There are some interesting questions sort of lurking behind this whole conversation. Is beauty solely a perceived phenomenon? Sort of like relativistic light, where it doesn't exist in a definite state until observed? If so, I think that beauty does have a necessary fundamental quality. It has to grab the attention. Hence why novelty and visibility are often key components of a beautiful object. Both of these serve to increase how much attention the thing receives. Once observed, the thing can be beautiful or ugly, but a necessary precondition is that it is observed.
Leaning too heavily on this kind of muddies the conversation, though. Humans always have to notice something before we assess it, so it's a little too easy to say that stuff "doesn't exist" until we pay attention to it. It might be useful to temporarily remove attention grabbers from the conversation, when trying to diagnose any objective core behind beauty. Great songs don't have to be played on the radio in order to be great, but when they are, it makes their greatness much more obvious. So, what is beauty, pre-broadcast? What does it look like, when it doesn't catch the eye? Or does such a beauty exist?
Excellent! I like the pushback on the visual properties, and Deutsch's dismissal of each feels indeed fairly weak (in particular the spider argument). That said, re: Graham's concentric rings of taste theory, I think Deutsch's claim is that flowers are only beautiful to either bees or humans, not to any other species. To him, only *people* can access (be attracted to) the objective kind of beauty. And that is a testable prediction that would decide between Deutsch and Graham. In other words, bees' attraction to flowers is parochial; but humans' is not. The objective beauty of flowers is an accidental side effect of their need to signal across an interspecies gap. That, however, doesn't mean that Deutsch wasn't wrong to dismiss those properties you go over as being parochial.
On flowers: "Anyone imagining that just any sort of flowers can be presented in the front of a house without status jeopardy would be wrong. Upper-middle-class flowers are rhododendrons, tiger lilies, amaryllis, columbine, clematis, and roses, except for bright-red ones. One way to learn which flowers are vulgar is to notice the varieties favored on Sunday-morning TV religious programs like Rex Humbard's or Robert Schuller's. There you will see primarily geraniums (red are lower than pink), poinsettias, and chrysanthemums, and you will know instantly, without even attending to the quality of the discourse, that you are looking at a high-prole setup. Other prole flowers include anything too vividly red, like red tulips. Declassed also are phlox, zinnias, salvia, gladioli, begonias, dahlias, fuchsias, and petunias. Members of the middle class will sometimes hope to mitigate the vulgarity of bright-red flowers by planting them in a rotting wheelbarrow or rowboat displayed on the front lawn, but seldom with success." (Quoting Scott Alexander quoting so. whose link no longer works) https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KheBaeW8Pi7LwewoF/what-is-signaling-really
Any research about ALL indigenous tribes paying MUCH attention to flowers? As in : I like cherry-blossoms. You do gardening. Japanese go bonkers.
I wonder what role colour palette plays in that — natural colour palettes are often recommended as an easy choice for artists — and if there are ugly flowers (not universally appealing to humans at least, something like Aristolochia or whatnot), or, as you said, “novelty” - such as if something is unusual and unique, in which case it’s rather “attractive” than “beautiful” in my opinion 🤷 Anyway, great essay sir
There are some interesting questions sort of lurking behind this whole conversation. Is beauty solely a perceived phenomenon? Sort of like relativistic light, where it doesn't exist in a definite state until observed? If so, I think that beauty does have a necessary fundamental quality. It has to grab the attention. Hence why novelty and visibility are often key components of a beautiful object. Both of these serve to increase how much attention the thing receives. Once observed, the thing can be beautiful or ugly, but a necessary precondition is that it is observed.
Leaning too heavily on this kind of muddies the conversation, though. Humans always have to notice something before we assess it, so it's a little too easy to say that stuff "doesn't exist" until we pay attention to it. It might be useful to temporarily remove attention grabbers from the conversation, when trying to diagnose any objective core behind beauty. Great songs don't have to be played on the radio in order to be great, but when they are, it makes their greatness much more obvious. So, what is beauty, pre-broadcast? What does it look like, when it doesn't catch the eye? Or does such a beauty exist?
Excellent! I like the pushback on the visual properties, and Deutsch's dismissal of each feels indeed fairly weak (in particular the spider argument). That said, re: Graham's concentric rings of taste theory, I think Deutsch's claim is that flowers are only beautiful to either bees or humans, not to any other species. To him, only *people* can access (be attracted to) the objective kind of beauty. And that is a testable prediction that would decide between Deutsch and Graham. In other words, bees' attraction to flowers is parochial; but humans' is not. The objective beauty of flowers is an accidental side effect of their need to signal across an interspecies gap. That, however, doesn't mean that Deutsch wasn't wrong to dismiss those properties you go over as being parochial.
On flowers: "Anyone imagining that just any sort of flowers can be presented in the front of a house without status jeopardy would be wrong. Upper-middle-class flowers are rhododendrons, tiger lilies, amaryllis, columbine, clematis, and roses, except for bright-red ones. One way to learn which flowers are vulgar is to notice the varieties favored on Sunday-morning TV religious programs like Rex Humbard's or Robert Schuller's. There you will see primarily geraniums (red are lower than pink), poinsettias, and chrysanthemums, and you will know instantly, without even attending to the quality of the discourse, that you are looking at a high-prole setup. Other prole flowers include anything too vividly red, like red tulips. Declassed also are phlox, zinnias, salvia, gladioli, begonias, dahlias, fuchsias, and petunias. Members of the middle class will sometimes hope to mitigate the vulgarity of bright-red flowers by planting them in a rotting wheelbarrow or rowboat displayed on the front lawn, but seldom with success." (Quoting Scott Alexander quoting so. whose link no longer works) https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KheBaeW8Pi7LwewoF/what-is-signaling-really
Any research about ALL indigenous tribes paying MUCH attention to flowers? As in : I like cherry-blossoms. You do gardening. Japanese go bonkers.
I wonder what role colour palette plays in that — natural colour palettes are often recommended as an easy choice for artists — and if there are ugly flowers (not universally appealing to humans at least, something like Aristolochia or whatnot), or, as you said, “novelty” - such as if something is unusual and unique, in which case it’s rather “attractive” than “beautiful” in my opinion 🤷 Anyway, great essay sir
Wow this is so fascinating. I’ve learnt to much and I’ve only just woken up. Keep up the most excellent work.