September 26, 2008
what, again, is beauty?
Why is something beautiful? David Hume argued that beauty exists not in things but "in the mind that contemplates them." And everyone has at some point heard the old saw that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But Plato had a fanciful answer made to argue for a universal truth: In his world of forms, he claimed there existed a perfect Form of Beauty, which was imperfectly manifested in what we call beautiful. Despite the allure of Plato's metaphorical claim, students of aesthetics have struggled to substantiate it. Evolutionary psychologists have argued that there exist quantifiable, describable, universal aspects to the human capacity for appreciating beautiful forms, perhaps originating in our ancestors' experience on African savannas or in the need to find suitable mates. They have not solved the problem. However, recent work by several researchers at University College London — including the establishment of the first major grant-driven research program for the neurobiological investigation of aesthetics, or neuroaesthetics — has made the first steps toward a unified biocultural theory of art. An object's beauty may not be universal, but the neural basis for appreciating beauty probably is. The researchers' initial discoveries and the increasing formalization of the field promise to open the way for the first time to an understanding of beauty based on something other than speculation.
more from Seed here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:30 AM | Permalink






















Comments
I just love how contemporary science's claim to omnicompetence is based on the technique of defining a problem down until you hit on something you can "solve." The subtitle talks about Science's quest for a "theory of beauty." By the end of the first paragraph we learn that "An object's beauty may not be universal, but the neural basis for appreciating beauty probably is." Wouldn't that non-universality be the opposite of a "first step toward a unified biocultural theory of art"?
The only thing this article reports upon is that neuroimaging has found brain state correlates for attraction to beautiful objects, and revulsion to ugly ones. "Thanks in part to a £1 million grant from the Wellcome Trust." Well done! And then there's the obligatory quote from a the funders that the study "gives insight into what it is to be human." Because until now, we weren't completely sure that we were attracted to beauty and repelled by ugliness. Thanks Science!
I really feel sorry for the journalists who have to churn out this crap, struggling to fit actual facts into a pre-fab narrative of increased understanding of human nature. If they burn out they can always get good jobs as Republican press secretaries.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 26, 2008 2:06:21 PM
The only thing this article reports upon is that neuroimaging has found brain state correlates for attraction to beautiful objects, and revulsion to ugly ones.
And not even this! They've found brain-state correlates to objects that the subjects described as beautiful. Was Hume right?
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 26, 2008 10:29:40 PM
if hume doesn't want to talk about essentials like plato, we can understand, whether its in the brain or as an imperfect representation of [x]. that doesn't rule out [x] doesn't exist, points only to the limitation it cant be represented ....and so will remain something to talk about for all eternity
Posted by: coocoo | Sep 27, 2008 4:22:52 AM
Contrary to the first comment knowledge of that region of the brain active in the recognition of beauty and ugliness helps us understand why Alexander Cockburn finds the Taj Mahal a colossal waste and a housing project beautiful!Beauty as Santayana said is pleasure objectified and remains in the 'eye' of the beholder.
Posted by: sumant | Sep 27, 2008 11:10:30 AM
Post a comment