What is the evolutionary purpose of aesthetics?

[Daniel]

Why do we need it?How it appeared?What caused it to appear?

[GOD]

Why do we need it?How it appeared?What caused it to appear?

Do some reading on evolutionary biology.

Why does the male peacock have a bright tail? Because it shows that it is environmental fitness is such that it can afford to have a big and bright bushy tail.

Generally most animals that are able to more easily survive an environment move to differentiating themselves on asthetics.

Don't forget asthetics is one of personal perception. Even Spiders love their babies...

[The Rose]

Why do we need it?How it appeared?What caused it to appear?There is no evolutionary purpose for it.

[GOD]

There is no evolutionary purpose for it.

There's no evolutionary advantage for it (In fact its normally an evolutionary disadvantage as predators can get them more easily).

There is an evolutionary purpose though, and thats to ensure survival of the genes in a competitive environment.

[blueback]

Why do we need it?How it appeared?What caused it to appear?

I don't think we do need it.

It is probably a side effect of developing rational thought and an imagination.

It's a fact that our brain can't tell the difference between things taken in through our senses and things that are imagined when a certain portion of the brain is shut down. So, when we are fully concisous, we are capable of pretending that imaginary events are "real" for a moment.

I think that "asthetic" things have an effect on us because they trigger a sense of recognition in our memory. We are constantly imagining things the way they should or could be, and some people are capable of turning those thoughts into reality. Then, when other people see it, they recognize it as something they had only imagined was possible.

By way of example, go to a basketball game and sit close enough to really see the players well. Then, alternate looking at them in person and looking at the big screen which shows what the cameras are seeing. They will look "better" on the screen because a lot of effort is put into making sure they do. The camera will capture the event in better lighting than your eyes do, it will cut out the extraneous things like crowds better than your eyes will, it will make them look bigger than your eyes will.

So, I think asthetics are just an artifact of the interaction between our imagination and our conciousness. When we make something look "better" other people are capable of appreciating the "betterness" because they always imagined it could be "better" too.

[GOD]

I don't think we do need it.

It is probably a side effect of developing rational thought and an imagination.

It's a fact that our brain can't tell the difference between things taken in through our senses and things that are imagined when a certain portion of the brain is shut down. So, when we are fully concisous, we are capable of pretending that imaginary events are "real" for a moment.

I think that "asthetic" things have an effect on us because they trigger a sense of recognition in our memory. We are constantly imagining things the way they should or could be, and some people are capable of turning those thoughts into reality. Then, when other people see it, they recognize it as something they had only imagined was possible.

By way of example, go to a basketball game and sit close enough to really see the players well. Then, alternate looking at them in person and looking at the big screen which shows what the cameras are seeing. They will look "better" on the screen because a lot of effort is put into making sure they do. The camera will capture the event in better lighting than your eyes do, it will cut out the extraneous things like crowds better than your eyes will, it will make them look bigger than your eyes will.

So, I think asthetics are just an artifact of the interaction between our imagination and our conciousness. When we make something look "better" other people are capable of appreciating the "betterness" because they always imagined it could be "better" too.

I actually think that we like "aesthetics" because they give us that pleasure release. And why do we have that pleasure release?... because subconsciously we know were going to survive a bit longer.

Aesthetics I believe are equivalent to getting the best fruit at the highest point of the tree... that nobody has got yet. It’s better than rotting food on the forest floor.

Incidentally I was reading an article on the development of seeing red (and that 10% of males don't have red sensors) and they believe it was an evolutionary addition to detect red berries... and not ovulating monkey butts. ;D (Well, they didn't mention the monkey butts bit...)

[Alpha Prime]

All art is meant to communicate something, which may be too complex to be communicated through words.

[blueback]

Why do we need it?How it appeared?What caused it to appear?

I don't think we do need it.

It is probably a side effect of developing rational thought and an imagination.

It's a fact that our brain can't tell the difference between things taken in through our senses and things that are imagined when a certain portion of the brain is shut down. So, when we are fully concisous, we are capable of pretending that imaginary events are "real" for a moment.

I think that "asthetic" things have an effect on us because they trigger a sense of recognition in our memory. We are constantly imagining things the way they should or could be, and some people are capable of turning those thoughts into reality. Then, when other people see it, they recognize it as something they had only imagined was possible.

By way of example, go to a basketball game and sit close enough to really see the players well. Then, alternate looking at them in person and looking at the big screen which shows what the cameras are seeing. They will look "better" on the screen because a lot of effort is put into making sure they do. The camera will capture the event in better lighting than your eyes do, it will cut out the extraneous things like crowds better than your eyes will, it will make them look bigger than your eyes will.

So, I think asthetics are just an artifact of the interaction between our imagination and our conciousness. When we make something look "better" other people are capable of appreciating the "betterness" because they always imagined it could be "better" too.

[Kaiser]

Actually, recent experiments show that humans have an innate ability to appreciate beauty. That could explain why we tend to "feel" better in aesthetically pleasing environments.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[GOD]

All art is meant to communicate something, which may be too complex to be communicated through words.

The first Art... was probably map drawings on cave walls showing other members (say the women in the camp) what was further out in the world.

or graffitti because they were bored. (Although other cave members probably would have objected to someones scrawl being semi permanently etched where they lived).

Maybe communications to Gods... although these will have been outside I'd expect.

Alot of Artisitic people would like everyone to think they are expressing something... but talk to them, and ask what... a load of BS mostly.

[Alpha Prime]

...

Alot of Artisitic people would like everyone to think they are expressing something... but talk to them, and ask what... a load of BS mostly.

Either you have sampled artists with a bad mindset, or you have much to learn, about art and humans.

[Hypomanic]

aesthetics is looking good.

it is a word used to describe beauty or perfection.
perfection being nothing else should be added to the equation.

[blueback]

Actually, recent experiments show that humans have an innate ability to appreciate beauty. That could explain why we tend to "feel" better in aesthetically pleasing environments.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, this article seems to be saying that beauty=stereotype.

It says that the scientist's explanation was that babies are hardwired to look for human faces, and the faces that better represent the "average" by not being mishapen better attract their attention.

That implies that "beautiful" faces are the ones which deviate the least from the the mean. That seems to conflict with the idea of asthetics because in my experience things that look "average" are less asthetically pleasing. Of course, I'm not an art collector or an artist, so maybe I'm missing out on something.

[Rohsiph]

. . . is there an undercurrent here suggesting that focusing on aesthetics is in some way detrimental to evolution?

Depressing thought, that . . . a removal of all aesthetic pleasures would effectively make nihilism a salient view.

[Rei]

It's just a way animals judge health and fitness.

Things with diesease/harmful mutations usually don't look aesthetically pleasing. We just took it to a further degree by selecting specific facial features too.