

To give an extreme example again: think The Emperor's New Clothes. It's not a fairy tale, it's an insightful observation of group psychology.

In a nutshell, this latter effect isn't even about art or about any particular behaviour, it's about being social and fitting in a group. It's just a group survival strategy. We want to be in a group, and from there we invent our own means of defining the group and of showing we belong there.
 
HansMustermann said:
There are several reasons to care about art, without it even being about art itself.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware. I was just criticizing Arthwollipot's explanation, that didn't seem to answer the OP's question. His argument is good for explaining why people are able to focus on Art, but not why they would even spend their time doing so.

While I'm able to accept that different cultures find different forms of art appealing, I do personally think that there are some things that are more or less universal in appeal of certain forms of artwork... and some things that cause almost universal disgust (see modern art). ;)
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I personally think that it's a side-effect of humanity's development of civilisation.

Once the focus for humanity moved off mere survival, people were free to pursue other activities, including art.
Click to expand...
.
And the swifties that invented religion, with all that spare time not being spent on hunting/gathering, fingered out how to make everyone else do it for them!
 
Lonewulf said:
I'm well aware. I was just criticizing Arthwollipot's explanation, that didn't seem to answer the OP's question. His argument is good for explaining why people are able to focus on Art, but not why they would even spend their time doing so.
Click to expand...
A completely valid criticism, I might add.
 
I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?
 
MattusMaximus said:
I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not overly concerned with the concept of universal beauty and tend to agree that there is no reason to think there is such a thing.

I'm purely concerned with the reason for our ability and tendency to find anything outside of other human beings beautiful (e.g. abstract art, music, poetry, etc).

The posts so far have been great, by the way. :)
 
MattusMaximus said:
I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?
Click to expand...
Because our notions of beauty have evolved with the universe as a reference point. The universe doesn't conform itself to our notions of beauty, our notions of beauty conform themselves to the universe.
 
Robert Oz said:
So, why do we find a string of musical notes beautiful? Why do we find certain arrangements of paint beautiful? Why do we find the design of a building beautiful?
Click to expand...


While art is not necessarily equivalent to that of appreciating beauty, Ramachandran has proposed 10 universal laws of art:
The Artful Brain said:
  1. Peak shift
  2. Grouping
  3. Contrast
  4. Isolation
  5. Perception problem solving
  6. Symmetry
  7. Abhorrence of coincidence/generic viewpoint
  8. Repetition, rhythm and orderliness
  9. Balance
  10. Metaphor
Click to expand...
If you're interested, you can listen to his lecture through BBC's site here: Lecture 3: The Artful Brain. The transcript is also available on the same site (including some explanatory pictures).

For video... here's a few worth considering: Ramachandran: Neurology & Art (1:29:29). Here's a slightly shorter lecture focusing on Hindu art: Aesthetic Universals and the Neurology of Hindu Art (1:07:43).
 
arthwollipot said:
Because our notions of beauty have evolved with the universe as a reference point. The universe doesn't conform itself to our notions of beauty, our notions of beauty conform themselves to the universe.
Click to expand...

Yet, ironically, in the context of at least the U.S. society, modern ideas of the "perfect woman" are either physically improbable to downright unhealthy...

Just look at Barbie (the older version), and the women that want to be like her.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
It's all about sex.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I've just done a book club meeting on Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis and I can just imagine a chapter that ends with a sentence something like, "Evolutionary biology shows that our appreciation of beauty is exactly what we would expect it to be if God didn't exist."
 
And a lot of the most universally "Beautiful" things are clear evolutionary benefits.

A green and lush landscape (likely edible vegetation and the animals it draws) Clear drinkable water. If a primitive human saw this from a distance, it would be smart to go there, seeing it up close, it would be wise to stay there.

A potential mate with all the signs of health and fertility.

These subjects feature pretty widely in art from all over.
 
I can think of a decent rebuttal to the argument from beauty.

The next time you are confronted with this, respond "Homer's poetry is beautiful. Greek and Roman art is beautiful. The best works of art that have ever been made. Greek and Roman architecture is beautiful. All of it was done in the name of Zeus and in tribute to him and his daddy and mommy and little brothers and sisters and his wife and girlfriends and sons and daughters and the other gods and whatever-the-heck they were that people once believed in. Does this mean that Zeus and his dysfunctional family exist? Were the stars made when Zeus put them up in tribute to fallen warriors? Are seastorms Zeus' brother getting angry? Were all humans created by Zeus' uncle from clay? Is the cause of all of the evil in the world that a woman you never knew opened a box, punishing you and everyone who will ever live with death, poverty and disease? You must think so, since you find the temples the pagan Gods were worshipped in and the art and poetry created for them beautiful."
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
Yet, ironically, in the context of at least the U.S. society, modern ideas of the "perfect woman" are either physically improbable to downright unhealthy...

Just look at Barbie (the older version), and the women that want to be like her.
Click to expand...

That's a different aspect. The short story is that it boils down to the same phenomenon that gave us conspicuous consumption. More to the point:

A) rarity.

A lot of people choose a GF or BF more for bragging rights value than for actually liking that person, or planning to get along with that person or to be happy together. And something that's a biological improbability is sorta like owning a two-headed horse. It may be impractical and useless, but it's rare so it must be worth something.

And a lot of people try to be that prize BF or GF.

B) a peculiar culture which emphasises, basically "look at me! I'm well off enough to not have to work much, if at all!"

We've historically had various fads like being fashionable to be very pale: shows that you don't have to work outside, hence you must be aristocracy. We had corsets which essentially cripple their wearer, but boy do they show she can wear one because she doesn't have to do any physical work. We still have suits which basically just say "look at me, I can wear this because I don't do more than polish a chair with my butt all day." Etc.

And Barbie seems to me born out of the same mentality. It's the image a woman who doesn't have to do more than look fashionable all day, and can have a body shape that doesn't include much muscle or the reserves to get between meals while doing more than carrying a purse around.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I take a different view on questions like these... because why should our egocentric notions of what we consider to be beautiful matter at all (in the context of science)?

Why would the universe conform itself to our notions of beauty? Or, for that matter, ugliness?
Click to expand...

I believe that there's a certain philosophical concept that has to do with the "wisdom of disgust". Some things we find disgusting that we have good reason to. For instance, can anyone say that mold on their bread is "pretty"? I don't think of mold as being attractive; even those that like to see things rot, don't do it because they see it as being beautiful or attractive (though I'm sure there are exceptions in this case, I'm pretty sure they're much in the minority).

There's a reason why; mold can harm us.

Of course, mold cannot harm the universe, so that doesn't go against what you're saying. But not all views of beauty vs. ugliness are necessarily arbitrary.
 
HansMustermann said:
On the other hand mold on or in cheese is good. Of course, it's penicilinum.
Click to expand...
Good to ingest? Would you eat that mold without any problems?

Keep in mind that "injecting penicillin" wasn't exactly in the minds of our ancestors.

But yes, your argument is good for stating that disgusting things can potentially do us some good in ways that we didn't think of before.

But there's often a reason why they were disgusting in the first place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom