Defending the Function-as-Beauty Hypothesis
Nov 4, 2009 General Nonsense |
Yesterday I blogged that beauty is nothing more than our recognition of functions that are related to current or past survival. Many of you chimed in with counterexamples and arguments. I will address them here.
Q. Music is beautiful. Where's the survival benefit there?
A. Even the most famous musicians are generally only enjoyed by 10% of the population. Someone mentioned Miles Davis. I can't stand listening to him. But every person reading this blog would agree that a lush forest is beautiful. So while music in general is universally enjoyed, any given song does not register as beautiful to the public at large.
Q. What about art?
A. We speak of "appreciating" art, and I think that's a good word. Most art wouldn't be described as beautiful. The Mona Lisa, for example, is skillfully done, but the subject is homely. If other people hadn't told you it was worth a fortune, you wouldn't hang it in your living room. And like music, there is no universal standard for beauty in art.
But there's still a correlation between art and survival impulses. It's probably no coincidence that so much art includes food, babies, and well-fed women during childbearing years.
Q. You can concoct an argument that ANYTHING has a survival benefit.
A. What's the survival benefit of a spider or a human turd? If you break down either of them for their color and form, you'd find the elements that would be considered beauty in some other context. But since spiders and turds have no survival benefit, they don't appear beautiful to the public at large.
Q. What about an ocean? Or a sunset?
A. The ocean is full of food. That one is easy. And if you are an early human living outdoors, sunset and sunrise are probably the best times for hunting and gathering. Midday is too hot. After dark, you're more prey than predator.
Q. Why does a Corvette or a Porsche look more beautiful than an Edsel?
A. Fast cars have more function than slow ones. Most of the beautiful ones are fast. You need speed to catch prey and avoid predators.
Q. Music is beautiful. Where's the survival benefit there?
A. Even the most famous musicians are generally only enjoyed by 10% of the population. Someone mentioned Miles Davis. I can't stand listening to him. But every person reading this blog would agree that a lush forest is beautiful. So while music in general is universally enjoyed, any given song does not register as beautiful to the public at large.
Q. What about art?
A. We speak of "appreciating" art, and I think that's a good word. Most art wouldn't be described as beautiful. The Mona Lisa, for example, is skillfully done, but the subject is homely. If other people hadn't told you it was worth a fortune, you wouldn't hang it in your living room. And like music, there is no universal standard for beauty in art.
But there's still a correlation between art and survival impulses. It's probably no coincidence that so much art includes food, babies, and well-fed women during childbearing years.
Q. You can concoct an argument that ANYTHING has a survival benefit.
A. What's the survival benefit of a spider or a human turd? If you break down either of them for their color and form, you'd find the elements that would be considered beauty in some other context. But since spiders and turds have no survival benefit, they don't appear beautiful to the public at large.
Q. What about an ocean? Or a sunset?
A. The ocean is full of food. That one is easy. And if you are an early human living outdoors, sunset and sunrise are probably the best times for hunting and gathering. Midday is too hot. After dark, you're more prey than predator.
Q. Why does a Corvette or a Porsche look more beautiful than an Edsel?
A. Fast cars have more function than slow ones. Most of the beautiful ones are fast. You need speed to catch prey and avoid predators.
Votes: +1
Comments
User Name: jacklang0001
Nov 22, 2009
0
====================== http://www.ebusybiz.com ================== ====================== http://www.ebusybiz.com ==================
<<<<<<<<<> short time <<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<<<> free shipping <<<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<> competitive price <<<<<<<><<<<<<<> any size available <<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<> accept the paypal <<<<<<<<<>
cheap nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet
<<<<<<<<<> short time <<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<<<> free shipping <<<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<><<<<<<<> competitive price <<<<<<<><<<<<<<> any size available <<<<<<<<>
<<<<<<<<<> accept the paypal <<<<<<<<<>
cheap nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet
User Name: epicuriosity
Nov 15, 2009
0
Babies and fertile women are frequently featured in art because during the most prolific years of pre-Modern Western art (and the artistic periods that tend to be given the greatest emphasis by educators), the Church was the main source of patronage for artists. Who were they always paid to paint? The Virgin Mary and Jesus, of course.
User Name: hardcoder
Nov 11, 2009
0
music (and dance) was traditionally a tribal thing, and an individual with the prowess to dance and sing skillfully obviously had sufficient neural cycles to dedicate to this kind of 'frivolous' activity, not to mention the physical abilities to do so - we find musicians attractive and admire those that possess extraordinary skills. these skills theoretically translate into a smarter/better mate. moreover, dance often related to understanding animal behaviour or hunting, and music often provided a memorized map of the landscape, important historical stories and certain tribal laws or ethics. music is part of our evolution and survival.
User Name: another
Nov 11, 2009
0
Looking at and listening to things that You think are beautiful boosts your immune system.
In My Opinion, sunsets are the most perfect works of art.
Fast cars are works of art; ask the designers.
And someone thought Edsels were a work of art or they wouldn't have produced it.
In My Opinion, sunsets are the most perfect works of art.
Fast cars are works of art; ask the designers.
And someone thought Edsels were a work of art or they wouldn't have produced it.
User Name: nchocka
Nov 6, 2009
0
Just another thought after I posted the previous post: the 'need' I mentioned earlier is in fact the need to experience things since that looks like the whole purpose of creation. We are always looking for experiences that we've not had repeatedly before. A sunset looks good if you see it once in a year but if it is always 'on' then it has no value. You can sell a full moon night experience for a million dollars if nobody has access to it ..
User Name: nchocka
Nov 6, 2009
0
I think you are right in your conclusion but the definition of function need not be restricted to survival. It can be defined better as a person's current 'need'. So for example if food looks good for most of us, it may not be true for a person like chirst who was willing to die for a different 'need'. A person's need follow a hierarchy (similar to Maslow's hierarchy) of need and sometimes people go beyond a simple need to survive.
That could explain the beauty of music because most music sounds good to most of the people though it does not have a survival value. In fact music has a negative survival value since you need to divert your attention to enjoy it and so should have never developed in the first place. Music has developed simply because it is somehow satisfying to us in spite of its apparent uselessness.
Alcohol is another example and is similar to music since they both give satisfaction in spite of negative survival value. But both of them could be explained if you interpret function as need.
That could explain the beauty of music because most music sounds good to most of the people though it does not have a survival value. In fact music has a negative survival value since you need to divert your attention to enjoy it and so should have never developed in the first place. Music has developed simply because it is somehow satisfying to us in spite of its apparent uselessness.
Alcohol is another example and is similar to music since they both give satisfaction in spite of negative survival value. But both of them could be explained if you interpret function as need.
User Name: marcoklaue
Nov 5, 2009
0
Wow, nice try on explaining the aesthetic beauty of a sunset by saying that it's... the best time for hunting??? I suppose that also explains why our impulse at seeing a beautiful sunset is to stand still and contemplate it, rather than feeling the urge to grab a spear and disappear into the bush?
User Name: hbmindia
Nov 5, 2009
0
Actually it works slightly confusingly for me:
In many ways I am a creature of habit. I go to work everyday at South Bombay, do pretty much the same sort of stuff daily (read this blog etc), return home at roughly the same time, go to bed at roughly the same time etc. Every weekend is also pretty much routine week every week. I also eat the same breakfast everyday since years. I have no complaints and am quite happy being in this sort of a rut.
In fact, I get uncomfortable if the routine changes somewhat. I do not take jobs even at substantially higher salary if the office is not in South Bombay; I have been travelling between my house and South Bombay since almost 25 years now and I just become uncomfortable if I have to travel to some other place. I avoid going out for parties, dinners etc as it will mean I will go to bed later than usual. A creature of habit as I said.
