are aesthetics universal?

[zainab]

Do we have an innate univeersal "LAWS" of aesthetics?
And if "YES".... Do we share it with other species?

Can it be a coincidence that we find birds and butterflies attractive even though they evolved to appeal to other birds and butterflies, not to us?

Lets TALK 

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

From long interactions with freinds and colleagues I would be of the opinion that "No" anesthetics are not 'Universal'.

Otherwise women's Minoan fashion sense/style ould still be in vogue.

[Belacqua]

Do we have an innate univeersal "LAWS" of aesthetics?
And if "YES".... Do we share it with other species?

Can it be a coincidence that we find birds and butterflies attractive even though they evolved to appeal to other birds and butterflies, not to us?

Lets TALK 

Fascinating question!

You know, probably, that after Newton discovered the universal abstract laws by which gravity worked, a number of Enlightenment figures tried hard to do the same for aesthetic issues. Joshua Reynolds in England and Claude Lebrun in France (for painting) and Rameau (for music) thought they could reveal these underlying and unchanging laws. 

And if such laws could be discovered and articulated, it meant they could be taught. (This was largely based on educational theory that followed Locke's idea of the tabula rasa. It was assumed that everything we are has been learned since birth.) That's why this was the era when the Royal Academy of Art and the Ecole des Beaux Arts were founded. If the laws could be discovered and taught, it meant that eventually little Michelangelos could be made, not born. Whereas the bestowal of genius was earlier seen as a gift from God, rule-based aesthetics would allow any good student to master them. 

Unfortunately, we know how that all turned out. By the end of the 19th century the academies had stagnated. They declared Meissonier and Bouguereau (largely forgotten today) to be the equals of Rembrandt, and rejected the Impressionists. History has not been kind to them.

Still, that doesn't mean that such rules don't exist. Only that the academies got them wrong. So it's still something to be pondered. 

I don't know what the rules might be, but I think we'd have to start in a pretty general way. Nothing specific, like "blond hair good, black hair bad." 

Maybe something like "variety within uniformity"? Or "sufficient surprise-value to enliven the familiar"?

[zainab]

Do we have an innate univeersal "LAWS" of aesthetics?
And if "YES".... Do we share it with other species?

Can it be a coincidence that we find birds and butterflies attractive even though they evolved to appeal to other birds and butterflies, not to us?

Lets TALK 

Fascinating question!

You know, probably, that after Newton discovered the universal abstract laws by which gravity worked, a number of Enlightenment figures tried hard to do the same for aesthetic issues. Joshua Reynolds in England and Claude Lebrun in France (for painting) and Rameau (for music) thought they could reveal these underlying and unchanging laws. 

And if such laws could be discovered and articulated, it meant they could be taught. (This was largely based on educational theory that followed Locke's idea of the tabula rasa. It was assumed that everything we are has been learned since birth.) That's why this was the era when the Royal Academy of Art and the Ecole des Beaux Arts were founded. If the laws could be discovered and taught, it meant that eventually little Michelangelos could be made, not born. Whereas the bestowal of genius was earlier seen as a gift from God, rule-based aesthetics would allow any good student to master them. 

Unfortunately, we know how that all turned out. By the end of the 19th century the academies had stagnated. They declared Meissonier and Bouguereau (largely forgotten today) to be the equals of Rembrandt, and rejected the Impressionists. History has not been kind to them.

Still, that doesn't mean that such rules don't exist. Only that the academies got them wrong. So it's still something to be pondered. 

I don't know what the rules might be, but I think we'd have to start in a pretty general way. Nothing specific, like "blond hair good, black hair bad." 

Maybe something like "variety within uniformity"? Or "sufficient surprise-value to enliven the familiar"?

From point of view of neurology of aesthetics .. It is related to evolution which shaped our visual system to recognize Specific Features in nature that  stimulies pleasure centers in the Nervous system!
 Like symmetry!

[Mr.Obvious]

Well symmetry indeed is one of those things that is concidered universaly appealing, in humans. I think.

But even then, is it 'universal'? There are fetisjists with an attraction to amputees, for example.

[Belacqua]

From point of view of neurology of aesthetics .. It is related to evolution which shaped our visual system to recognize Specific Features in nature that  stimulies pleasure centers in the Nervous system!
 Like symmetry!

This is tricky. 

Whereas symmetry may be satisfying in many cases, there are other times when a deviation proves to be more pleasing. So for example someone used to the symmetrical designs of French gardens may get a thrill from the asymmetrical balance of Japanese garden design. 

In fact Japanese art tends to favor asymmetrical balance overall. 

In music, we tend to think that harmony is necessary for beauty, but then a Stravinsky or a Poulenc comes along and excites us with intentional dissonance. It's hard to lay down a law like this.

[brewer]

OP: Yes and No.

[The Grand Nudger]

A link to the article would have helped, lol.  

The answer may be yes. We suggest that universal “laws” of aesthetics may cut across not only cultural boundaries but across species boundaries as well. Can it be a coincidence that we find birds and butterflies attractive even though they evolved to appeal to other birds and butterflies, not to us? Bowerbirds produce elegant bachelor pads (bowers) that would probably elicit favorable reviews from Manhattan art critics—as long as you auctioned them at Sotheby’s and did not reveal that they were created by birdbrains.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...esthetics/

[zainab]

A link to the article would have helped, lol.  

The answer may be yes. We suggest that universal “laws” of aesthetics may cut across not only cultural boundaries but across species boundaries as well. Can it be a coincidence that we find birds and butterflies attractive even though they evolved to appeal to other birds and butterflies, not to us? Bowerbirds produce elegant bachelor pads (bowers) that would probably elicit favorable reviews from Manhattan art critics—as long as you auctioned them at Sotheby’s and did not reveal that they were created by birdbrains.

This is exactly the article I read before I write this question! 
It had changed my views! 

[The Grand Nudger]

What were your previous views and how did the article speak to them directly enough to change them?