the eye
Rich Doyle in the Penn State English dept. introduced an intriguing question of aesthetics and the eye in one of his courses. Kate happened to be in there, and she said the question went like this: Consider the ocellus of the peacock feather. Why is the eye a near universal object of aesthetic beauty for both humans and non? What do recurring aesthetic forms say about the gaian (i.e. living earth) mind?
Here are some theories:
1. The ocellus is not beautiful, thus not worth thinking about particularly. OR: The whole premise that the pattern on the peacock feather is an eye is misleading. The pattern could just as well be concentric circles, in which case you may stop reading.
2. The ocellus is an aesthetically beautiful visual object by virtue of being an eye. If we could hear ears, they would sound great. On the flipside, watching an eye being cut (viz the Andalusian Dog or The Story of the Eye), or hearing the sound of a railroad spike being driven into a person's ear, would be the most unbeautiful aesthetic experience. Good thing we can taste tongues (thanks to the French), smell noses (thanks to the Eskimos), and feel skin.
3. The ocellus is aesthetically neutral, both beautiful and unbeautiful. Think of pupil dilation. Dilated pupils are welcoming signals - of sexual attraction, usually. The poisonous/hallucinogenic plant belladona (meaning 'beautiful woman') was used by women in medieval Europe to dilate the pupils and make themselves attractive. Magazine models are usually touched up to such effect. Likewise, if you want to scare someone, try on a pair of zombie-eyed pin-prick pupil contact lenses. BTW, I've always found this interesting: here's what pupil has to do with pupil [Middle English, from Old French pupille, from Latin ppilla, little doll, pupil of the eye (from the tiny image reflected in it). See pupil1.]
4. The ocellus is a signal for food, and this is hard-wired into us. Think of the evolution of caterpillars who have fake ocelli on their tails. Why is this? Because the survival rate increases for those whose fake eyes could migrate to less vital parts of the body. This signals that eyes are synonymous with food - they are places for the beak to strike. They are consumable and useful. Is the aesthetic ocellus playing with this? I've been reading about aesthetics theory recently. Leo Tolstoy in an essay "What is Art?" mentions that one of the conditions of the beautiful is that it be unuseful. This is perhaps the basic idea behind Duchampian found art. So the peacock ocellus is aesthetically beautiful because it is not food. If it were food, perhaps it would not be the supreme object of beauty, a transcendental form, or what have you. The impulse to find it attractive does not go away, though.
5. Potpourri: Ocelli are not only coded as food, though. They are social signs for social animals, and signs of danger lurking in the grass if you happen to be prey. They are curious for all kinds of reasons. This is why eyes draw eyes - deep into a painting as one point of interest, or diffused if looking at a crowd. We need to know if and how we are being watched. This does not explain the aesthetic presence of the peacock feather, which is not frightening. For a female peacock, it might just be mesmerizing trickery - snake charming stuff. Perhaps we are no different.
Here are some theories:
1. The ocellus is not beautiful, thus not worth thinking about particularly. OR: The whole premise that the pattern on the peacock feather is an eye is misleading. The pattern could just as well be concentric circles, in which case you may stop reading.
2. The ocellus is an aesthetically beautiful visual object by virtue of being an eye. If we could hear ears, they would sound great. On the flipside, watching an eye being cut (viz the Andalusian Dog or The Story of the Eye), or hearing the sound of a railroad spike being driven into a person's ear, would be the most unbeautiful aesthetic experience. Good thing we can taste tongues (thanks to the French), smell noses (thanks to the Eskimos), and feel skin.
3. The ocellus is aesthetically neutral, both beautiful and unbeautiful. Think of pupil dilation. Dilated pupils are welcoming signals - of sexual attraction, usually. The poisonous/hallucinogenic plant belladona (meaning 'beautiful woman') was used by women in medieval Europe to dilate the pupils and make themselves attractive. Magazine models are usually touched up to such effect. Likewise, if you want to scare someone, try on a pair of zombie-eyed pin-prick pupil contact lenses. BTW, I've always found this interesting: here's what pupil has to do with pupil [Middle English, from Old French pupille, from Latin ppilla, little doll, pupil of the eye (from the tiny image reflected in it). See pupil1.]
4. The ocellus is a signal for food, and this is hard-wired into us. Think of the evolution of caterpillars who have fake ocelli on their tails. Why is this? Because the survival rate increases for those whose fake eyes could migrate to less vital parts of the body. This signals that eyes are synonymous with food - they are places for the beak to strike. They are consumable and useful. Is the aesthetic ocellus playing with this? I've been reading about aesthetics theory recently. Leo Tolstoy in an essay "What is Art?" mentions that one of the conditions of the beautiful is that it be unuseful. This is perhaps the basic idea behind Duchampian found art. So the peacock ocellus is aesthetically beautiful because it is not food. If it were food, perhaps it would not be the supreme object of beauty, a transcendental form, or what have you. The impulse to find it attractive does not go away, though.
5. Potpourri: Ocelli are not only coded as food, though. They are social signs for social animals, and signs of danger lurking in the grass if you happen to be prey. They are curious for all kinds of reasons. This is why eyes draw eyes - deep into a painting as one point of interest, or diffused if looking at a crowd. We need to know if and how we are being watched. This does not explain the aesthetic presence of the peacock feather, which is not frightening. For a female peacock, it might just be mesmerizing trickery - snake charming stuff. Perhaps we are no different.
posted by thebaffler at 8:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home