But if you want to make me really unhappy just force me to leave house in the morning at a fixed time everyday. Force me to have lunch at a fixed time everyday. Force me to remain inside the office from 9 to 5. These small flexibilities I just can't do without.
In short, I do not need flexibility in the broad routine of life, but I become very unhappy if I do not have flexibility within a single day's time frame.
Can't really understand it.
In many ways I am a creature of habit. I go to work everyday at South Bombay, do pretty much the same sort of stuff daily (read this blog etc), return home at roughly the same time, go to bed at roughly the same time etc. Every weekend is also pretty much routine week every week. I also eat the same breakfast everyday since years. I have no complaints and am quite happy being in this sort of a rut.
In fact, I get uncomfortable if the routine changes somewhat. I do not take jobs even at substantially higher salary if the office is not in South Bombay; I have been travelling between my house and South Bombay since almost 25 years now and I just become uncomfortable if I have to travel to some other place. I avoid going out for parties, dinners etc as it will mean I will go to bed later than usual. A creature of habit as I said.
But if you want to make me really unhappy just force me to leave house in the morning at a fixed time everyday. Force me to have lunch at a fixed time everyday. Force me to remain inside the office from 9 to 5. These small flexibilities I just can't do without.
In short, I do not need flexibility in the broad routine of life, but I become very unhappy if I do not have flexibility within a single day's time frame.
Can't really understand it.
User Name: quantum_flux
Nov 5, 2009
0
Music is beautiful because it causes various brainwave patterns to form.
User Name: jackheathcomau
Nov 5, 2009
0
While most art itself isn't functional, it demonstrates that the brain of the artist is - maybe that's the cause of its beauty. And there could be a sexual reason, too - at the most fertile part of their menstrual cycle, women prefer creative men over wealthy ones (Human Nature, vol 17, p 50).
It's a good thing most artists are so poor, or the rest of us would be muscled out of the gene pool in the blink of an eye.
It's a good thing most artists are so poor, or the rest of us would be muscled out of the gene pool in the blink of an eye.
User Name: mazarlarry
Nov 5, 2009
0
I think dimples are beautiful, but what is their function vis-a-vis survival?
User Name: HumilityRocks
Nov 5, 2009
-1
Scott,
Beauty is more than an undercurrent of survival pragmatism. And I do get that there is a big difference in what we perceive as helpful to survival and what is actually helpful to survival. To beat on one of your examples:
Spiders eat flies and bugs and the like, so a good population of spiders helps check the the number of flies and bugs that are irritating and get into our food - and also cut down on disease carrying mosquitoes, especially in areas where malaria is more common.
Might be a small help to survival, but I think it is there.
Also, the assumption of the larger argument is that what helps us be healthier or survive better is seen as good - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If that were universally true, we would crave fresh vegetables and the most healthy foods for us would be the most delicious to our perception, as opposed to sugar and steak being food groups of choice.
Beauty is more than an undercurrent of survival pragmatism. And I do get that there is a big difference in what we perceive as helpful to survival and what is actually helpful to survival. To beat on one of your examples:
Spiders eat flies and bugs and the like, so a good population of spiders helps check the the number of flies and bugs that are irritating and get into our food - and also cut down on disease carrying mosquitoes, especially in areas where malaria is more common.
Might be a small help to survival, but I think it is there.
Also, the assumption of the larger argument is that what helps us be healthier or survive better is seen as good - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If that were universally true, we would crave fresh vegetables and the most healthy foods for us would be the most delicious to our perception, as opposed to sugar and steak being food groups of choice.
User Name: GovBert
Nov 5, 2009
0
Survival benefits are dependant partly on the person. People raised in different areas adapt to the life needed to survive and thrive in those environments. While some of the preference may be the result of many generations of breeding and survival, it would be fallacious to ignore the effect of the upbringing environment.
