Delighted to be here and to talk to you about a subject dear to my heart, which is beauty. I do the philosophy of art, aesthetics, actually, for a living. I try to figure out intellectually, philosophically, psychologically, what the experience of beauty is, what sensibly can be said about it and how people go off the rails in trying to understand it. Now this is an extremely complicated subject, in part because the things that we call beautiful are so different. I mean just think of the sheer variety -- a baby's face, Berlioz's "Harold in Italy," movies like "The Wizard of Oz" or the plays of Chekhov, a central California landscape, a Hokusai view of Mt. Fuji, "Der Rosenkavalier," a stunning match-winning goal in a World Cup soccer match, Van Gogh's "Starry Night," a Jane Austen novel, Fred Astaire dancing across the screen. This brief list includes human beings, natural landforms, works of art and skilled human actions. An account that explains the presence of beauty in everything on this list is not going to be easy.
On suur rõõm olla siin ja rääkida asjast, mis on mulle südamelähedane. See on ilu. Kunstifilosoofia, esteetika on õigupoolest minu töö. Ma üritan saada aru, mis on ilu elamus nii filosoofiliselt, psühholoogiliselt kui intellektuaalselt ning leida selles nii mõistuspärast kui ka seda, mis inimesi ilu mõistmisel eksiteele viib. See on äärmiselt keeruline teema. Osaliselt sellepärast, et asjad, mida me peame ilusaks, on väga erinevad. Pean siin silmas puhtalt ilu varieeruvust: beebi nägu, Berliozi "Harold Itaalias", filmid nagu "Võlur Oz", Tšehhovi näidendid, Kesk-California maastikud, Hokusai vaade Fuji mäele, "Roosikavaler", imeline võiduvärav Maailmakarika turniiril, Van Goghi "Tähine öö", Jane Austeni romaan, Fred Astaire tantsimas ekraanil. See lühike nimekiri sisaldab inimolendeid, looduslikke pinnavorme, kunstiteoseid ning inimeste oskusi. Kirjeldus, mis selgitab ilu olemasolu kõiges nimekirja kuuluvas, ei saa olema lihtne.
I can, however, give you at least a taste of what I regard as the most powerful theory of beauty we yet have. And we get it not from a philosopher of art, not from a postmodern art theorist or a bigwig art critic. No, this theory comes from an expert on barnacles and worms and pigeon breeding, and you know who I mean: Charles Darwin. Of course, a lot of people think they already know the proper answer to the question, "What is beauty?" It's in the eye of the beholder. It's whatever moves you personally. Or, as some people, especially academics prefer, beauty is in the culturally conditioned eye of the beholder. People agree that paintings or movies or music are beautiful because their cultures determine a uniformity of aesthetic taste. Taste for both natural beauty and for the arts travel across cultures with great ease. Beethoven is adored in Japan. Peruvians love Japanese woodblock prints. Inca sculptures are regarded as treasures in British museums, while Shakespeare is translated into every major language of the Earth. Or just think about American jazz or American movies -- they go everywhere. There are many differences among the arts, but there are also universal, cross-cultural aesthetic pleasures and values.
Siiski saan ma anda teile aimu sellest, mida ma pean kõige olulisemaks teooriaks ilust, mis meil on. See teooria ei tule kunstifilosoofilt, postmodernistlikult kunstiteoreetikult, ega ennasttäis kunstikriitikult. Ei, see teooria tuleb mehelt, kes on nuivähkide, ussikeste ja tuvide paljunemise ekspert. Ja te teate, keda ma siin silmas pean - Charles Darwinit. Loomulikult arvavad paljud inimesed, et nad teavad õiget vastust sellele küsimusele, mis on ilu. Ilu on vaataja silmades. Ilu on see, mis puudutab sind isiklikult. Mõned inimesed, eriti akadeemikud, eelistavad öelda, et ilu on kultuuriliselt mõjutatud vaataja silmades. Inimesed on nõus, et maalid, filmid või muusika on ilusad, sest nende kultuuriline taust määrab esteetilise maitse ühtsuse. Eelistused nii loodusliku ilu kui ka kunsti osas on üpriski kultuuriülesed. Jaapanis armastatakse Beethovenit. Peruulased armastavad jaapani graafikat. Inka skulptuure hinnatakse aareteks Suurbritannia muuseumites, samas kui Shakespeare'i tõlgitakse peaaegu igasse maailma keelde. Või mõelge vaid Ameerika jazzist, Ameerika filmidest - need jõuavad kõikjale. Kunstis on väga palju erinevusi, kuid on ka palju universaalseid, kultuuriüleseid esteetilisi naudinguid ja väärtusi.
