BEYOND ANTHROPOCENTRIC ESTHETICS: “EVOLUTION”

In the 1960s, when NASA was wondering how to explore extraterrestrial life, scientist James Lovelock suggested that, before gazing into space, we should first observe the planet Earth from the outside, in order to understand how it is possible to perceive life at a distance. Once we have done this, we can turn our eyes to space again.

Lovelock’s idea is fascinating. It is the subject explored in this essay: how to widen our view in order to broaden the panorama ―to see it de-anthropocentrically― and to observe from that vantage point what can be seen when we take ourselves, so to speak, out of the picture. In this way, we can reflect on the esthetic expressions of non-human beings: animal, plants, fungi, minerals, etc.

First of all, it is worthwhile making a few brief observations about the origin and significance of the term “esthetic.” Introduced in 1735 by Alexander Baumgarten, in his Philosophical Reflections on Poetry, it refers to the notion of aisthesis (sensation), that is, of knowledge through sense perception. Baumgarten established that the notion of beauty is not a clear and distinct idea as in the case of mental ideas but rather a confused one. We may add that it is also in part unconscious.

The style is the man (“Le style est le homme même”), said Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon. But esthetics are everywhere, and not just in manmade things.

When connecting the notion of the “esthetic” with living beings, it is indispensable to consider the notion of evolutionary esthetics proposed by Darwin, and his idea that, of all the animals, birds appear to be the most esthetic.

According to Darwin, the colors and textures manifest in different beings ― whose appearance depends solely on their chemical or physical composition― were pre-esthetic manifestations. He also claimed that the first esthetic manifestation of a living being was created by so-called natural selection: the cross-generational transmission of physical characteristics that fit an organism to its environment. Thus, flowers have striking colors in order attract the insects that will pollinate them, certain trees grow taller in order to gain access to more light, and stags grow large antlers to prevail in confrontations with others of their species.

At some point, females began to decide which physical characteristics they preferred, including even those that did not render males more fit for survival, followed, later on, by not only physical but also ethological (behavioral) characteristics. It was then that the first “useless” esthetic decisions emerged, solely of a sexual character. When Darwin suggested that it was the females that took this highly advanced evolutionary step, his hypothesis was met with fierce opposition. Hetero-patriarchal English society was unable to accept such a “barbarous” notion. To make a long story short, the study of evolutionary esthetics was restricted to the historical analysis of human esthetics: a cultural and anthropological approach, rather than a biological one.

To return to Darwin’s theory, it states that, by means of this transformation, the males came to understand the females’ preferences and began to develop an agreed-upon type of beauty, an esthetic correspondence: there is type of beauty in the male that has developed for the purpose of being appreciated by the corresponding sense of beauty in the female. And so we are left with the sexual usefulness and the natural uselessness of beauty.

One of Darwin’s many merits was to have established this distinction. He did not reduce the appreciation of beauty to a mere awareness of natural utility (as did many theorists in the field of evolution in his time), nor did he declare that beauty simply has no purpose. The key point in the case of Darwin is that esthetic utility is different than and removed from natural utility. Although they have no purpose in terms of natural selection, esthetic elements have a purpose in terms of sexual selection: “a purposeless purpose.”

The need to choose from among sexual and natural advantages entails, for both sexes, a willingness to balance and agree, in order not to risk extinction. As a result, the two esthetic levels converged, becoming the standard of the species: without neglecting their fitness for survival, beautiful males began to couple with females endowed with good taste. Thus, beauty and the sense of beauty evolved together, influencing offspring: a transgenerational coevolution.

Consider, for example, the incarnation of beauty: a tiger is beautiful in itself and the tigress appreciates that. Something similar happens among human beings, with tonal music or with language: they are integrated into us, penetrating mind and body. The importance of esthetics may seem banal esthetics are not metaphysics, but although they do not raise the spirit, or lead to life after death, esthetic traits are passed on to the next generation.

It is important to emphasize that esthetic appreciation is based on the internal and external sensations of each individual, as well as on group conventions, and it is given different expressions. One has only to observe phenomena such as cultural diversity or birdsong. What we all have in common are the physical properties of the planet, which affect our sensations. A soap bubble is spherical in shape owing to gravity and the surface tension of the liquid. Our receptors and those of plants or animals adjust their “understanding” on the basis of abstractions we could describe as metaesthetic. Graphene takes the form of a twodimensional lattice, like the honeycombs built by bees. The molecules are arranged in a certain way and we perceive, process, and decodify them in keeping with our “understanding.”

Nevertheless, it is still impossible to affirm that a plant or an animal follows abstract creative processes that we make our own. Bateson would say that we act as we do because we lack balance or grace in the psyche. But perhaps our consciousness took another evolutionary step, one of great economy in terms of sexual or natural selection: not having to wait many generations in order to be more fitted for survival. Our mind developed to take immediate decisions, and it would seem we have incorporated a sort of “environmental judge” in our thought processes, who evaluates the possibilities of survival before acting, thereby taking the solution onto a disembodied plane, without waiting for the slow process of a physical evolution.

This mental realization has allowed us to sustain our esthetics in immaterial form, in the imagination only (for example, conceiving a song or a poem) and so to disincarnate the path of esthetics. Each one of the evolutionary steps denotes an “emergency” of progressively more complex properties. The next step might be when the intelligence is separated from the body, to become, in its “disembodied” state, a mere abstraction floating in electronic components: artificial intelligence.

And this is where a great question arises: What are and will be the esthetic expressions of artificial intelligence? In order to address this question, we must choose a path… but we shall follow it in the next issue of the magazine.

Miguel Mesa

Interdisciplinary artist and Computer Systems engineer with specialization in composition and new media. His concerns intersect with social, cultural and natural phenomena and sometimes the same supports or artistic forms. Sound is a determining material in his work. He has exhibited in Mexico and several countries abroad.