http://mysticdragon3.deviantart.com/#/d4q34b7
So I was just at this website
lovelyloey.me/how-to-make-cute-things
that had a blog entry about the "golden rule to making cute things". Basically, "pastel felt + face = cute". Though that is absolutely true, I was expecting a little more on the technical aspects of cute, in a graphical sense. That website was about felt and color, but examining things like the face, was more the direction I wanted to see.
Then I remembered that I already had learned the technical aspects of what comprises "cute". From many different sources, over the years, that I can't even remember who to cite now. Combined with my inclination towards Evolutionary Psychology, the answer for "what is cute?" has always been right in front of me.
Basically, "cute" can be described as a human aesthetic, ingrained into our emotions, which causes us to reflexively feel protective over our young. Look at all the things which are considered "cute": big eyes, pastels, large head paired with tiny body, uncoordinated movements, etc. These are all the traits of human babies. Yet, when we see puppies with big eyes, pastel inanimate objects, large-headed plushies, or bumbling kittens, it all gets an "awwwwwwwww". ^_^ These are all cues which tell our deeply biological instincts, that these are babies. And it's more than likely, that the humans who have evolved through now, were descended from the ancestors who best protected their young. It's an evolutionary advantage to be instinctively protective and attentive towards young. Apparently, *so* important that the emotion has extended to react towards non-human young as well.
We often talk about cute in terms of the object which is cute. But the true importance of cute is in our reaction towards it. It is an emotion.
Emotions evolved as part of the survival instinct and gives humans (or anything which has developed emotions) the will to live. For example, a water buffalo may get bitten by a komodo dragon, tire from infection at the bite, and precariously just lie there, while the dragons swarm to eat it. But a man who I heard was lost in the desert once, kept pushing forward, rather than succumbing to sedentary dehydration, because he didn't want his wife to gain everything during his current divorce. The animal with stronger emotions does tend to have more motivation to survive. A buffalo may fear the komodo dragons enough to run away, but those emotions seemed to fall short in the face of physical weariness from injury. On the other hand, a human suffering the physical weariness of dehydration, has managed to push to survive past it, because of his emotions. Emotions really can be "mind over matter", and become the crucial factor towards survival. (Or irrationality in the face of physical realities.) So we humans have developed strong emotions, that are rooted in furthering our chances for survival, as individuals and in perpetuation of our species.
If cute is an advantageous, reflexive, emotional protectiveness and attentiveness towards things which resemble human babies, then logically, all humans should have a strong affinity for "cute". Yet, in society, men are generally close-lipped about "cute", while women seem to unabashedly proclaim it. Not to be sexist or anything, but is it safe to say that more females have evolved to have a stronger reaction to "cute", vs males? Or is this an illusion created by culture curtailing biology?
Certainly, it is our cultures which have generally warned men against enjoying "cute", more than human biology. I know plenty of guys who love "cute". It's a human thing, not just a female thing. And in the evolution of a species, it would be more advantageous if every mature, capable individual, was willing to protect and nurture the young. And yet, with the constraints of culture, men tend to only feel free to use the word "cute", in terms of a female they find attractive. This seems to be in keeping with the use of "cute" to express a feeling of protectiveness. Perhaps this schism in society allowing the genders to express affinity for "cute" is based upon attempts for distinction between the genders. Studies have shown that ovulating women prefer more masculine faces. So perhaps it's biology that society has taken a little too far. But if it furthers procreation, which also helps with perpetuation of a species, I guess the survival instinct has let that slide. Still, having all members of a species willing to protect the young, is waaaay more important to species survival. I think that takes precedence over instincts developed for procreation. So I have personally concluded that males and females both have strong affinity for "cute", but the males tend to be constrained by human society to express those feelings.
