Conniff’s article interested me because of its unique take on artistic aesthetics and our (human) preferences on the subject. It is not something that I would have ever investigated on my own, but when put in front of me, sparks an interest because of the new take on artistic preferences. The theory of evolution if often thought of as controversial but when using the topic in conjunction with art, I believe it becomes even more so.
I agree with the article on the idea that evolution governs much of our DNA, and in some way, can see how the author might link evolution and aesthetical preferences. However, I do not think that evolution can provide a complete explanation for our artistic choices. Take myself for example - - I have never been one to look at art or find excitement in visiting a museum. I prefer abstract art and design to landscapes and portraits, which I often consider boring. Do I not fit the “evolutional” mold then? Does that mean that I prefer chaos and anarchy to the way life is now? I do not think that about myself, and do not think that art preference can say that about any person in particular.
It is my thought that people often prefer landscapes and portraits because it is a topic that they are able to understand. It might seem like a simplistic approach, but to me it provides a good enough explanation for a question with seemingly no “correct” solution. There is no need to search for a deeper meaning, or any sort of meaning, to enjoy the work of art. People are simple - - they like what they can understand without too much thought, or else it is considered work. Evolution may play a role in these aesthetical preferences but only because it ensures that people understand landscapes with green grass and blue skies. These images have been a part of life on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. How can people not understand that after all that time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting
ReplyDelete