wix%bergil.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (07/19/85)
From: wix%bergil.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Jack Wickwire)
From: Leigh Ann Hussey
Subject: Cuteness, Ewoks, and other "abominations"...
<me> What is wrong with "cute" these days? I'm sorry, but I LIKED
the Ewoks!
><friend> I have spared myself the dubious delights of the Smurfs,
> along with most of the other rubbish that advertisers think will
> appeal to kids (and God help us, sometimes they're right).
My feelings when I saw them were at best mixed. For though aliens can be
expected to come in whatever shape one can imagine the ursine/anthropo-
morphic features of the Ewoks said 'Marketing Strategy' loud and clear.
After the flood of Star Wars toys from the first two movies, a perhaps
overly cynical side of me was disappointed that they should use something
that was so heavily evocative of children's toys.
> But the cuteness of anything, even if it does
> resemble a walking teddy-bear, is decidedly limited when it wakes
> you up, as it did Leia, with a sharp spear at a sensitive spot.
While using a spear to wake someone does cut the cloying sensation they
first give, but the audience reaction during the times that I watched the
movie was at how cute they were with their cute spears.
It is true that cute can be deceiving, that is why people feed the cute
bears in a National Park and get mauled, they are demonstrating that
they have let the physical appearance of the bears deceive them.
They are expecting pork-pie hats, collars, and neckties.
Instead of having their appearance be ambivalent and their attitude have
to be proven, they copped out and made them cute and friendly.
The Ewoks would have had to push a burning busload of blind orphans off
a cliff into shark infested waters before they could be seen as anything
but giant Teddy Bears. Instead of presenting me with an ingeniously
created arboreal civilization of aliens on an distant planet I saw the
contents of a child's toy chest.
> So I think labeling the Ewoks "cute" is one
> of the oversimplifications that abound when people discuss Star
> Wars -- or when certain self-appointed network critics discuss
> anything having to do with SF.
>
> Guessing further, I'd say that the most vocal SF followers these
> days want to project an image of "maturity", of following a
> literary form of serious intent. Anybody who feels like that is
> bound to feel that "cuteness" is souring his cause. Again, I
> think this is one for the self-appointed critics, and not to be
> taken too seriously by most of us. It will have its day and be
> forgotten.
My complaint is directed at a tossed off alien design with built-in
kid appeal. I am not being self-conscious about the books I read or
the movies I watch. I agree that in the case described the critics
reaction would be sour, but I am arguing that the Ewoks design was
unnecessarily glib and facile for a tribe of aliens. For instance
E. T. broke most of those rules I referred to below yet he was able
to be described as cute and got a sympathetic audience response.
> This dislike of "cuteness" (a subjective
>term, at best) is evidence.
I strongly disagree that cuteness is a subjective term at best. I will
quote from _Animation_ by Preston Blair Published by Foster Art Service Inc.
pg. 11. The Cute Character - Cuteness is based on the basic proportions of a
baby + and expressions of shyness or coyness.... No neck - head joins on
to body directly... Head large in relation to the body... High forehead
is very important... Eyes spaced low on head & usually large and wide apart...
Nose and mouth are always small... Arms are short and never skinny and taper
down to the hand and tiny fingers... Tummy bulges - looks well-fed...
Fat legs - short and tapering down into small feet for type.
The stereotypes used by animators are distilled down from what the culture
generally perceives as representing a certain set of characteristics.
Just as you can tell what a cartoon character will be like from their
appearance before they even act so the costume designers made the Ewoks as
close to cute aliens as they could.
Do you think that during the hours of arguing over costume designs to make
this character look sinister and that look heroic that the mass appeal of
cute Ewoks was never mentioned? I can only guess, that's true, but I guess
that the Ewoks were designed to be cute for commercial reasons to sell the
movie and the toys.
>And c'mon, you Hoka and Fuzzy fans! Why take offense? I like them
>too, and that's why I liked the Ewoks. There is nothing about them
>to be ashamed of.
My memories of the Hokas are of a broad satire of getting your heroes
heroes from books with out applying any judgment to what you are
reading. Fuzzys, per se, never did much for me though I enjoyed the books.
I am not ashamed of the Ewoks I just think the costume design was purposefully
designed to be cute and it distracted me during the film.
Well I have harped on this at length so I'll quit here.
.wIx.
Posted: Fri 19-Jul-1985 11:10 Eastern Standard Time, Tewksbury, Mass.
To: RHEA::DECWRL::"sf-lovers@rutgers.arpa"jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (07/22/85)
[...] Interesting theory about cuteness: we did it ourselves. This has nothing to do with the discussion of Ewoks being cute, but it's an interesting hypothesis. Baby animals are "cute" primarily because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of evolution, cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, because the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all was reluctant to kill cute animals. Of course there are good physical reasons why most mammalian young resemble human babies, but I think there's a strong "selection" factor there as well. End of pointless diversion: Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay) (07/22/85)
> Interesting theory about cuteness: we did it ourselves. > > This has nothing to do with the discussion of Ewoks being cute, but > it's an interesting hypothesis. Baby animals are "cute" primarily > because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of evolution, > cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, because > the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all was > reluctant to kill cute animals. Of course there are good physical > reasons why most mammalian young resemble human babies, but I think > there's a strong "selection" factor there as well. > > End of pointless diversion: Not quite the end: maybe the reverse is true? We see baby animals as cute because they don't kill us? > > Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo David Tanguay, ditto
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/23/85)
In article <15880@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of evolution, >cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, because >the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all was >reluctant to kill cute animals. Of course there are good physical >reasons why most mammalian young resemble human babies, but I think >there's a strong "selection" factor there as well. The treasuring of cute little animals is hardly a cultural universal. For example: a rather decadent Chinese banquet delicacy was live baby mice dipped in honey and rolled in sesame seeds. Yum. (No, I'm not cross-posting this to net.cooks :-) Another for example: the fellows up in the Great White North who make their living clubbing baby seals probably don't shed any tears over the 'cute' baby seals with their 'cute' big eyes. I suspect the 'cute' reaction is primarily a fairly recent Anglo-American cultural tradition, since I've never seen it mentioned in any other cultural contexts. Anyone else out there have any ideas about this? I suggest anyone interested in this topic check out the title essay in a book called 'The Great Cat Massacre,' published (I think) last year. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
ayers@convexs.UUCP (07/24/85)
/* ---------- "Cold blooded cuteness" ---------- */ I am not ashamed of the Ewoks I just think the costume design was purposefully designed to be cute... /* End of text from convexs:net.sf-lovers */ I have to agree that "marketing" probably played a big role in the final selection of features for the Ewoks. HOWEVER, their very cute- ness, coupled with the primitve nature of their wepons, was what made their (rather effective) strike at the Empire so startling (and fun to watch....). blues, II (shi dobu nan)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (07/24/85)
> In article <15880@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: > > >because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of evolution, > >cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, because > >the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all was > >reluctant to kill cute animals. Of course there are good physical > >reasons why most mammalian young resemble human babies, but I think > >there's a strong "selection" factor there as well. > > The treasuring of cute little animals is hardly a cultural universal. > [Various examples designed to breakup dinner table conversations followed] > ... I suspect the 'cute' reaction is primarily > a fairly recent Anglo-American cultural tradition, since I've never > seen it mentioned in any other cultural contexts. Anyone else out > there have any ideas about this? > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly S.J. Gould had an essay on cartoon characters which is relevant and entertaining. It's in one of his collections of essays.(Perhaps "The Panda's Thumb"?). His point, which strikes me as sensible, is that we are programmed to find *human* babies cute. In the appropriate cultural context this can lead to people thinking most mammalian young are "cute". (Unless there's money to be made by ripping their lungs out. :-)) -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/25/85)
In article <15880@watmath.UUCP> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >[...] > >Interesting theory about cuteness: we did it ourselves. > >This has nothing to do with the discussion of Ewoks being cute, but >it's an interesting hypothesis. Baby animals are "cute" primarily >because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of evolution, >cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, because >the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all was >reluctant to kill cute animals. Of course there are good physical >reasons why most mammalian young resemble human babies, but I think >there's a strong "selection" factor there as well. To consider the pointless diversion a bit more, I suspect that cuteness is intended (in the evolutionary sense) to appeal to the adults of the same species, exempting the young from competition and/or getting the parents to feed them. By and large only the young of species which feed their young are cute. By your theory, cockroaches should be almost intolerably cute. :-)
milne@uci-icse (07/28/85)
From: Alastair Milne <milne@uci-icse> jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) writes: >because humans find them cute. Over millions of years of >evolution, cuteness proved to be an important survival trait, >because the meanest nastiest most successful predator of them all >was reluctant to kill cute animals. It was an important survival trait alright, but not because it kept off predators (who frequently single out the young and the weak). What it did was arouse strong caring and protective instincts in the parents. I don't think even a wounded animal is acknowledged to be as dangerous as an animal whose young are threatened. Works, doesn't it? > The treasuring of cute little animals is hardly a cultural > universal. . . . Another for > example: the fellows up in the Great White North who make their > living clubbing baby seals probably don't shed any tears over the > 'cute' baby seals with their 'cute' big eyes. I suspect the 'cute' > reaction is primarily a fairly recent Anglo-American cultural > tradition, since I've never seen it mentioned in any other cultural > contexts. Anyone else out there have any ideas about this? There are few surer ways to arouse my ire than to make remarks like that about Canadians. You are, I assume, referring to the harp seal hunt in Newfoundland. I suggest you find out what actually happens (and NOT from Greenpeace, who paid to have a baby seal skinned alive for a photographer: the only time it was ever done) before you draw these conclusions. To put it mildly, the image spread by the most vocal people is rather one-sided. Reactions to the softer, more rounded forms of younger animals and birds have been studied by biologists. The same sort of reactions are found across species, never mind cultures. For instance, if a cardboard model is placed in a bird's nest, next to the real hatchling, and it is made even more rounded (what is called "supernormal"), the adult seems to prefer it over the real hatchling. And just watching the drawings comparing model to hatchling, you had to admit the model was cuter. Same for supernormal models of baby rabbits, and of human babies, even though, view objectively, they looked acutely hydrocephalic and in need of immediate surgery.. (If anybody's interested, I believe at least some of these experiments were done by Nikko Tinbergen in his famous experiments with gulls). So I believe it's more biological than cultural. And even culturally, enjoyment of cuteness can hardly be called recent. Look at the number of Victorian books (though I admit I'm thinking of children's books right now) in which it appears. Alastair Milne
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (07/31/85)
In article <2972@topaz.ARPA> milne@uci-icse writes: >> universal. . . . Another for >> example: the fellows up in the Great White North who make their >> ... > > There are few surer ways to arouse my ire than to make remarks like that > about Canadians. You are, I assume, referring to the harp seal hunt in > Newfoundland. I suggest you find out what actually happens (and NOT from > Greenpeace, who paid to have a baby seal skinned alive for a photographer: > the only time it was ever done) before you draw these conclusions. To put > it mildly, the image spread by the most vocal people is rather one-sided. So what happens? My understanding is that the people who kill the seals are Canadian citizens, and that they use clubs to do it. Also, that at least some of them are living close to the edge and depend on this income for survival. Hence the 'make their living...' Heh, heh... perhaps you think I'm a typical crunchy-granola eating Greenpeacer or something of the sort. Or perhaps you have a knee-jerk reaction to ANYONE from the USA making ANY statement about Canadians. I could care a fig about saving cute little baby seals, and my statement WASN't intended to be a statement of support for those who are critical of the seal harvest OR a slam against Canadians. I care a great deal more about the Canadians who must feed their families than about young wild animals whose 'natural' deaths would probably be a lot more brutal than a quick clubbing. I DO care a great deal about the exploitation of endangered species, because the number of species that have gone extinct in the past 100-150 years is staggering and the relationship between diversity and stability in ecosystems is far from clear. My understanding is that the harp seal is far from being an endangered species, however. If you're reacting emotionally to some perceived slur against Canadians in general, I'm sorry but that wasn't the intention of the comment. It may be that the wording of the statement was ambiguous, and I apologize for that. > Reactions to the softer, more rounded forms of younger animals and birds > have been studied by biologists. The same sort of reactions are found > across species, never mind cultures. You mean, perhaps, 'in different species' rather than 'across species.' > For instance, if a cardboard model is > placed in a bird's nest, next to the real hatchling, and it is made even > more rounded (what is called "supernormal"), the adult seems to prefer it > over the real hatchling. And just watching the drawings comparing model to > hatchling, you had to admit the model was cuter. Suggestive, but what does 'seems to prefer' mean? Greater feeding frequency? And have the results been replicated? And how do you quantify 'cuter': 30% cuter? 60% cuter? Saying that birds pay greater attention to a model that's more rounded than its own young is one thing; extrapolating this to a general cross-species genetic predisposition for something you call 'cuteness' is quite another. 'Having to admit' a high degree of cuteness is hardly a scientific observation. A scientific experiment like the above doesn't mean a lot out of context, and you haven't mentioned either corroboration or criticism of the findings. I'm not familiar with the study you site since I'm not an animal behaviorist, but I'll wager that there's not a consensus on its validity OR meaning among animal behaviorists. > Same for supernormal > models of baby rabbits, and of human babies, even though, view objectively, > they looked acutely hydrocephalic and in need of immediate surgery.. (If > anybody's interested, I believe at least some of these experiments were > done by Nikko Tinbergen in his famous experiments with gulls). So I > believe it's more biological than cultural. You can believe it all you want, but if you can't show me a gene in HUMANS that predisposes them to this kind of behavior you haven't proved a thing regarding the existence or nonexistence of a genetic predisposition to nurture 'cuteness' in human beings. I refer anyone who's interested to my postings in net.singles a month or two ago in which inheritance of behavior was discussed. One of those postings gave a bibliography to start people out on an investigation of the topic; I refer you to those postings for my position and arguments on this topic. I'm not going to go through it all again in a different newsgroup. I'll repeat a challenge I made there: I challenge anyone in this newsgroup to show me a study whose results have clearly linked a human behavior to a gene or group of genes, and whose results have (a) been corroborated by followup studies and (b) shown not to be fraudulent. Cyril Burt's often-mentioned identical twin studies do NOT qualify because of (b). > And even culturally, enjoyment of cuteness can hardly be called recent. > Look at the number of Victorian books (though I admit I'm thinking of > children's books right now) in which it appears. The Victorian era counts as recent in my book. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay) (08/01/85)
> > Reactions to the softer, more rounded forms of younger animals and birds > > have been studied by biologists. The same sort of reactions are found > > across species, never mind cultures. > > For instance, if a cardboard model is > > placed in a bird's nest, next to the real hatchling, and it is made even > > more rounded (what is called "supernormal"), the adult seems to prefer it > > over the real hatchling. And just watching the drawings comparing model to > > hatchling, you had to admit the model was cuter. > > Suggestive, but what does 'seems to prefer' mean? Greater feeding > frequency? And have the results been replicated? And how do you > quantify 'cuter': 30% cuter? 60% cuter? Saying that birds pay greater > attention to a model that's more rounded than its own young is one > thing; extrapolating this to a general cross-species genetic > predisposition for something you call 'cuteness' is quite another. > 'Having to admit' a high degree of cuteness is hardly a scientific > observation. > > A scientific experiment like the above doesn't mean a lot out of > context, and you haven't mentioned either corroboration or criticism > of the findings. I'm not familiar with the study you site since I'm > not an animal behaviorist, but I'll wager that there's not a consensus > on its validity OR meaning among animal behaviorists. I've read about this as part of a series of experiments (where? one of: Scientific American (doubtful), Science Digest (probable), Omni (maybe) all about a year ago). The goal of the experiments was to show that birds (and some other critters that I can't recall) don't really have much in the way of mother-love, it's really just a set of programmed responses to physical stimulii. For example, a mother bird (I think it was a dove) would feed anything that poked at it's craw. It would as soon try to hatch a round rock as it would an egg. There were some other things, one having to do with an object of a certain temperature touching the bird at the right spot, but I don't really remember ... David Tanguay