Cats, Cuteness, And The Internet Article Review Sample

What do you think Stephen J. Gould would say about it? 

What is Sanders' criticism of Morreall - and who do you think is right? 
Could cuteness be an artistic property akin to beauty? 
1. Stephen J. Gould, the adherent of the idea that childlike features have a great power over the adults’ feelings, would, to my opinion, agree with Morreall about certain set of features common for infants which forms the term “cuteness”. He uses the example of Mickey Mouse to prove how the character has become more friendly and cute with the evolution of definite parts of its body, namely those which make it more childlike. The author states that these features are large head, bulging cranium and retreating chin. He is sure that when noticed among animals or cartoon characters, the latter will definitely elicit affection.
2. In his article, Sanders criticizes Morreall, and I think he is right. Sanders disagrees with Morreall’s statement that all the infants have a certain set of features making them cute. What Sanders explains is that cuteness itself is looking like an infant whatever he looks like. Sanders denies that parents take care of children only because they are attractive. As a rule, the attractiveness of a child does not influence love and care of the adequate parents. And finally, Sanders disagrees that cuteness has evolutionary value – it is impossible that “uncute” representatives of our ancestors simply died off.
3. According to Morreall, cuteness in art mostly refers to Kitch and therefore cannot be an artistic property akin to beauty. When mentioned in art criticism, it is always a negative utterance because such art evokes shallow emotions thus appearing unsubtle. Art beauty has to evoke complex, mixed and thoughtful emotions while cuteness calls for primary instincts. Feeling positive emotions for cuteness is absolutely a healthy thing, but there is no place for cuteness in great art.
Basing on Sanders’s theory, cuteness is any set of features typical for infants. If it were, like Morreall states, a certain set of features, and some infants occasionally did not fit in the standards, their parents would care for the baby spiders more because their own babies were non-cute according to their expectations. To take care of infants is the parents’ antecedent predisposition, and no cute or non-cute looks can influence this instinct. Cuteness is anything typical of infants requiring nurture of parents among the young.
It is obvious that the babies of our ancestors attracted the attention of their parents just as well as the modern babies do it, no matter how the set of features deemed cute might have changed. This fact hints that there is no such set at all. Basically, being cute is the parents’ perspective of attracting and pleasing them. Adults are a priori positively disposed towards infants. If cuteness were a factor encouraging parents of caring for the infant, than our ancestors would not live long and would not become an ancestor of ours because it can’t be possible that cuteness played such an important role.
Stephen Jay Gould, the famous author of numerous scientific articles, tells the reader about the development of the character of Mickey Mouse. Fifty years ago, when first appeared, Mickey Mouse was not the one we know today. It was an impetuous and even slightly sadistic creature annoying its environment. Both its personality and appearance would soon change. Today, Mickey’s looks obviously have the traits of juvenility – cranium, head and eyes are now larger. It is fair to say that after 50 years of evolution, Mickey became more childlike and cute. These traits appear to seem friendlier to the audience. Mickey Mouse’s evolution realized by Disney’s artists was possibly unconscious which testifies of a completely biological principle.
Stephen Jay Gould mentions the works by Lorenz and Darwin who state that people feel affection to the babyish features – the evolution of a famous animated character can be proved even scientifically. Childlike features evoke powerful emotional response and adults are drawn to these creatures (whether it is an animal or a character) and admire them.
Another interesting remark made by the author is that Mickey Mouse, as well as other cartoon characters, does not age and stays childish, while the cartoon villains are always more adult in appearance.
John Morreall, in his turn, states that cuteness is a second-class aesthetic property. It has not been important in art and aesthetics for two reasons – male domination in the Western art where there is no place for cuteness; and cuteness being unsubtle. Obviously, it requires no taste and no aesthetic education. That’s why art called “cute” is never taken seriously.
He explains what cuteness is step by step, and the first important thing to remember is that cuteness can only refer to visual satisfaction. It always refers to infants and everything reminding infants (even adult koala or panda). What makes a human baby cute is its smallness, different body proportions and weak and clumsy behavior. All these things lead to the adult’s desire to hold and kiss the baby.
Morreall suggests that cuteness has a direct link to caring – we all know how couples call each other (words referring to infants or food which is also connected to nurturing). Another reason of infantilization of the beloved adults is that they find each other attractive. So it is fair to say that “cute” is “attractive”. When speaking of inanimate objects (village, car, room), one feels affection and finds cute everything small, gentle and innocent – again, the features of a baby.