What it is to be human_part 3

Let's begin with a very uninteresting, but easy-on-the-mind debate. Which of the two make art better, curves or straight edges? I will talk about curves first. There is a car designer, a Russian man, who's name I do not know, who believes that the human eye was not meant to see straight edges. In nature, curves are a common sight. There are barely enough biological life forms with straight edged design. Plants sometimes give the appearance of having straight edges but when you think about it, plants don't move much. If nature keeps progressing forward with time, then animals are simply, more advanced. But the need for plants is beyond obvious, and so, nature will have to keep them around until animals find a way of filling the roles of plants. So instead of asking why exactly does nature tend to prefer curves over straight edges, I will simply establish the rule : in nature, curves are the preferred form of design.

Straight edges have a very unnatural look about them. The swordfish (and few other species of fish and shark) have straight edges, making them look unnatural. Remember that fish are quite primitive creatures and sometimes show more straight edges than most land based animals. Humans are, in our own way of seeing things, the most advanced species. Maybe it's simply because no other species has the ability of wiping out any other species with such efficiency. But then, again, there are so many other reasons for us to think we're the more evolved species. As a matter of fact, the ability to think we're more evolved makes us a little more evolved. Or maybe we are in fact very primitive, and all explanations are false, we're just pawns in a much bigger picture; in which case, writing things on this blog isn't useless, but completely useful, because it would mean our purpose is whatever we want it to be. I'm sorry, that does not make complete sense.

Back to topic.

When you stop and think of it, everything straight edged gives a very 'man-made' effect. And if part of being human is to create art, and art should be everything 'man-made', and not anything natural, for if is something is naturally occurring, it cannot be art. Only that which is 'man-made' may be rightfully labeled art. Please don't argue semantics or anything. The reason why I sometimes hate language is because of how 'art' means different things to different people. The art I am talking about is the true, well thought out definition of art.

Back to topic.

With my above statement in mind, can it be said, that the perfect art, as in designed, not written or sung, art would have to be completely straight edged? Why not?

Human beauty, or the beauty of the superior human is all about straight edges. The superior human is well toned, free of excess fat, which would make it more and more curvier. High cheek bones, and straight edged lines should be the core structure of the face of the superior human. That would be the definition of human beauty if strategically broken down. It is the reason why so many humans look for the straight edged look in a human. So many, but not all. But in human beauty, there are so many factors involved, which are beyond my 'not-completely-out-of-the-box' ways of thinking.

Now for the next segment.

Look at anything man-made. A remote control, a laptop, a telephone. Damned near anything. Human ingenuity. The fact that man relish in our ability to make thought reality must mean a great deal, and should be taken into serious consideration when asking the question : what is it to be human? Let us NOT ask how we imagine and what is imagination (just yet), but instead refer to imagination frequently, and without explanation of it's functional definition. The fact that human beings have been working for as long as we can remember to get OUT of the jungles/forests and shape nature(and eventually the universe) in our own image should give us a clear link to what we know we are, but cannot properly say in words.

Continued in part 4