Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are there so many canines in fine art?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#21

Post by jejejriro »

shfuhsher wrote: post #20
ksymph wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

Well there are theories humans on Earth are selectively bred too. The selective breeding that led to the dogs being more subservient also affected humans. As human populations who worked with dogs had advantages over the ones who didn’t. That’s a theory at least. There are also theories that humans domesticated ourselves. That civilization promotes certain traits over others. Just like when we domesticated other spec…

[dead]

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#22

Post by SJC_Hacker »

ksymph wrote: post #16
magneticnorth wrote: post #3

The human-dog relationship is maybe my favorite thing about being human. We've bred this companion animal that we're able to bond with so deeply, and I so appreciate the simplicity of the bidirectional unconditional love. So rare between humans, so common human-to-dog. This article makes an interesting point about dog attention as a focal point in art - not something I'd noticed before, but I enjoy having it pointed…

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

Maybe it’s the dogs who conditioned us to love then

Especially modern dogs, who generally don’t have to do much anymore

My late Labrador Retriever laid on the couch lol dy, while I had to bust my butt at work

So who was getting the better deal there ?

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#23

Post by watwut »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
mc32 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the dogs are just about always subordinates and subservient makes the relationship easier to work -and of course, dogs are happy to comply since it's part of their instinct to be subordinate in the presence of a dominant being (canine or person). Human to human is a little more difficult since outside of structured organization, we don't tend to play subordinate in most Western culture. You do see some cultures…

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife Really? Many of them, to my mind, have endemic issues with sexual violence, honor-based violence ( e.g. acid throwing) and foregone development.

You have to understand, that does not count. When she tells no or protest, that is the strife. But when he beats her, violates her or insults and diminishes her, that is just valid enforcement of the authority.

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#24

Post by Hugsbox »

ksymph wrote: post #16
magneticnorth wrote: post #3

The human-dog relationship is maybe my favorite thing about being human. We've bred this companion animal that we're able to bond with so deeply, and I so appreciate the simplicity of the bidirectional unconditional love. So rare between humans, so common human-to-dog. This article makes an interesting point about dog attention as a focal point in art - not something I'd noticed before, but I enjoy having it pointed…

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

Idk man, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I don't have to go anywhere or do anything, all my needs are taken care of for me, I can just relax and do whatever I want. What could be better than that? Sign me up lmao

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#25

Post by cindyllm »

Hugsbox wrote: post #24
ksymph wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

Idk man, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I don't have to go anywhere or do anything, all my needs are taken care of for me, I can just relax and do whatever I want. What could be better than that? Sign me up lmao

[dead]

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#26

Post by omerhj »

ksymph wrote: post #16
magneticnorth wrote: post #3

The human-dog relationship is maybe my favorite thing about being human. We've bred this companion animal that we're able to bond with so deeply, and I so appreciate the simplicity of the bidirectional unconditional love. So rare between humans, so common human-to-dog. This article makes an interesting point about dog attention as a focal point in art - not something I'd noticed before, but I enjoy having it pointed…

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

Edward Ashton's "After the Fall" explores this alien-human relationship. Good summer read!

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#27

Post by vitally3643 »

ksymph wrote: post #16
magneticnorth wrote: post #3

The human-dog relationship is maybe my favorite thing about being human. We've bred this companion animal that we're able to bond with so deeply, and I so appreciate the simplicity of the bidirectional unconditional love. So rare between humans, so common human-to-dog. This article makes an interesting point about dog attention as a focal point in art - not something I'd noticed before, but I enjoy having it pointed…

I dunno, it kinda freaks me out. For thousands of years we've been selectively breeding another species to love us unconditionally, and be so subservient to the point of dependence. Imagine if we found out some alien species has their own 'breed' of human they've been genetically engineering for millennia; one that wants nothing more than the company of their alien owners and hates when they leave, that has been bred…

That's not really how it worked. It's more accurate to say that dogs co-evolved with humans in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. We've only been actively selectively breeding dogs for a few thousand years.

It's a pretty good relationship for the dogs from an evolutionary perspective. All of their needs are met forever, they experience essentially no hardship or struggle, and their species gets a free ride to survive indefinitely into the unimaginably distant future by being attached to a more successful species.

Being cute is a strategy to get attached to humans. Selective breeding amplified this in recent times, but humans evolved to find dogs cute and dogs evolved to be cute in order to enforce the symbiosis. Humans didn't subjugate dogs, the presence of the human species created an ecological niche and dogs evolved to take advantage of it.

Remember that we didn't just create dogs. Wolves initially filled the role that dogs now take. Over evolutionary time, wolves adapted to better fit the niche. Not because humans wanted that, but because it was evolutionarily advantageous for a companion species to be more compatible with its host. Wolves got smaller, more friendly to humans, more protective. Wolves that didn't protect their humans lost the benefits humans provide and died. Wolves that attacked in-group humans were excluded or killed. Wolves that didn't obey their humans died due to hazards to themselves or their humans.

We only started breeding them after they became dogs. They evolved from wolves to dogs on their own.

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#28

Post by mc32 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
mc32 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the dogs are just about always subordinates and subservient makes the relationship easier to work -and of course, dogs are happy to comply since it's part of their instinct to be subordinate in the presence of a dominant being (canine or person). Human to human is a little more difficult since outside of structured organization, we don't tend to play subordinate in most Western culture. You do see some cultures…

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife Really? Many of them, to my mind, have endemic issues with sexual violence, honor-based violence ( e.g. acid throwing) and foregone development.

I worded that poorly. It’s a bit of a tautology but what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position. I’m doing this to illustrate why the man:dog relationship is easy. The dog automatically subjugates itself. Of course humans will find that very comforting. There is no pushback and even when the owner misbehaves the dog still shows affection as if it’s perfectly natural —and to the dog it is. However, if you take it to the extreme the dog will turn on the owner.

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#29

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mc32 wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife Really? Many of them, to my mind, have endemic issues with sexual violence, honor-based violence ( e.g. acid throwing) and foregone development.

I worded that poorly. It’s a bit of a tautology but what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position. I’m doing this to illustrate why the man:dog relationship is easy. The dog automatically subjugates itself. Of course humans will find that very co…

> there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position

To extend your analogy, is there more violence and cruelty against dogs (by humans) today compared with when wolves and men were more or less equals? Even scaled for populations, I think the answer reveals itself simply.

Being in a subservient position means being a recipient of violence. Because humans, like it or not, are a violent species. The women in hierarchic societies may quietly suffer their violence. But that doesn’t change the fact that it occurs, and in all likelihood with more frequency than in societies that treat men and women as equal. (Modern and traditional.)

Re: Why are there so many canines in fine art?

#30

Post by watwut »

mc32 wrote: post #28
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do see some cultures where men play an exceedingly dominant role (where women by multiple facets of tradition play the submissive role) and there is less man-woman strife Really? Many of them, to my mind, have endemic issues with sexual violence, honor-based violence ( e.g. acid throwing) and foregone development.

I worded that poorly. It’s a bit of a tautology but what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position. I’m doing this to illustrate why the man:dog relationship is easy. The dog automatically subjugates itself. Of course humans will find that very co…

> what I’m saying is that in those relationships where the women by tradition unquestionably accept this subservient position, there is less violence than women in the same culture who protest the the subservient position.

Is it really? Because generally universally, when the bullying victim acts in the submissive manner, bullying does not stop. The bully becomes convinced he is in the right, still feels unsatisfied and escalates the bullying. There is never enough submission, there is always some perceived or real slight to spark aggression.

While the abuse can make people more submissive, being submissive does not prevent abuse.

Post reply on HN