Look at Japan, for instance. So much of the aesthetic for inanimate objects, graphics, and even utilitarian objects openly adhere to "cute". For example, when Crash Bandicoot was ported to Japan, they had to re-design him with no teeth...like a baby. Cute is more prevalent in current-day Japan. Men there even seem more free to call things "cute", even unrelated to an attractive girl. (At least, that's what I've observed from live-action writing and videos.) Part of this could be attributed to the consumer power of teenage girls, driving most markets, with their love of "cute", as well as the expected use of their freedom to love cute. But I'd like to think that that marketing trend simply gave men the freedom to express affinities which were already there. It'd like to think *all* humans are capable of protectiveness, affection, and care.
Though---not to be sexist or anything, but---in terms of evolutionary survival, perhaps it is only really essential that females have a strong reaction to "cute". Females carry the babies and perpetuate the species. Because of that, I have heard many scientists in documentaries make the claim that, only the females are really important, in terms of biological survival of a species. Even the rare species of lizard, made up entirely of clones, are all female. A species only really needs the ones who create the next generation. That's why women are built to live longer: From our larger fat stores (women have a higher proportion of fat to muscle, compared to men) to our double X chromosomes (always have a back-up copy for any gene, in case of flaws). Women have biologically developed to live longer, to increase chances of perpetuating the species. To that end, it could be much more essential to the species that females especially have an affinity for "cute". A greater emotional reaction of protectiveness, attention, and care, better ensures that the babies, carrying on the species, have an increased chance for survival---not just in terms of mortal protection, but also in nurturing development to grow a stronger species. Sure, it's great if all humans have a strong protectiveness over "cute", but if someone has to go, males are usually expendable. (Sorry. The scientists in the documentaries I watch, said it first.)
So what exactly are the "cute" traits which evoke the identification of babies for humans?
1) Large eyes.
Humans eyes do not really grow over the course of development. Babies are born with adult-sized eyes, and their bodies grow around them. Therefore, the eyes of human babies are proportionally larger, relative to their heads/bodies.
2) Large head, small body.
SD (super-deformed) and chibi character designs take their cues from the developmental proportions of babies as well. Humans have some of the largest brains in proportion to our bodies. Big brains, mean big skulls, which mean, big heads. The rest of the body's development can catch up later. But from the very beginning, humans start with large brains. It's our head-start before the other species.
3) Pastel color.
This is just a personal conjecture of mine. But perhaps this relates to babies' skin. When compared to mature, human adults, babies do not have a build up of dead or dying, outer layers of dull skin, for protection. Babies are born pink, or pale, relative to their mature skin pigmentation. And pale generally equates to pastel.
4) Un-coordination.
I once saw an elephant documentary where the baby tried to manipulate objects with its trunk, that gripped and flopped around like a wet noodle. I couldn't get enough of it. ^.^ Babies have less developed muscles. Even the herd animals, like antelope and deer, that walk minutes after being born, wobble when they first get up. And that moment always seems adorable for some reason. Human babies have such undeveloped muscles at birth, that it takes some time before they are able to even squirm around or roll over. This may be one of the most helpless traits of young, and predictably evoke the most affection for cuteness.
5) Small size.
In keeping with the traits of babies, small things are often equated as being "cute". I don't think I have to explain babies being born small. Immediately recognizing diminutive things as being baby-like is advantageous. It increases a the young's chances for survival to immediately evoke protectiveness and attention. And with the species' survival as a whole also riding on this immediate recognition, it's advantageous to evolve adults with reflexive emotions towards something simply because it is small. After all, if a baby isnt' developed enough to do anything else to evoke affection or advertise it needs protection, it can at least be small.
6) Roundness.
A round mochi is cuter than a cube of the same size and color. Sorry, Tofu Records. But I will say that your mascot plushie did manage to round it's edges/corners, simply by being a soft plushie. Can it be that babies are born without sharp edges because it would harm the mother during gestation and birth? Very possible. While infant animals will generally not have horns (or other sharp body parts) until maturity, that is more a question of the time to develop those parts. A baby bird, on the other hand, will not only be born with an angular beak, but even a little "egg tooth" to break free of it's shell. But human babies are soft and round all over. So to humans, round is "cute".
7) Simplicity.
