Paradigms and purposes

Though there were many positions represented in this chapter, Aristotle’s ideas stood out for me as a stance I most agreed with. The act of imitation is something humans, and in fact most creatures, engage in naturally. Watching and then attempting to reproduce actions like stalking prey, preparing a den, or using eating utensils are how young animals learn. Even as adults, when watching physical actions like a sports game our brain activates the areas of our brains that would engage if we ourselves were participating in it. For example, when we watch a dancer raise her leg parallel to the floor and spin, those areas of our brain that would allow us to do the same are activated. In this way we are able to “practice” those actions in case we would ever need to employ them.

I feel that the same concept applies to many forms of art. In this chapter Aristotle’s thoughts regarding tragedies are discussed, but I will focus on dramas because of their temporal significance. For humans television and movies often give an intimate look into circumstances unfamiliar to us personally. From these stories feelings like sadness, despair, joy, laughter, and anger can be incited in us and provide an outlet for emotion to be dispelled and learning to occur. For example, dramas will commonly increase compassion for characters and allow for a greater understanding of complex situations. Just as Aristotle believed, “cleansing or katharsis through emotions of fear and pity” (Freeland, 32) are incited in us when viewing a character facing hardship.

However, I then began to contemplate how these ideas could carry over into other forms of art. Music has similar effects on the human psyche. For many people music is an outlet for feelings of frustration or sadness, or it is a form of enjoyment that causes pleasure. In fact, it is often the compositions of songs that imitate nature that cause the most intense feelings of emotion. An example of this would be songs utilizing only a single instrument and consisting of long notes in a minor key. These sounds are close to sounds of sighs and wails, not only in humans but for other creatures. It is only natural that sounds we recognize as sadness in nature would elicit the same reaction when performed using an instrument. Art compositions induce emotions through color, contrast, and images. Each one of these tools draw upon nature to cause such reactions. Bright greens, yellows, and blues remind us of a sunny day, while deep and dark scenes remind us of gloom.

Imitation is an innate characteristic of almost every living creature. In my mind, it is because of this that art began in the first place. It has served as a way to convey tactics, events, and emotions since the beginning of man; it would be far less important if its purpose was only to entertain.

The Natural Art

All in all I would have to say I agreed with the author with one exception: the biological inclinations of humans only serve as a foundation for aesthetic preferences. There is proof represented in this article that humans often seek environments that resemble the savanna, but this does not explain the differences in artistic preferences across cultures. For example, cultures have varying preferences in architecture, decoration, and the traits that make one another attractive.

A personal example from my life would be when I visited Belgium and stayed with a host family for a few days. During my stay I noticed some interesting traits of their home. The house itself was made entirely of concrete bricks of grey. Inside, the doors to many rooms in the house were glass and the only decoration in the entire home was a single painting in the entryway. One room had only a tanning bead. The two children’s rooms had a bed and a dresser. When I asked the family about why this was so, they asked me why it was necessary to have more. It seemed that while I have found comfort in surrounding myself with paintings, photos, shelves of books, and nick-knacks, this family’s culture found comfort in very much the opposite.

This article’s argument also does not explain the preferences of different species. One that came to mind was a type of bowerbird. When mating season arrives, the males clear a circle of earth with a pile of twigs in the center that are decorated into a structure of sticks and leaves. Then the male finds items that are of a hue he is attracted to. No two are the same, and each collection is unique to each male’s taste. It is believed that instead of having bright plumage or a dance, these birds instead attract females through their creations. However, it is clear through the differences of these compilations that even these birds have different tastes not entirely explained by genetics.

The article describes why humans seem to universally prefer landscape depictions, but it does not explain why some are drawn to abstract pieces of art that do not resemble anything from nature. I think there is a much greater complexity as to why humans appreciate various forms of art. Whether this is because of where someone is brought up, what art they are surrounded by, what art is popular at the time, or the preferences of those around him/her, the reasons behind individual aesthetic partiality cannot simply be a result of genetics.