I prefer the beauty of the desert and others prefer trees and forests. To me trees and undergrowth are places for spiders, snakes, and others to hide. Not to mention its hard to see the deer for the trees. For survival I prefer open areas bounded by forests. Live in the place that is easy to watch for approaching threats and hunt in the forests.
To stand by this argument, look at the different living patterns set up by the various pre-European American inhabitants (Native Americans). Some lived in forests, plains, mountains, etc and learned to adapt in their environment.
I prefer the beauty of the desert and others prefer trees and forests. To me trees and undergrowth are places for spiders, snakes, and others to hide. Not to mention its hard to see the deer for the trees. For survival I prefer open areas bounded by forests. Live in the place that is easy to watch for approaching threats and hunt in the forests.
To stand by this argument, look at the different living patterns set up by the various pre-European American inhabitants (Native Americans). Some lived in forests, plains, mountains, etc and learned to adapt in their environment.
User Name: Hhmm
Nov 5, 2009
+1
By correctly pointing out that taste for art (including music) is not universal, you simply helped make the argument that the sense of beauty, as far as art is concerned, is _not_ derived from a survival advantage. After all, survival advantages tend to be universal, so they should correlate regularly and predictably with taste for art, if the latter was indeed a derivative of survival.
The fact that only 10% of the people appreciate a certain kind of music is indicative only that the sense of beauty does not correlate well with survival. You're still left with the fact that 10% of the population does indeed appreciate that music, and you need to explain where _that_ comes from. After all, you yourself have already established that it cannot be correlated to survival advantage.
The core of your original argument is that the sense of beauty is derivative from survival advantages. To counter your argument, one simply needs to show that there are at least some instances of the sense of beauty for which your argument does not hold. 10% of the population appreciating a certain kind of music looks to be that, let alone when you consider that most of the other 90% also appreciate some _other_ kind of music.
The fact that only 10% of the people appreciate a certain kind of music is indicative only that the sense of beauty does not correlate well with survival. You're still left with the fact that 10% of the population does indeed appreciate that music, and you need to explain where _that_ comes from. After all, you yourself have already established that it cannot be correlated to survival advantage.
The core of your original argument is that the sense of beauty is derivative from survival advantages. To counter your argument, one simply needs to show that there are at least some instances of the sense of beauty for which your argument does not hold. 10% of the population appreciating a certain kind of music looks to be that, let alone when you consider that most of the other 90% also appreciate some _other_ kind of music.
User Name: freddyx
Nov 5, 2009
+2
My son, who is 1 and recently had an infection, is avoiding nappies (diapers?) to heal his aris (tail?). When he is left unsupervised for 2 minutes he likes to drop a turd, then picks it up and presents it to us. I don't know if that means he naturally finds it beautiful or not?
User Name: ErikF
Nov 5, 2009
+1
What about a pristine snowfall? I think this is something that most people will agree is beautiful, but it brings life-threatening cold and greatly diminished food sources. You might argue that some predators go into hibernation, but the good doesn't outweigh the bad.
User Name: Almosthonest
Nov 5, 2009
+2
I think you've even made your job of answering some of those counter-examples too hard. For example, fast cars need not be beautiful because of their speed. A set of things became beautiful to us because they helped survival, then Marketing and Design came along armed with research and the need to make other things desirable to us. Thus a lot of designed and made things can look beautiful to us not because they are useful themselves, but because they were deliberalely made to play on earlier useful forms.
User Name: itegem
Nov 4, 2009
+1
Turds should be considered beautiful according to your theory. Lots of big turds obviously implies that there was (and maybe still is) lots of food ....
Shall we call that the 'turd theory' :-)
Shall we call that the 'turd theory' :-)
User Name: namenotavailable
Nov 4, 2009
+1
I've read in places that Music is appreciated because it’s the mental equivelant of a cheescake for the mind, it has all the right elements to stimulate the human brain and provide pleasure. Personally I skimmed the section but as far as I remember it provides "action" in a non-threatening way, all the sense are stimulated in a way that’s not possible without running in front of a herd of horses for example.
