Beauty and art are compelling concepts that have captured the attention of humanity since prehistoric times. Symmetry has been accepted as a universally loved property, dating back to 19th century mathematician George David Birkhoff, who proposed an equation outlining aesthetic beauty saying complexity and symmetry are inversely related to aesthetic value. As Dr. Norberto Gryzwacz discussed in his talk and paper “Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder or an Objective Truth? A Neuroscientific Answer,” there seems to be a balance between evolutionarily conserved preference for visual symmetry and individuality seen in people’s preference that challenges that once universal assumption of the love for symmetry. Can beauty ever be considered objective, or is it up to the individual to decipher art’s true value?
Dr. Grzywacz discussed how he found that when giving people computer-generated images varying symmetry and complexity levels, they systematically differed in their aesthetic values. A result so controversial that would send Birkhoff to question his whole career’s work! What was even more interesting was that people’s preferences were grouped in “islands” that were moderated by both art exposure and gender identity. Specifically, people with less art exposure were more likely to fall within an island of preference. For those within the islands, men tended to prefer high symmetry and low integration, where women tended to prefer low symmetry and high integration. It appeared as if males evaluated an image’s value based on its symmetry and females evaluated based on complexity. The glaring question is…why? Are these islands tied to an evolutionary difference seen between genders, or is this preference difference something that develops by experience?
An important factor to consider in answering these questions comes down to something so simple in nature: toys. With the vast difference between the toys marketed towards girls versus boys comes with the consequence in these toys developing different skills associated with gender stereotypes. In “Why Do We Still Have ‘Girl Stuff’ and ‘Boy Stuff’?” Lisa Selin Davis from the New York Times discusses the ramifications of perpetuating gender norms and how the gender difference in toys constructs an early view of gender roles, causing children to develop skills that are unique to a single gender’s toys.
Interestingly, Davis points out that toys geared towards boys consist of blocks and puzzles, thus developing spatial, problem-solving, and visual skills. Boys having higher exposure to toys that require spatial abilities compared to toys girls traditionally play with may have an impact on how one grows to navigate a neuroaesthetic space. For example, men who are evaluating a piece of art may be more inclined to evaluate it based on its symmetrical variables since those skills were further enhanced during childhood development. On the other hand, girls may evaluate art based on its complexity if their toys contained more elaborate patterns and designs, where boys were used to looking at plain red trucks.
As Davis emphasizes, it is crucial that parents today consider the implications of playing with gendered toys due to the effects like spatial abilities that “girl” toys seem to lack and complex patterns “boy” toys miss out on. Though males and females have clear genetic differences that still may influence preference, it may be even more important to pay attention to the developmental consequences that come from gendering toys. I imagine Birkhoff would gladly refrain from bringing his kids down the Barbie section, for his equation could not bear the consequences of losing the love for symmetry!
References:
Aleem, H., Pombo, M., Correa-Herran, I., Grzywacz, N.M. (2019). Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder or an Objective Truth? A Neuroscientific Answer. In: Contreras-Vidal, J., Robleto, D., Cruz-Garza, J., Azorín, J., Nam, C. (eds) Mobile Brain-Body Imaging and the Neuroscience of Art, Innovation and Creativity. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24326-5_11
Davis, Lisa Selin. (2020, Nov. 18). Why Do We Still Have ‘Girl Stuff’ and ‘Boy Stuff? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/gender-identity-childhood-tomboy-lisa-selin-davis.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment