Fri May 27, 2016 7:15 am by Taron
Besides that I'm completely nauseous from having to listen to this utterly unpleasant speaker, I find it damn near complete bullshit, if I may say so. It's only "near" complete bullshit, because there is really something to the admiration of skill, BUT NOT LIKE THAT! It's an idiotic propaganda crap to justify labor over passion and understanding. Look at Rodin sculptures, for example, which are absolutely brilliant and beautiful, because of how the convey existence. You do not look at them and ponder for one second about any labor involved. You do not marvel at "skillfully crafted details". He just felt proportion, motion, weight and balance in ways he could contain and capture. And thus you could witness life inside a coarse looking sculpture. The power to recognize and then experience a "real" moment within you, inspired by a "dead" chunk of metal, has you personally translate it into beauty. If you asked me, this is enough to disproof all the nonsense this T.E.D guy was yapping on about (disturbingly so).
Beauty and function do have far more of a relationship than all that. Function, in this case, really only indicates integrity. That means, something allows itself to exist. That can be split and distributed into symbiotic relationships, displaying a functioning together instead, extending the complexity of a scenario that could be considered as beautiful. But even a single thing that integrates into our imagination as symbiotic to something invisible could feel beautiful. All our various instincts and preferences offer paths to something we may consider as beautiful. Therefore I find it as foolish here as it is in pharmaceutical contexts to isolate components, synthesize a specific something and declare it as the one thing that "works" or was responsible.
With only one little additional clarification, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" could become the most accurate explanation again.
a darwinian theory of beauty
