He also suggests that a typical landscape painting is considered beautiful by all cultures regardless of whether that culture has this landscape or not. That´s because a particular landscape that´s considered beautiful across all cultures specifically resembles the Savannah, and has plenty of trees to climb out of danger, grasses for hiding, water for drinking, and animals for eating, etc.
Or how about the fact that cute animals are cute as a defense mechanism? One thing for sure, his theory is controversial, but if he´s right then it turns the whole art world on its head. If beauty is evolved then what´s the point of viewing it in monetary terms? What´s the point of criticizing art in terms of beauty or innovativeness if all it´s for is progressing humankind into the next generation. Are we talking about the right things in today´s world? Should we be talking about art as if it´s meant to move us from one advanced state to a more advanced state? If so, then what happens when we find "the answer" to Life, The Universe and Everything (RIP Mr. Adams)? Does applied art then start to look like a pyramid where only the best art that pushes us in the best / right answer becomes acceptable? Will we get to a point where a singular artist is capable of putting the final piece on top of the pyramid? Is that where we´re heading? If so, the conversation needs to change, and I think that´s something the auction houses may not embrace. After all, if art is a pyramid then so is oligarchy.
Again, it´s an interesting theory that has given me some ideas for future paintings. First research, but I´m looking forward to getting started. I´m curious to know what you think of this. Please comment below.