On the Perception of Beauty
How is it that we can perceive beauty? Are we the only species on earth to be able to do so? Do all animals have a sense of beauty? We humans definitely can. But what about the rest of the animal kingdom? Can they differentiate between the beautiful and the ugly? That’s a million dollar question, and a question anyone who has had any extended interaction with any animals (apart from humans, of course, in this case) must have pondered about at some point or the other. A quick google search declares quite dogmatically that No! Animals do not have a sense of beauty or ugliness and therefore do not enjoy or suffer it. Usually, I would take Google’s word for it. But it was just the other day that one of the stray cats I am friends with decided to just ignore me mid-petting, and stare up at the sky. Sounds quite dramatic? Yes, it did seem quite dramatic too, in that moment. I was perplexed. Now, I have seen animals enjoy nature like no one else. Tell those monkeys currently enjoying a dose of healthy sun-bathing in my backyard that they are not enjoying nature. And ultimately, enjoying something is nothing but an expression of acknowledging the beauty of it (whether or not you are consciously doing so or not).
But we are not talking about the appreciation of beauty in such pedantic terms at the moment. We are looking at something more direct, in this case. We are looking at animals directly enjoying the aesthetic of something. And so this cat looking up at the sky seemed earth shatteringly dramatic for a second. I looked up, following its gaze, and landed at a bunch of peacocks sitting atop a coconut tree. An inimitable sight in itself. And yes, they looked beautiful, with the sun behind them, casting them in a silhouette. But did Urre (my cat friend) also see the beauty of it? Or did it just look up because it is an unusual sight? Come to think of it, is it really an unusual sight? I have been known to have my head buried in the sand. What is unusual to me is usually not all that unusual to the world.
But that made me decide to probe further. True, it could be that Urre looked up because her cat instincts just screamed at her, ‘Ooh! Look! Bird! Hunt! But oh no! Tall tree! Too high)’. It could be that it was a truly unusual sight and Urre’s busy little brain was just trying to make sense of it, like I was. Or maybe, just maybe, Urre looked up and thought, ‘Oh how beautiful! Wish I could draw that in my litter box. But oh wait. I don’t have a litter box. I’m a stray. The world is my litter box. That’s just too bad. Maybe if I purr against this nice lady a little more, she’ll get me one’.
And this is where you see me shrugging my shoulders. Because if that is even in the realm of possibility, I have no possible way of knowing it. But I can, definitely, try and find out. And this is me just doing that. Read ahead if you are interested.
THE ANIMAL KINGDOM AND BIOLOGICAL BEAUTY
We have already discussed the biological standards of beauty and how it is assessed in humans. It is actually part of the evolutionary theory as put forward by Darwin (except, he called it sexual selection. We, due to our context of discussion, have been using slightly different terminology).
To put it extremely simply, the crux of this theory ultimately boils down to, ‘whatever survives, or aids the survival of a species and life in general, is beautiful’. And that is absolutely true. A 2006 study (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-005-9015-y) indicates that it is not just humans who prefer a symmetrical face. Even rheseus monkeys do. This study, in which 13 adult rhesus monkeys were studied, declares that these guys also prefer to choose mates with a more symmetrical face. How did they study this? They just showed each monkey computer manipulated images of both symmetrical and asymmetrical faces belonging to the opposite sex (but the same species). The amount of time that each monkey looked upon an image was taken to indicate its interest in it. After a few tries, the pattern was hard to ignore. The faces that each monkey seemed most interested in were the ones that were the most symmetrical.
It is a similar technique that they use to study babies, to gauge what babies are interested in most in order to track their psychological development.
And the logic (coming back to the seemingly increased interest in symmetrical faces) seems to be simple. The more symmetrical the faces, the more the chances of the body behind the face being healthy. Biologically speaking, the face is nothing but a marker for the whole body. Who you are, what you are, can biologically be read through your face. You have anaemia? Shows in the eyes. Malnutritioned? Shows in your cheeks. Restless? Hell, even that can be gauged by studying how your eyes flit about. Our fortunes are truly written on our face.
But there is a question that begs to be asked here. Is beauty limited to the aesthetic of human faces? That can’t be true. What about that dog on YouTube who nods his head in time to this human strumming the guitar, only to look up (disappointment written clearly on his face), when his human stops strumming for whatever reason? What about that other dog on YouTube who howls and jumps about watching Lion King, obviously emotionally involved in the scene? What about that cat who got his own art museum during the lockdown and according to his Instagram, at least, seems to be captivated by the Mona Lisa hanging off the wall?
