Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:58:49 PM
Yeah that took 15 minutes for him to spit out the last line, which made no sense considering that would basically imply that every single person on the face of the Earth is attracted to and disgusted by the same exact things. Seeing as though, as some people put it, he was both correct, and incorrect in his theory, it took him 15 minutes to explain something that I'm sure everyone who watched it already knew. Seems to me they`re (don`t ask me who "they" are..speakers, I guess?) are going to this whole "clever drawing along with speech" idea to mask the fact that it`s just a bunch of nonsense, which I suppose it does well because I sat through all 15 minutes and didn`t realize until minute 15 that he was feeding us a bunch of bull crap generalizations and ideas that could have been put out by any high school stoner.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010 11:19:51 PM
An engaging talk, and a wonderful illustrator. But I'm not convinced by the argument. I take for granted that baby-like features (roundish, small, big eyes) have an innate effect on us: it`s called neoteny. But that`s "cuteness", not beauty, exactly - it makes us want to take care of something despite its obvious flaws (dirty diapers and decreased mobility). There`s certainly an evolutionary underpinning to attractiveness as well (symmetry, health, youth & status are sexy). I can even consider that something “done well” might be beautiful for the same evolutionary reasons. That would suggest that USEFUL artistry (like an axe or a chair) would be more beautiful than USELESS artistry (music or sculpture), and that is dubious. But his explanation of the beauty of the vista – the most archetypically beautiful thing he discussed - cannot be correct. He forgets that we also find such beauty in the uninviting: deserts, arctic seas, storms, & tigers.