And all music is loved, the artists may change but the act of listening to sounds designed to evoke emotions is a human trait, I doubt you'd find anyone that doesn't like some kind of music.
Regarding art, Art isn't beautiful, art's value comes from its lack of value, when humans worked in the fields all day the wealthiest had symbols to show that they were rich enough to not work, being fat, long nails etc. Art/culture is just an extension of that.
"You have a chair because you need a place to sit but I'm rich enough to have a chair that isn't for sitting"
The best explanation that I've heard is that its basically an evolutionary "Keeping up with the Jones" mentality. You said it yourself, the Mona Lisa isn't that special, people gasp when they see it not because its wonderous to behold but because its so expensive and it’s the Mona Lisa, THE MONA LISA, because everyone says its special.
Art by definition cannot be defined, but again the best definition that I've heard is that it’s a conspicious waste of resources designed to trumpet your own credentials and essentially to trumpet your resources and hence better your chances to reproduce. Not all of us can be muscle men, some of us spend all day in front of computers postnig in blogs so we have to have another method of attracting females. Remember females want the best breeding males. Ie ones which can provide, and if you can afford to "waste" resources you must have resources to burn.
People liking art is part of the "exclusivety" of it, it loses its impact if everyone has it. Fashion is a good example, the people at the top are trying to be different to everyone below and everyone below is trying to copy the people at the top.
My two cents anyway, mainly coming from an cultural evolutionary stand point.
And all music is loved, the artists may change but the act of listening to sounds designed to evoke emotions is a human trait, I doubt you'd find anyone that doesn't like some kind of music.
Regarding art, Art isn't beautiful, art's value comes from its lack of value, when humans worked in the fields all day the wealthiest had symbols to show that they were rich enough to not work, being fat, long nails etc. Art/culture is just an extension of that.
"You have a chair because you need a place to sit but I'm rich enough to have a chair that isn't for sitting"
The best explanation that I've heard is that its basically an evolutionary "Keeping up with the Jones" mentality. You said it yourself, the Mona Lisa isn't that special, people gasp when they see it not because its wonderous to behold but because its so expensive and it’s the Mona Lisa, THE MONA LISA, because everyone says its special.
Art by definition cannot be defined, but again the best definition that I've heard is that it’s a conspicious waste of resources designed to trumpet your own credentials and essentially to trumpet your resources and hence better your chances to reproduce. Not all of us can be muscle men, some of us spend all day in front of computers postnig in blogs so we have to have another method of attracting females. Remember females want the best breeding males. Ie ones which can provide, and if you can afford to "waste" resources you must have resources to burn.
People liking art is part of the "exclusivety" of it, it loses its impact if everyone has it. Fashion is a good example, the people at the top are trying to be different to everyone below and everyone below is trying to copy the people at the top.
My two cents anyway, mainly coming from an cultural evolutionary stand point.
User Name: hbmindia
Nov 4, 2009
+1
Good music puts you to sleep. In medieval times, ensuring the survival of a lion or a tiger or some other predator.
Art depicting well-fed women during child bearing years is appreciated. But a half naked good looking woman is generally appreciated regardless of her child bearing capabilities. Children are often an unnecessary by-product.
If you find the ocean beautiful, because it is full of food, why do we not find most dead fish in a fish market beautiful? Why don't we find the fish market or an abattoir beautiful?
No Nobel prize to Scott for this theory.
Art depicting well-fed women during child bearing years is appreciated. But a half naked good looking woman is generally appreciated regardless of her child bearing capabilities. Children are often an unnecessary by-product.
If you find the ocean beautiful, because it is full of food, why do we not find most dead fish in a fish market beautiful? Why don't we find the fish market or an abattoir beautiful?
No Nobel prize to Scott for this theory.