SO WHAT ABOUT AESTHETIC BEAUTY?
Well, we do have to leave a little margin here for manipulations. Cute animals sell, especially if they are more humanlike. And humans know that. We have all been guilty of manipulating something of ours before we present it to the world, in order to make it more likeable. And we have all seen how social media encourages that tendency of ours. That’s no secret. And that is the most likely explanation.
But that still doesn’t explain instances of cattle giving more milk when induced by music. Or your dog enjoying that cool breeze as you drive slowly through the country roads. Why? Isn’t that beauty also? Does beauty refer only to visual aesthetic? Aren’t aural aesthetics or sensory aesthetics just as captivating?
Perhaps, sometimes, I think, it is the Golden Ratio playing its trick. Perhaps, I think, sometimes, that this too comes under our love (as sentient beings) for symmetry. For the Golden Ratio, is nothing but an intellectual understanding of the symmetry that we all inherently find beautiful. It is very commonly taught to photography students learning how to compose a photo. But while that might be true for an animal experiencing any form of static pieces of art (like the cat enjoying some Da Vinci or the rhesus monkeys’ attraction towards symmetrical faces), it is hard to apply that to the experiences pieces of art (like music or movies).
BUT WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS GOLDEN RATIO?
In mathematical terms, that is a ratio of 1:1.6. Anything that fits into this mathematical model, we humans usually find beautiful to look at. For example, if the width of your face is 1 inch (and if you are a Thumbelina’ descendent), most humans would find your face most attractive if the height of your face is 1.6 inches. Which only goes to show why, across cultures, people have considered an oval face as the ideal of beauty (though, one must remember, that has not stopped anyone from considering a round face beautiful too. Nature doesn’t work in such absolute terms). And if the Golden Ratio can work so well spatially, there is no reason why it shouldn’t work well in experiential terms too. For example, can a piece of music or a beautiful video also be measured via the Golden Ratio? Theoretically, that should be possible. Consider, for example, the ratio of the first act of a dramatical piece to the second act to the third act. Just going by common sense, and not any experimental data, there is no reason the Golden Ratio shouldn’t work then also. But that is a subject to be discussed in detail at a later stage. For now, since we have no means of measuring it, we must ignore it, and simply look at what we can measure, which is spatial or visual aesthetic.
So coming back to point A again, the only reason I can fathom that one dog on Youtube enjoys the experience of watching Lion King and why that cat on Instagram enjoys viewing Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is simply because they find it pleasing. They find the experience stimulating. It doesn’t explain how that works. It just explain that it works. In fact, if I get to the nitty gritty of it, one probably might not even be able to prove that it works. If I study a dog’s brain while he listens to music, I will find that it lights up the same area of the brain as it does in a human — the amygdala.
I will find that it mentally stimulates the animal going through that experience, forcing it to think, collate the information collected and file it away as a new discovery, thereby pushing its own mental limits. That is exactly what happens in a human too. And to put it in a certain persepective, it could be that we are literally watching evolution take place, in its snail-mail pace, step by step, nano-centimetre by nano-centimeter. Think about it. It is when something grabs your attention, reels you in, but when you don’t understand whatever it is that you are so captivated by that the mid grapples with the subject. It makes it a task to enjoy it. To understand it. That must be what leads to mental evolution, and if need be, maybe even physical evolution (in order to, for example, develop the physical appendages that can help us understand what we are seeing better. The example of the development of cones in our retinas in order to better see colour is a good example).
But experimentally, I can never prove whether or not Urre enjoyed watching those peacocks on that coconut tree or not. I might find an increase in the release of endorphins and oxytocins. I might measure her muscles relax. But I can only surmise that she enjoys it based on my own experiences. In other words, I can only say she enjoys it because I feel the feeling of pleasure when the same thing happens in my body. I can only subjectively point at her pleasure, but I might never be able to objectively measure it. Objectively, I can only measure her recognition of the fact.
So yes, in response to my question asked right in the beginning, Animals (apart from humans) would definitely be able to recognize beauty. But whether or not they enjoy it, is a subjective matter. Whether they are aware of it or not is a subjective matter. Subjective to us. And subjective to them too.