How can we explain this universality? The best answer lies in trying to reconstruct a Darwinian evolutionary history of our artistic and aesthetic tastes. We need to reverse-engineer our present artistic tastes and preferences and explain how they came to be engraved in our minds by the actions of both our prehistoric, largely pleistocene environments, where we became fully human, but also by the social situations in which we evolved. This reverse engineering can also enlist help from the human record preserved in prehistory. I mean fossils, cave paintings and so forth. And it should take into account what we know of the aesthetic interests of isolated hunter-gatherer bands that survived into the 19th and the 20th centuries.
Kuidas seda universaalsust seletada? Parim vastus peitub katses rekonstrueerida darvinistlik evolutsiooniteooria meie kunstilistest ja esteetilistest eelistustest. Me peame uurima oma praegust kunstilist maitset ja eelistusi ning selgitama välja, kuidas need meie teadvuses on kujunenud. Tegevustest, mis on pärit eelajaloolisest, jääaegsest keskkonnast, kus tegelikult inimesteks kujunesime, kuid ka sotsiaalsetest olukordadest, kus oleme välja arenenud. Taoline inimese lahtimonteerimine saab tuge eelajaloolistest allikatest. Fossiilidest, koopamaalingutest ja muust sarnasest. Tuleb võtta arvesse seda, mida teame 19.-20. sajandini isoleerituna elanud kütt-korilaste esteetilistest eelistustest.
Now, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the experience of beauty, with its emotional intensity and pleasure, belongs to our evolved human psychology. The experience of beauty is one component in a whole series of Darwinian adaptations. Beauty is an adaptive effect, which we extend and intensify in the creation and enjoyment of works of art and entertainment. As many of you will know, evolution operates by two main primary mechanisms. The first of these is natural selection -- that's random mutation and selective retention -- along with our basic anatomy and physiology -- the evolution of the pancreas or the eye or the fingernails. Natural selection also explains many basic revulsions, such as the horrid smell of rotting meat, or fears, such as the fear of snakes or standing close to the edge of a cliff. Natural selection also explains pleasures -- sexual pleasure, our liking for sweet, fat and proteins, which in turn explains a lot of popular foods, from ripe fruits through chocolate malts and barbecued ribs.
Nii, mul isiklikult pole vähimatki kahtlust, et ilu kogemine, kogu emotsionaalse intensiivsuse ja naudinguga, kuulub meie psühholoogia valdkonda. Ilu kogemine on üks osa darvinistlike kohanemiste seerias. Ilu on kohanemisvõime, mida me laiendame ja võimendame meelelahutuse ja kunstiteoste loomiseks ja nautimiseks. Nagu mitmed teist teavad, toimib evolutsioon kahel peamisel mehhanismil. Esimene neist on looduslik valik ehk juhuslikud hälbimised ja valikuline säilitamine ning meie anatoomia ja füsioloogia. See on kõhunäärme, silma või sõrmeküünte areng. Looduslik valik seletab ka paljusid algelisi reaktsioone nagu tülgastus mädaneva liha haisust ning hirme nagu madude kartmine või hirm seista kaljuservale liiga lähedal. Looduslik valik selgitab ka seksuaalset naudingut, magusa, rasvase ja valgurikka eelistamist, mis selgitab paljude toitude populaarsust ja seda puuviljadest ning šokolaadist kuni grillitud ribideni.
The other great principle of evolution is sexual selection, and it operates very differently. The peacock's magnificent tail is the most famous example of this. It did not evolve for natural survival. In fact, it goes against natural survival. No, the peacock's tail results from the mating choices made by peahens. It's quite a familiar story. It's women who actually push history forward. Darwin himself, by the way, had no doubts that the peacock's tail was beautiful in the eyes of the peahen. He actually used that word. Now, keeping these ideas firmly in mind, we can say that the experience of beauty is one of the ways that evolution has of arousing and sustaining interest or fascination, even obsession, in order to encourage us toward making the most adaptive decisions for survival and reproduction. Beauty is nature's way of acting at a distance, so to speak. I mean, you can't expect to eat an adaptively beneficial landscape. It would hardly do to eat your baby or your lover. So evolution's trick is to make them beautiful, to have them exert a kind of magnetism to give you the pleasure of simply looking at them.
Teine oluline evolutsiooni printsiip on seksuaalne valik, mis toimib hoopis erinevalt. Paabulinnu uhke saba on selle kõige kuulsam näide. See ei arenenud välja ellujäämiseks. Pigem on see ellujäämise takistuseks. Paabulinnu saba põhjuseks on paaritumisvalikud, mida teevad paabulinnu emalinnud. See on üsna tuttav lugu. Naised on need, kes ajalugu kujundavad. Darwin ise arvas muuseas, et paabulinnu saba on emalindude arvates ilus. Ta kasutaski seda sõna. Pidades need ideed hästi meeles, võime öelda, et ilu kogemus on üks viise, kuidas evolutsioon toimib ja erutust, huvi, imetlust või isegi kinnismõtteid luues innustab meid tegema ellujäämiseks ja elu jätkamiseks vajalikke otsuseid. Ilu on looduse viis mõjutada meid distantsilt. Kohanemiseks hea maastik otseselt toiduks ju ei kõlba. See ei anna kasu lapsele ega kallimale. Evolutsiooni trikk on muuta need ilusaks, et need oleksid ligitõmbavad ja pakuksid naudingut vaid vaatamisest.
Consider briefly an important source of aesthetic pleasure, the magnetic pull of beautiful landscapes. People in very different cultures all over the world tend to like a particular kind of landscape, a landscape that just happens to be similar to the pleistocene savannas where we evolved. This landscape shows up today on calendars, on postcards, in the design of golf courses and public parks and in gold-framed pictures that hang in living rooms from New York to New Zealand. It's a kind of Hudson River school landscape featuring open spaces of low grasses interspersed with copses of trees. The trees, by the way, are often preferred if they fork near the ground, that is to say, if they're trees you could scramble up if you were in a tight fix. The landscape shows the presence of water directly in view, or evidence of water in a bluish distance, indications of animal or bird life as well as diverse greenery and finally -- get this -- a path or a road, perhaps a riverbank or a shoreline, that extends into the distance, almost inviting you to follow it. This landscape type is regarded as beautiful, even by people in countries that don't have it. The ideal savanna landscape is one of the clearest examples where human beings everywhere find beauty in similar visual experience.
Mõelge korraks olulise esteetilise naudingu allikale - kaunite maastike ligitõmbavusele. Inimesed väga erinevatest kultuuridest üle maailma kipuvad armastama maastikke, mis juhtumisi on sarnased pleistotseeni savannidele, kus inimesed arenesid. Sama maastikku võib näha kalendritel, postkaartidel, golfiradade ning parkide kujunduses ja kuldselt raamitud maalidel, mis ripuvad elutubades New Yorgist Uus-Meremaani. See on nagu Hudsoni jõe koolkonna maastik, millel on avarad rohumaad vaheldumisi puuderühmadega. Puud, muuseas, hargnevad eelistatult võimalikult maapinna lähedalt, mis tähendab, et need on puud, mille otsa saaks ohu korral ronida. Sellel maastikul on nähtav mõni veekogu või märgid veest sinaval horisondil. Samuti on seal linnud-loomad ning mitmekesine rohelus. Ja lõpuks, pange tähele, rada või tee või hoopiski jõekallas või rannajoon, mis kulgeb kaugusesse, kutsudes endale järgnema. Sellist maastikku peetakse ilusaks isegi neis riikides, kus seda ei esine. Ideaalne savannimaastik on üks selgemaid näiteid, kus inimesed kõikjal maailmas leiavad ilu sarnases visuaalses kogemuses.
But, someone might argue, that's natural beauty. How about artistic beauty? Isn't that exhaustively cultural? No, I don't think it is. And once again, I'd like to look back to prehistory to say something about it. It is widely assumed that the earliest human artworks are the stupendously skillful cave paintings that we all know from Lascaux and Chauvet. Chauvet caves are about 32,000 years old, along with a few small, realistic sculptures of women and animals from the same period. But artistic and decorative skills are actually much older than that. Beautiful shell necklaces that look like something you'd see at an arts and crafts fair, as well as ochre body paint, have been found from around 100,000 years ago.
Seejuures võib vaielda, et see on ju looduslik ilu. Kuidas on lugu kunstiga? Kas see ei sõltu täiesti kultuurist? Ei, ma ei arva nii. Selle selgitamiseks vaataksin jällegi tagasi eelajaloolisesse aega. Varaseimateks inimese loodud kunstiteosteks peetakse oskuslikke koopamaalinguid, mida teame Lascaux'st ja Chauvet'st. Chauvet' koopad on umbes 32 000 aastat vanad nagu ka mõned väikesed, realistlikud naise ja loomade kujud samast perioodist. Kuid kunstilised oskused on tegelikult hoopis vanemad. Ilusaid merekarpidest keesid, mis näevad välja kui miski, mida võiks leida käsitöölaadalt, ning ookrit kehamaalinguiks on leitud umbes 100 000 aasta vanustena.
But the most intriguing prehistoric artifacts are older even than this. I have in mind the so-called Acheulian hand axes. The oldest stone tools are choppers from the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa. They go back about two-and-a-half-million years. These crude tools were around for thousands of centuries, until around 1.4 million years ago when Homo erectus started shaping single, thin stone blades, sometimes rounded ovals, but often in what are to our eyes an arresting, symmetrical pointed leaf or teardrop form. These Acheulian hand axes -- they're named after St. Acheul in France, where finds were made in 19th century -- have been unearthed in their thousands, scattered across Asia, Europe and Africa, almost everywhere Homo erectus and Homo ergaster roamed. Now, the sheer numbers of these hand axes shows that they can't have been made for butchering animals. And the plot really thickens when you realize that, unlike other pleistocene tools, the hand axes often exhibit no evidence of wear on their delicate blade edges. And some, in any event, are too big to use for butchery. Their symmetry, their attractive materials and, above all, their meticulous workmanship are simply quite beautiful to our eyes, even today.
Kuid kõige intrigeerivamad leiud on veelgi vanemad. Mõtlen siin niinimetatud Acheuli käsikirveid. Vanimad kivist tööriistad on kirved Olduvai kuristikust Ida-Aafrikas. Need on umbes kaks ja pool miljonit aasta vanad. Need rohmakad tööriistad olid olemas tuhandeid sajandeid kuni umbes 1,4 miljonit aastat tagasi hakkas Homo erectus neid tahuma õhukesteks kiviplaatideks, mis vahel olid ovaalsed, kuid enamasti meenutasid sümmeetrilist teravatipulist lehte või pisarat. Need Acheuli käsikirved said oma nime St Acheuli järgi Prantsusmaal, kus esmaleiud 19. sajandil tegid alguse nende leidmisele tuhandetes paikades Aasias, Euroopas ja Aafrikas - peaaegu kõikjal, kus Homo erectus ja Homo ergaster elutsesid. Selline kogus neid käsikirveid näitab, et neid ei tehtud loomade tapmiseks. Sellele hüpoteesile annab tuge ka tõsiasi, et erinevalt teistest tolle aja tööriistadest ei näita käsikirved enamasti kulumise märki, isegi mitte peentel servadel. Mõned neist on igal juhul veristamiseks liiga suured Nende sümmeetria, atraktiivsed materjalid, ja ennekõike täpne meistritöö on lihtsalt ilusad ka tänapäeval.
So what were these ancient -- I mean, they're ancient, they're foreign, but they're at the same time somehow familiar. What were these artifacts for? The best available answer is that they were literally the earliest known works of art, practical tools transformed into captivating aesthetic objects, contemplated both for their elegant shape and their virtuoso craftsmanship. Hand axes mark an evolutionary advance in human history -- tools fashioned to function as what Darwinians call "fitness signals" -- that is to say, displays that are performances like the peacock's tail, except that, unlike hair and feathers, the hand axes are consciously cleverly crafted. Competently made hand axes indicated desirable personal qualities -- intelligence, fine motor control, planning ability, conscientiousness and sometimes access to rare materials. Over tens of thousands of generations, such skills increased the status of those who displayed them and gained a reproductive advantage over the less capable. You know, it's an old line, but it has been shown to work -- "Why don't you come up to my cave, so I can show you my hand axes?"
Seega, mis olid need iidsed... Need riistad on iidsed, nad on võõrad, kuid samal ajal ka kuidagi tuttavad. Milleks neid kasutati? Parim vastus sellele on see, et need olidki varaseimad kunstiteosed, praktilised tööriistad, mis muudeti haaravateks esteetilisteks objektideks, millel on elegantne kuju ja osav teostus. Käsikirved märgivad inimajaloos evolutsioonilist edasiminekut. Tööriistad hakkasid toimima darvinistliku hea seisundi signaalina, mis täitsid sama funktsiooni nagu paabulinnu saba, kuid erinevalt karvadest või sulgedest on käsikirved teadlikult ja targalt meisterdatud. Arukalt tehtud käsikirved näitasid ihaldusväärseid isiksuseomadusi: intelligentsi, käelisi oskusi, planeerimisoskust, kohusetundlikkust ja vahel ka haruldaste materjalide omamist. Üle kümnete tuhandete põlvkondade tõstsid need oskused staatust neil, kes neid väljendasid ja said soo jätkamisel eelise vähem osavate ees. See on küll vana ütlus, aga tundub toimivat: "Äkki tuled mu koopasse ja ma näitan sulle oma käsikirveid?"
(Laughter)
(Naer)
Except, of course, what's interesting about this is that we can't be sure how that idea was conveyed, because the Homo erectus that made these objects did not have language. It's hard to grasp, but it's an incredible fact. This object was made by a hominid ancestor, Homo erectus or Homo ergaster, between 50,000 and 100,000 years before language. Stretching over a million years, the hand axe tradition is the longest artistic tradition in human and proto-human history. By the end of the hand axe epic, Homo sapiens -- as they were then called, finally -- were doubtless finding new ways to amuse and amaze each other by, who knows, telling jokes, storytelling, dancing, or hairstyling. Yes, hairstyling -- I insist on that.
Kuigi loomulikult on seejuures huvitav, et me ei saa olla kindlad, kuidas see idee edastati, sest Homo erectusel, kes need esemed tegi, ei olnud keelt. Seda on raske mõista, aga see on hämmastav fakt. Need esemed tegi hominiidi eellane, Homo erectus või Homo ergaster, umbes 50-100 000 aastat enne keele teket. Ulatudes üle miljonite aastate, on käsikirved üks vanimaid kunstilisi traditsioone inimkonna ajaloos. Käsikirve eepose lõpuks oli Homo sapiens, nagu neid siis kutsuti, leidlik leidmaks uusi viise lõbustamiseks ja vaimustamiseks. Ehk kasutati naljade rääkimist, jutuvestmist, tantsu või soenguid. Jah, soenguid, ma olen kindel.
For us moderns, virtuoso technique is used to create imaginary worlds in fiction and in movies, to express intense emotions with music, painting and dance. But still, one fundamental trait of the ancestral personality persists in our aesthetic cravings: the beauty we find in skilled performances. From Lascaux to the Louvre to Carnegie Hall, human beings have a permanent innate taste for virtuoso displays in the arts. We find beauty in something done well.
Nüüdisajal ollakse oskuslikud kujuteldavate maailmade loomises kirjanduses ja filmides ning emotsioonide väljendamises muusika, maalimise ja tantsuga. Kuid siiski on fundamentaalne omadus, mis on säilinud eelajaloolisest esteetilisest soovist: me leiame ilu oskuslikes esitlustes. Lascaux, Louvre või Carnegie Hall - inimolenditel on püsiv sünnipärane tõmme oskusliku kunsti esituse poole. Me leiame ilu asjades, mis on hästi tehtud.
So the next time you pass a jewelry shop window displaying a beautifully cut teardrop-shaped stone, don't be so sure it's just your culture telling you that that sparkling jewel is beautiful. Your distant ancestors loved that shape and found beauty in the skill needed to make it, even before they could put their love into words. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? No, it's deep in our minds. It's a gift handed down from the intelligent skills and rich emotional lives of our most ancient ancestors. Our powerful reaction to images, to the expression of emotion in art, to the beauty of music, to the night sky, will be with us and our descendants for as long as the human race exists.
Järgmine kord, kui möödute ehtepoe aknast ja vaatate kaunilt lõigatud pisarakujulist vääriskivi, ärge arvake, et vaid teie kultuur ütleb teile, et see sädelev juveel on ilus. Teie kauged eellased armastasid seda kuju ja pidasid selle tahumise oskust ilusaks isegi enne, kui suutsid seda sõnadesse panna. Kas ilu on tõesti vaataja silmades? Ei, see on sügaval me teadvuses. See on kingitus, mis on pärandatud oskuste ja rikaste emotsioonide kaudu meie kõige kaugematelt eellastelt. Meie tugevad reaktsioonid piltidele, kunstis väljendatud emotsioonidele, muusika ilule ja öötaevale on meiega ja ka meie järglastega sama kaua kuni inimrass eksisteerib.
Thank you.
Aitäh.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)