Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Scientists and philosophers alike have been trying to answer this question for years. Many years ago, beauty was seen as objective. According to philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, certain features, such as proportion and symmetry, give beauty to something (Sartwell, 2017). However, by the end of the 17th century, people began to take a subjective view of beauty (Aleem et al., 2019). Although more arguments are being made toward the subjective view of beauty, and much more research is needed to make any conclusions, I will argue an objective viewpoint. As mentioned in the study by Aleem et al., learning and motivation tie into what is considered aesthetically pleasing (Aleem et al., 2019). I will examine this study as well as a study conducted in 2016 by Domagoj Švegar that summarizes past empirical research.
In the study by Aleem et al. conducted in 2019, participants were placed in an fMRI scanner and asked to determine if they liked or disliked a painting presented by the researcher. Many different areas were activated, such as visual, motor, and sensory pathways. To determine which brain networks are used for determining the beauty of something, Aleem and his team looked at a meta-analysis of 93 fMRI studies. The results of this analysis showed that the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior insula, and ventral basal ganglia are most highly activated when making these determinations (Brown et al., 2011). Aleem’s team then went on to discuss how these areas are involved in behavior. They discuss how the OFC is involved in integrating and tracking reward values, the anterior insula is involved in interoception and determining valence, and the basal ganglia are involved in predictions and errors (Aleem et al., 2019). Overall, these structures are important for reward-based learning. This is important for determining the aesthetic value of something because this motivational learning may lead to certain things being found as more aesthetically pleasing for various reasons. The example given in the study is of an apple. If one determines from experience that the redder an apple is, the sweeter it will be, they will be motivated to eat more red apples in the future (Aleem et al., 2019). This can translate to aesthetics in that redder apples will be viewed as more beautiful due to their reward value. If this is true, then beauty and aesthetics are more objective than subjective. Since most people have the same motivations in terms of survival instincts, it would make sense that certain qualities would nearly always be considered beautiful while others are nearly always considered aesthetically unpleasing.
In order to examine if motivation influences a person’s aesthetic views in other aspects, I looked at a study conducted by Domagoj Švegar in 2016. In this study, Švegar summarized past empirical research that had been done regarding the associations between symmetry and the health and personality of humans. He also conducted a meta-analysis to show the overall results of the studies. To begin, Švegar first examined studies regarding facial symmetry and attractiveness. From a study conducted by Quist et al., it was concluded that women prefer symmetric men, and these men are rated as more attractive (Quist et al., 2012). Several other studies examined had results that were in line with this data. The next relationship examined was facial symmetry and health. Švegar went into detail about a study conducted by Shackelford and Larsen that examined both perceived and actual health. This study used several measures to determine if there is a correlation between facial symmetry and attractiveness and perceived health. This study had a variety of results, but overall, asymmetrical participants report more health issues than symmetric participants, and symmetric photos were perceived as more healthy (Shackelford & Larsen, 1997). Several other studies also showed similar results; however, the association between symmetry and actual health was much weaker than the association with perceived health. However, a study conducted by Little et al. showed that even a weak link between symmetry and health may be enough to create selection pressure. This study showed that individuals who were more concerned with disease had elevated preferences for symmetric faces (Little et al., 2008). Therefore, if one is more concerned about the traits being passed to offspring, they will choose a mate that they believe has good genes. Aleem et al. then conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies. This meta-analysis showed that there was a moderately strong relationship between facial symmetry and perceived health ( p < 0.01) (Aleem et al., 2019). Furthermore, there was a low, but significant, correlation between facial symmetry and actual health (p = 0.05) (Aleem et al., 2019). Throughout this study, Švegar determined that results were in line with the evolutionary hypothesis that we select attractive and symmetric mates because it is an indicator of good health and genes (Švegar, 2016).
Overall, both studies examined show that motivation has a role in what is deemed aesthetically pleasing. As mentioned in the study by Aleem et al., we may view certain features as beautiful because they are indicators of something beneficial. For example, it is beneficial to be able to tell the difference between ripe and rotten fruit, and ripe fruit may be considered more beautiful due to features such as color or texture. Švegar examined this principle in human mate choices. It was concluded that more symmetric faces are perceived are more attractive, as well as more healthy. While there was only a small association between symmetry and actual health, but a large association for perceived health, this association can be enough to create a selection pressure that motivates individuals to choose mates with more symmetric faces since it may be a cue to good health and genes. Since these aspects are heritable and will be passed down to offspring, it is beneficial to choose a mate with good traits. Overall, it seems that motivation has a large role in determining the aesthetic value of things. However, more research is needed in order to determine the exact pathways and processes involved in determining beauty.
References
Aleem, H., Pombo, M., Correa-Herran, I., & Grzywacz, N. M. (2019, November 16). Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder or an Objective Truth? A Neuroscientific Answer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-24326-5_11.
Brown, S., Gao, X., Tisdelle, L., Eickhoff, S.B., Liotti, M.: Naturalizing aesthetics: brain areas for aesthetic appraisal across sensory modalities. Neuroimage58(1), 250–258 (2011).
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Waitt, C., Tiddeman, B. P., Feinberg, D. R., Perrett, D. I., Apicella, C. R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2008). Symmetry is related to sexual dimorphism in faces: data across culture and species. PLoS One, 3(5), e2106.
Quist, M. C., Watkins, C. D., Smith, F. G., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2012). Sociosexuality predicts women’s preferences for symmetry in men’s faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1415–1421.
Sartwell, C.: “Beauty”. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017). Metaphysics ResearchLab, Stanford University (2017).
Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Facial asymmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 456–466.
Švegar, D. (2016). What does facial symmetry reveal about health and personality? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 47(3), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0042.
No comments:
Post a Comment