The philosophy of beauty

I will write about beauty without ever really anything about the subject of beauty and its meaning. I suppose this is called the philosophy of beauty, or the philosophy of aesthetics. That to me would mean that the study of aesthetics entails its meaning and its effect on our species and maybe everything else as well; animals, the world at large. Is this sociology? Anyway, I can’t say that I’ll be able to define its meaning or that I will become certain of its usefulness. One question comes to mind. Is it a survival mechanism? Or is it a byproduct of our evolution? In reading Richard Dawkin’s book, “The God Delusion” he points out in one chapter that he believes religion to be a by-product of our evolution. He akins this to the fact that children are born with an almost incorruptible response to listen to whatever their parents will say. This is then carried over to adulthood in which, still desiring to have that authority over us, will revert to god for that solution. However true that is, if our perception of beauty is a byproduct of something else, then what is that ‘else’? I think of this hypothesis floating around that tries to explain how our ancestral species finally left the trees to start walking. It states that there was a certain type of leaf that was eaten by our ancestors (I may not have the information right but I hope that’s not important to my point, though I may be wrong). However, this leaf was only truly nutritious if it was red. So our ancestors must have had to develop sight in which to differentiate between the green and the red version. IF this is true than I don’t see why finding a red leaf could not have triggered an emotional response.

That is, elated at finally being able to find a tasty source of food that was also as nutritious, they probably akined color to pleasure which in turn, through many years of growth and development of the eyes and hands, they were finally able to recreate these colors and utilize it as a pleasure inducer which reminded them of their contentment of being full which finally translated to being “beautiful”. Think of the first art, why is it always about animals? So maybe beauty, instead of really being a byproduct, what it turns out to be is an emotion that is primal by its very nature. That is to say, that what we call ‘beautiful’ is heavily tied to our survival instinct. Another example comes from thinking of a lake in the middle of a desert. How refreshing it would sound, and how beautiful it would look if the first thing you would see is the very thing you needed for one’s survival. Again, think of what we put into our art: rivers, the sun, animals, plants, basically anything that builds upon our survival. Our music has always had a sexual connotation. But what about contemporary art then? Today’s art consists more than just flowers, rivers, and plants. It also consists of Dadaists and their unconventional sculptures.

This also brings me to the thought that rarity is also a prerequisite to beauty. Just like a lake in the desert, so to we must have new and more daring art. I remember seeing this one documentary that stated that western culture has become more and more grotesque and that beauty has been abandoned by more daring and ‘ugly’ types of art. I would have to disagree, maybe what happened was not ugly art but maybe we were just over saturated by water that what we wanted now was some way to dry off and enjoy the sun. For instance, though we have tons of art that are representations of the ocean, plants, and animals, we also have other types of art that may use feces as it’s central subject. Sometimes even a vagina or a penis takes the place of a flower. But why? Again, maybe its not that it’s ‘ugly’ art taking the place of ‘beautiful’ art , but that ‘beauty’ is being redefined by the fact that we now understand a subject’s purpose or connection to our survival. Feces may smell and look ugly to us, but when an artist uses it, we have to look in awe at how useful this foul subject to the survival of our species. Ergo, once we understand a subject matter’s connection to our survival, however vague, the more beautiful it may seem.

But what about the expressionist’s paintings that may purely be used as an example of our emotions themselves? To answer this, we have to ask why of all the colors in the rainbow would we akin violence and frustration with red and orange? It seems only logical that our ancestral struggle with the flame which although keeps us warm also has the power to destroy may hold the key. Again, why pick blue or purple or green to express our joyfulness? This just answers itself. And perhaps it could also mean that we now understand how much our emotions affect our health and survivability too. For instance, we now know that worry and depression can kill a person faster than learning how to cope with stress can.

All in all, what I'm saying is that there seems to be a connection between Darwinian survival and the way we choose to express ourselves. So is there such thing as bad art then? I suppose that if there is something that is called bad art, it is something created that is no longer or ever was relevant. Example given is a protest song. A protest song can say so much about the sentiments of the protesters and it may be referred as beautiful by those that can relate to it. Yet if we're not the protesters we cannot fathom the beauty that the protesters say is a part of that song. Another example is how a children's artful scribbles are considered art by only it's parents. To the onlooker, it only looks like scribbles, but to the parent it's art.