|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2007 : 19:55:17 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, that was in interesting article. I don't disagree with anything in it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 00:17:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Neurosis, thank you so much for linking to that article! I absolutely loved reading it. In four years of undergrad and 2 years of grad school studying fine art, I was exposed to so much crappy pseudo-scientific bs in art criticism and aesthetics. The best stuff written about art was always stuff I discovered on my own, outside of the insanity of art-in-academia. My favorite writer on art is Herbert Read, and in his book "To Hell With Culture" I first read about C.P. Snow's two cultures. I became totally fascinated with the hope of bridging the gap between scientific and intellectual culture. This article was truly exciting and I'm forwarding it to all my artist friends.
Thanks, it was no problem. I am interested in Art meeting science also and enjoyed that article/video alot. I thought you guys might enjoy it seeing how 'heated' your discussion had gotten. I have never read anything by Herbert Read, but I may check the local libraries next time I am in if I can remember. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 00:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Alas, an oversized orange sweater and my cotton jammies.
It is at least a V-neck sweater? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 01:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Just concede that there is no such thing as "universal cuteness" and move on.
When you speak in those absolute terms it just makes you look foolish.
In your dreams.
I think you look foolishly anal retentive. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/14/2007 01:14:44 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 01:09:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Damn. Things were going so well. We went from animals licking themselves all the way to eating the sexy, but now we're back to the mundane menage a trois of terror: Dude, beskeptigal and marfknox engaged in what appears to be almost entirely an argument over whether absolutes really are absolutes in common usage. Someone pass me the popcorn and the lubricant (though not necessarily in that order).
Are any of the three of you wearing leather? I like leather.
(Hey, it'd be really ironic if the leather is deerskin or rabbit fur, wouldn't it?)
Don't drag Marf and me into the semantics sewer. We were just letting Dude know that's where he is. We could of course, ignore him. But then what's the fun in that?
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 01:13:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Anyone interested should go here. The part about how the bird recognizes its mother is appropriete to this discussion. In fact, it all is as it concerns universals in nature and beauty.
Excellent citation and a very good side branch with similar logic and implications.
quote:
Let's assume that 90% of the variance you see in art is driven by cultural diversity or - more cynically - by just the auctioneer's hammer, and only 10% by universal laws that are common to all brains. The culturally driven 90% is what most people already study - it's called art history. As a scientist what I am interested in is the 10% that is universal - not in the endless variations imposed by cultures. The advantage that I and other scientists have today is that unlike we can now test our conjectures by directly studying the brain empirically. There's even a new name for this discipline. My colleague Semir Zeki calls it Neuro-aesthetics - just to annoy the philosophers.
Professor Ramachandran's suggested 10 universal laws of art:
1. Peak shift
2. Grouping
3. Contrast
4. Isolation
5. Perception problem solving
6. Symmetry
7. Abhorrence of coincidence/generic viewpoint
8. Repetition, rhythm and orderliness
9. Balance
10. Metaphor
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 01:17:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, that was in interesting article. I don't disagree with anything in it.
Right, there are universal attractions to art but not babies?
I think it's time for you to concede.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/14/2007 01:18:00 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 15:22:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude, Marf, and BeSkeptigal, You do realize that you are arguing different points here right? Dude is arguing over cuteness (a relative concept, perhaps even a degree, that we can ascribe something.) and Marf and Beskeptigal are arguing over cuteness factors (those traits that lead us to judge the relative concept.). Thus, the human brain is easily confused by similar patterns (optical illusions if you will) and can recognize human baby features (small, large heads, out of proportion eyes, round features etc.) as belonging to babies of other mammals or other animals. Baby snakes or starfish or even fish in general do not share many of those overlapping traits and thus are not cute inducing (which would be on a degree scale).The similarities in what animals recognize as cute (used in this case as aethetically pleasing or liked) makes since evolutionarily and would be more likely overlapping as relatedness is closer, but not necessarily so. Therefore, Dude is right because the reason for cuteness being anthropamorphized onto other babies is due to the human baby = cute mechanism. This is of course not necessarily true of all animals nor our closer relatives, as traits may explode in diversity within short generations. Marf and Beskeptigal are right because some traits are universal to some babies of some species, especially the ones that we are most familiar with in TV and movies and perhaps daily experience.
What is more interesting to me is the fact that baby traits are smooth and soft, with 'disproportioned features'. When something becomes domesticated or dosile its adult features become more like the features of the baby. At the same rate, it appears that aggression is lessened with less aggressive traits (note here that aggressive traits are patterned with aggressive behavior and thus it makes sense). More interesting is the fact that humans tend to like less aggressive traits in their dogs (domestication) and bred for them. This could be a characteristic rooted in the baby = cute mechanism. More over, humans are more domesticated than their chimp cousins (see photos of chimp to humancomparison) Could it be then that humans (as they evolved from their common ancester with chimps) were more prone to select less aggessive and more baby like features, which aided in human evolution? It is an interesting thought I think, and follows the genetic link to cuteness and preference talk touched on earlier, but I digress from the subject line. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/14/2007 15:35:30 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 15:41:40 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
Dude, Marf, and BeSkeptigal, You do realize that you are arguing different points here right?
That's not entirely true. I think the points you describe and how you attribute correctness to Dude, beskeptigal and myself is true. But that wasn't all that was being discussed. Dave accurately described another aspect (the whole semantics of "universal") of this debate/discussion. While Dude is right about some things, he also misunderstood how beskeptigal meant "universal" and then made a false assertion himself about how cuteness was "entirely subjective". That mistake is what be and I are asking him to concede about.
Ricky wrote: quote:
Perhaps it's time for people to stop trying to get each other to concede, and instead, focus on developing civil discourse. Because this, well, isn't.
I do appreciate the efforts toward diffusing this heated debate, but I also stand by my statement that Dude has a tendency to not admit when he's wrong. He also debates rather aggressively, and that often inspires his opponents to respond in kind. Frankly, I think its kind of fun and I don't actually get mad or take these things personally anymore, even though I used to.
Edited to add quote from Ricky. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/14/2007 15:45:48 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 16:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Neurosis wrote: quote:
Dude, Marf, and BeSkeptigal, You do realize that you are arguing different points here right?
That's not entirely true. I think the points you describe and how you attribute correctness to Dude, beskeptigal and myself is true. But that wasn't all that was being discussed. Dave accurately described another aspect (the whole semantics of "universal") of this debate/discussion. While Dude is right about some things, he also misunderstood how beskeptigal meant "universal" and then made a false assertion himself about how cuteness was "entirely subjective". That mistake is what be and I are asking him to concede about.
Yes, but even in the semantics you are both right. Universal to all humans is a degree of tendency to recognize a traits as cute (desirable visually), however there is as much genetic deviation in this as is in the height of individuals or length of fingers or any other trait. Thus, all people will not (even without the learned influences) choose the same degree of cuteness to attribute to any image (or reality). It can even be so low as to not blip the radar of consciousness (in these cases it can be seen in the limbic system but not recognized by the person, see the case studies over boys learning to accept violent behavior). It really depends on the usage of universal, and I think that each party has conceeded the usage of absolutes being fallicious. If you want to continue the argument why not repost a thread and define terms (if you want to get anywhere in this).
I agree that some people (maybe Dude? don't know) have a tendency to resist admitting when they are wrong and one wants to make this happen, so I totally recognize your interest in his conceeding. And he in yours.
Edited to add:
When Dude said cuteness was entirely subjective he was using his side of the argument, cuteness as a degree. When Be used universal/all she was using her side of the argument, cuteness traits being recognized as such by the brain. This is why I suggest defining terms. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/14/2007 16:19:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 16:42:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
But then what's the fun in that?
And what's the fun of answering seriously my post?
By the way, what are you wearing? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 22:27:53 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Frankly, I think its kind of fun and I don't actually get mad or take these things personally
Me either, until people get so mad at me that they start tossing in insults. (not that anyone has done so here, I'm just saying)
Neurosis said:
quote:
Therefore, Dude is right
I couldn't agree more! Thanks.
I do not dispute that people recognize, and respond, to patterns they recognize. Nor do I dispute the potential evolutionary advantages conveyed to a species that actively cares for it's young. I have stated that rather clearly a couple of times in this thread.
What I'm disputing is the idea that anything like "cute" or "attractive" or "beauty" etc.. can have the appellation of "universal" attached to it. If you understand the concepts behind those words it should be more or less self evident that they are subjective statements.
To reference the article you posted Neurosis, specifically the section where he is talking about caricature and exagerrated features (and reaction to them). If there were an objective measure of how people rate these things, then it would be possible to measure it. If such a thing was objective, then everyone would own (cheaply) masterpieces of art. They would be the norm, and commonly made, by any artist with basic copying skills. Our world would be a much different place, no garish buildings, no crappy art on the office walls, no fugly statues in the parks, and so on.
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Right, there are universal attractions to art but not babies?
I think it's time for you to concede.
You must have read a different article than the one Neurosis linked.
Ricky said:
quote:
Perhaps it's time for people to stop trying to get each other to concede, and instead, focus on developing civil discourse. Because this, well, isn't.
And here I thought marf was just flirting with me To bad she's married!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 22:43:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
What I'm disputing is the idea that anything like "cute" or "attractive" or "beauty" etc.. can have the appellation of "universal" attached to it. If you understand the concepts behind those words it should be more or less self evident that they are subjective statements.
To reference the article you posted Neurosis, specifically the section where he is talking about caricature and exagerrated features (and reaction to them). If there were an objective measure of how people rate these things, then it would be possible to measure it. If such a thing was objective, then everyone would own (cheaply) masterpieces of art. They would be the norm, and commonly made, by any artist with basic copying skills. Our world would be a much different place, no garish buildings, no crappy art on the office walls, no fugly statues in the parks, and so on.
Did I say something contrary to that or are you just citing?
I agree that cuteness and beauty are subjective qualities. I would also say that the features that make something more desirable are measurable (symmetry for example) but such quantifications do not take into account the variance in the human species over how strongly one has affinity to such a trait. Therefore, it is subjective in terms of degree. In this example it would be how symmetrical someone would need to be before recieving a certain number out of ten rating. For me it may be higher that for another person, so a 7 on his scale could be a 5 on mine and yet have the same quantification for the symmetry number, and this does not include the other traits that make something beautiful. Which is of course, why more symmetrical women recieve higher marks but not the same marks when rated by different men.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 22:54:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did I say something contrary to that or are you just citing?
That was more directed at marf and beskeptigal, I was just trying to phrase it in a way that included more people in the conversation.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