This may have less to do with human babies and more with human psychology. At a convention panel, examining manga, the panelist noted that the human mind has more freedom to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they wish for most, when the space/design is not constrained by realistic details. Heroes are drawn with simple faces, while villains have more realistic facial features, he noted. Much in the same way that a blank, Shoujo manga panel allows the reader to feel the intended emotion, more than hear some words or see a specific image from the manga-ka. Or how an anime director will turn the camera away/off before the climactic moment everything has built towards. (See the end of the Lucky Star anime, or the quick cuts away at the end of Kingdom Hearts games.) When the moment is in your head, it becomes everything you expected and hope for, with the advantage of having every personal inflection of each individual watching the experience---because it happens in each person's head, rather than on screen. Emotions are more strongly evoked through implication, by way of simplicity's enticement to fill-in-the-blanks. And "cute" is about emotional reaction.
8) Faces.
Eyes and mouth. Humans will see that in anything with 2 dots and a line slightly lower, between them. Humans are egocentric. And it is an evolutionary advantage for us to be so. (This, I remember Scott McCloud writing about.) As social animals, it is important that we become highly proficient in our main means for social interaction. In contrast to other social animals, like bees or dogs, humans have abandoned scent. One of the primary forms of communication which humans must recognize are facial expressions. Humans must immediately recognize faces, to immediately start their familiarization with learning its intricacies. This is why babies are born, recognizing faces, and why autistic people have so much trouble fitting into a society, built primarily for communication through facial expressions. Humans must become proficient with faces. Humans interested in faces gain an advantage. Therefore, humans have probably developed an instinctual affinity for faces.
9) Anthropomorphism.
Gijinka cosplay, talking animals in cartoons, and little cakes with smiling faces...
This is the same egocentricity as human's instinctual affinity for faces. The same biological advantages too. Humans identify with other humans. Humans *must* be interested in other humans to survive or thrive in such a social species. We empathize with things for the same reason. When our pets imitate human behaviors, it's called "cute". It is advantageous for their survival as well. We find affinity for and share companionship with people of similar interests; we build bonds with people we identify with. And those people who built emotional bonds with us, are more likely to survive with our help. It is survival instinct to participate in this dialogue of identification.
But it also speaks to one of the fundamentals of human psychological development. The infant mind begins as egocentric, knowing nothing but one's self. After the "terrible twos" resolve coming to terms with acknowledging others in addition to one's self, humans begin to try to relate to each other. This is the origin of societies, from social creatures, who have emotions. The emotions are necessary for mutual advantage through cooperation, because emotions allow humans to understand others. As children develop, they try to understand others, by considering how they themselves would feel in the same situations. Identification with others outside ourselves, as well as projecting that identification onto those others outside ourselves, is a fundamental development of the human species.
We like seeing things which are not human, take on human traits. Personification and anthropomorphism is adorably "cute".
10) Child-like.
All the other traits I've mentioned, speak of the visual or biological cues of infancy, but when I say "child-like", the emphasis is more on personality traits. This can be anything from "childishness" to "innocence". It's all subjective, because what different people imagine "child-like" to equate, is dependent on too many individual variants, experiences, and points of view. But evoking an affinity towards the young, once again, still speaks to our survival instinct for our species. Ask any fangirl of America from Hetalia. The fandom has created this image of him which is genki, impulsive, pouts, bratty, loves candy, goofs off, plays games, and is earnestly honest, in an innocent sort of way. And those same fangirls contrast that image, with a mature, parental image of England. Fangirls like a childish character, for the same reason the biological instinct in a mother finds children adorable. Maybe even the same way that girlfriends laugh-off "boy's immaturity" with a smile. Child-like is "cute".
Well, I've laid down the basic theory. Cute is the evocation of baby cues, and protective feelings. It is advantageous and thus, survival instinct. I would love to draw an example demonstrating the theories, and a contrasting opposite of all those traits listed, but I'm really thrashed, staying up this late. I need Tylenol. x~x And maybe it would be more interesting to see lots of different people's ideas of what was the opposite of all those cute traits. ^^?
No comments:
Post a Comment