Dawkins/Dennett rightly point out that we like what we like because it is good for us, or rather, for our genes. Sweets taste good because we need sugar. Salt water tastes repulsive because it dehydrates us. Feces smell terrible because they carry disease. And so on. Any organisms who didn't value things this way stood at a reproductive disadvantage.
Same applies to higher levels of taste. What art is most beautiful? The human nude (of the opposite sex, especially). There are many beautiful sunsets or mountainscapes, or horses, or swans, but none can evoke the same feeling as that of the human form. I used to think artists who painted or sculpted nudes were just playing to our primal desires, but I think they have no other choice. That's exactly what we will appreciate as beautiful!
The most beautiful sound is the human voice. Music can improve on it by adding beat, or wider range, but the human voice can't be topped in terms of aesthetic appeal. Don't fight it: embrace it. And we have. Most of our instruments have been designed to mimic the human voice in some form.
Nothing is inherently beautiful outside of the human context. There is no reason why sucrose is superior to saline solution, or why an hourglass form is more attractive than a rectangular shape, or why the spectral components of the human voice are superior to those of any other sound-maker. Beauty is evaluated by us, and we are programmed to be attracted to things that help us pass on our genes. I don't think this denigrates art or beauty at all. It just helps explain where our criteria for beauty originate from. There's no reason we can't take pleasure in it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment