Evolutionary neurobiology and art

In his important book on evolutionary theory, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett warns that Darwin's idea seeps through every area of human discourse like a "universal acid" (Dennett, 1995). Art and the aesthetic response cannot escape its influence. So my approach in this chapter is essentially naturalistic. Friedrich Nietzsche writes of observing the human comedy from afar, "like a cold angel...without anger, but without warmth" (Nietzsche, 1872, p. 164). Whether Nietzsche, of all people, could have done this is a matter of debate. But we know what he means. It describes a stance outside the human world as if looking down on human folly from Mount Olympus. From this stance, humans, their art and neurology are all part of the natural world, all part of the evolutionary process, the struggle for existence. The anthropologist David Dutton, in his contribution to the Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, says that all humans have an aesthetic sense (Dutton, 2001). It is a human universal. Biologists argue that such universals have an evolutionary basis. Furthermore, many have argued that not only humans but also animals, at least the higher mammals and birds, have an appreciation of the beautiful and the ugly (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1988).11Charles Darwin indeed writes "Birds appear to be the most aesthetic of all animals, excepting, of course, man, and they have nearly the same sense of the beautiful that we have" (1871, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: John Murray, vol.2, xiii, 39). This again suggests that aesthetics has an evolutionary origin. In parenthesis here, I should perhaps say that I am well aware of the criticism leveled at evolutionary psychology. I am well aware that it has been attacked as just so many "just-so" stories. This is neither the time nor the place to mount a defense but simply just to say that I believe that a defense is eminently feasible. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Androiden und (Anti)feminismus in The Stepford Wives

Since the early days of cinema the creation of artificial life with its various implications has been a popular topic on screen. Amongst the large number of films that deal with the theme of androids Bryan Forbes’ "The Stepford Wives" (1975) is noticeable for its focus on questions of gender and the relationship between the sexes. The film is set in a contemporary small suburban town where frustrated husbands have found a special way of dealing with their emancipated wives by replacing them with docile life-like robots. Mixing elements of the thriller and horror genres with farce and comedy "The Stepford Wives" was the first American mainstream film to deal explicitly with Women’s Lib. Unlike Ira Levin in his much more ambivalent novel that the film was based on, Forbes and his actors deliberately set out to make a feminist satire, and according to some critics succeeded in producing an important document of second wave feminism which soon acquired cult status. However, it also provoked a number of negative reactions from feminists who were very uncomfortable with a film in which men get away with murdering the female population of an entire town. A closer inspection reveals that the satirical element of the film is indeed not prominent and frequently counteracted, at times facilitating a misogynist rather than a feminist interpretation. This is mainly due to the ending of the film which implies the murderous elimination of the female protagonist. Unlike all other cinematic and literary works that feature androids "The Stepford Wives" shows the successful creation of artificial life which does not backfire. In addition, the film which clearly categorises itself as a thriller and horror movie, and specifically alludes to the tradition of threatened yet strong female characters in these genres, at the same time defies this convention in favour of a seemingly misogynist ending. Thus the way in which "The Stepford Wives" refuses to comply with the traditions of both the android theme and the horror genre, involuntarily serves to undermine its intention as a feminist social satire.