Art is subjective?
Erin Barrett
I've been semi-following the debate about how art/craft/creativity is
subjective. I remember seeing a documentary about a year ago about
using infants to test attractiveness in adults.
In almost every case, the people that we, as a society, would deem
attractive, the infants were drawn to these same people. So they
measured the symmetry of their faces, and even of their body shapes.
It seems that, as humans, we are attracted to certain symmetrical
combinations.
In another documentary this morning, they were talking about
architecture and how for thousands of years societies have been using
the 3/5 combination to build structures. These combinations are found
in nature: the curve of the conk(sp?) shell; the length of leaves.
It's also found in musical notes: a certain 3/5 series.
So whereas they concluded that different people define beauty
differently, as in the old adage, "Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder," we all also unconsciously seek out certain patterns,
shapes, and geometric symmetry in everything from music, to brush
strokes; from buildings, to word construction; from physical beauty to
seemingly abstract wild-flower growth or water falls.
It's inate and the very core of what we are as animals in nature. We
are all mathematicians.
Interesting, no?
Erin
Erin Barrett
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:09:11 GMT, rit...@cruzio.com
(Kemnitzer,Trollman) wrote:
>The conclusion they draw? That the slender, European model face is
>truly superior.
Not the documentary I saw. I have no idea what studies you're
referring to, but there was nothing of the sort drawn from this PBS
special.
What it DID present was that the same faces babies lingered on longer,
and reached for were the ones whose eyebrows were <such and such>
distance apart. Or that the nose distance had a certain ratio from the
lips. It then asked very pertinent and inquiring questions of these
theories and theorists.
There was nothing mentioned about European models, models in general,
or reproduction statistics. Sorry. Wrong study Lucy.
However the point of human creativity attempting to recreate natural
symmetry is still valid regardless of what you're talking about.
Erin
Kemnitzer,Trollman
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:52:53 -0800, er...@best.com (Erin Barrett)
wrote:
<sorry, I snipped too fast and thoroughly, but there was a reference
in there somewhere to the studies on symmetricalness and
attractiveness in faces>
I keep reading new studies on infant face preferences. In my opinion,
they are junk science, using bad theoretical frameworks to look at
dull propositions and drawing dumb, self-serving conclusions.
In general, they show babies a buncha faces and measure their
attention in various ways (standard, used for a generation or more in
other studies, that's not the problem). What they reiterate is:
babies prefer undeformed faces.
Gee. Whiz.
The conclusion they draw? That the slender, European model face is
truly superior.
I'm only exaggerating a little bit. I've read them over and over.
Furthermore, they go on with psychobiological bullbabble to talk about
the reproductive prowess of people with conventional faces, begging
the questions which remain:
-- if it is true that there is an evolutionary advantage to looking
like Christie Brinkley, how come there are so many different ways of
not looking like Christie Brinkley? If there is any advantage to
being pretty in _anybody's_ model, how come ugly people cheerfully
keep having babies? What on earth do the gaze preferences of sucking
babies have to do with the mating habits of adults?
The fact is that reproductive selection in the human being is way too
complex and flexible to be measured in this way. And in fact is not
even beginning to be measured in this way. All these studies are for
is for grant-mongering science boyos to confirm their opinions of
themselves and their kind. And they fool themselves about what they
and their kind look like, too.
Lucy Kemnitzer