Is there indeed a preferential tendency existing among the Fancy, and among judges in particular, whereby a certain style (if that is the most appropriate word to use here) of the purebred dog, of whatever breed, is found more attractive and is thereby favored? Just how far do we allow this factor to influence our decision making? How much instinct and emotion is there at play here? How does excitement at seeing what we perceive to be beautiful, subjectively experienced as a strong feeling, impact our thinking and view of things? What significance, if any, does a generically conceived ideal, in terms of external attractiveness, indeed have, if such even exists? Is there a commonly-held, refined sense of what constitutes this loveliness that so pleasurably exalts the mind in operation here and, if this be indeed the case, how is it that such has even come into existence? As we strive to constantly improve breeds is there a certain aesthetically-driven predilection being practiced and what impact does this have? How is this conceptualized? When we talk about quality and type how much of a part does this particular aspect play? Is this where the fanciful, so-called mystery thing, which we are all supposed to solve, kicks in? What better exercise can there be than to take a look at how the matter of aesthetics impacts upon our indulgence with the purebred dog? How much does a dedicatedly eclectic striving for that which is deemed more beautiful affect our connoisseurship and how we approach both breeding and judging?

There can be little doubt that, over the past several decades, there has been significant improvement in the quality of our breeding stock. That, after all, is what breeding better dogs, which we hear so much about, is presumably meant to do. As this improvement has occurred a certain convergence of form has inevitably ensued. When it comes to upgrading structure and resultant movement characteristics there is, after all, only a narrow window of opportunity and frame of reference. In biological terms and context the discernible changes in the visible properties have, however, been relatively small but yet we still hear all this derogatory talk about the emergence of the generic show dog and, of course, the visual appeal aspect is a part of the package. Expressing a low opinion, a disparaging view of things, has become derivative practice. How valid is such a notion really? Is this just something to do with unrestrained imagination or is there an element of reality present? The appearance of breeds remains more or less the same, each continues to be readily distinguishable from the other, and the peculiarities which make each an unique entity persist largely unaffected. We must always remember the resilience of the genetic constitution of a breed; that which we call its genotype.

One of the pivotal questions in all of this goes something as follows. By selective breeding, over a number of generations, for purposes other than meeting the requirements of a breed’s original function have we purposefully and deliberately ended up creating what are, in reality, novel forms or styles; new morphological, phenotypic expressions? Forms that differ to varying degrees, although they still look essentially the same, from those which might be referred to as archetypal. If so, what of it? There are surely no direly detrimental biological consequences necessarily attendant here. Neither is there, as a matter of course, necessarily, some inescapable violation of a breed’s inherent essence and integrity taking place. Does the pursuit of the ideal show dog, of whatever breed, bring about a certain uniformity of structural features and conditions, as well as temperament? Probably so, but is there anything fundamentally wrong with this? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what appeals to the eye has undoubtedly played a significant role in the selective breeding of dogs for conformation competition. This has had a crucial and all-important impact upon the advancement of the many breeds. This quality of appealing to the eye, of being aesthetically pleasing, of being visually attractive, is an integral part of what is deemed desirable across a whole range of breeds. In this context let us not forget that such aspects as being well-made, well-constructed, and well-balanced, are intrinsic to the perfection of form.

In any discussion such as this it is useful to recognize that the peculiarity of appealing to the eye is predicated upon a combination of factors. There is no denying that a certain symmetry, a certain balance, possession of certain proportions, planes and angles which create a particular profile, all contribute to what is naturally attractive to our eyes and if these characteristics can be related to effective functioning in a meaningful way so much the better. That is the ideal condition to be in. Then there is the matter of degree of refinement. Coarseness and ordinariness, after all, are not attributes which we associate with the beautiful. A problem arises, however, when particular features approach the extreme. How much rear angulation is too much rear angulation, for example? The relative dimensions, length-wise, of bones becomes critical. The extent of the bend of stifle curvilinear determines that which is an exaggeration and that which is not. Overdone bodily dimensions result in dogs which are sometimes referred to, fairly or unfairly, accurately or inaccurately, as being caricatures of their breeds, attractive though they may be standing still. Such animals do indeed exist, I might add. Some even do some significant winning. The message here should be that a reasonable measure of something is satisfactory but an excessive amount is unacceptable. A dog of proper size and build for its breed, of appropriate substance, of correct balance, of moderate proportions, is certainly more desirable, and should ultimately, in an ideal world, be more aesthetically pleasing, than one which is extreme in one or more regard. That is not, however, how it always works!

The trouble is, if that is the right word to use, not everyone, including some serious breeders and high-visibility judges, apparently see it this way. There can be no doubt that there exists a certain alluring generic profile which many individuals who participate in the sport, in one capacity or other, seemingly get enamored of and with. Ultra-refined heads, long necks, an upright style of carriage, relatively short backs, a dead-level but slightly sloping incline front to rear, long extended hindquarters, and so on, are all features which, in many breeds, are deemed or believed to be aesthetically attractive. Such words as elegance, exquisiteness, and gracefulness come into play and so they probably should. Again, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that has to be ultimately respected. If the angles and inclines and sweeps become the primary focus, so be it. Witness the stretching of rears, in an effort to create a certain picture, that one frequently sees when exhibitors stack their dogs. Such an attempt at creating a particular outline, a certain silhouette, may be found by some to be bordering on the artificial but yet it is now a well-established part of the presentation methodology. It has, again, to do with aesthetics, with a particular concern for what is thought to be visually pleasing. There is a dimension to all this that has to do with artistry, emotion and sensation. Unfortunately, however, there are limits which are sometimes pushed too far which ends up in absurdity.

When all is said and done it has to be said that the giving of intense aesthetic pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind and senses has a considerable role to play in the world of the purebred dog show. It is, in reality, in a very real sense, a stage. A well-made dog, capable of exemplary motion, perfectly presented, is, after all, not only a joy to behold but a creature of very considerable attractiveness. Once in a while there emerge from the crowd dogs which capture the admiration and imagination of the Fancy. They usually exemplify a particular perfection of form, a certain physical beauty, but also possess a quality akin to what is referred to as charisma in humans, a kind of magnetic appeal if you will. A combination of attributes renders them special and their recognition is one of the things that happens at dog shows. They succeed in generating those wonderful feelings of excitement and exhilaration that comes from seeing great beauty in all its glory.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. He carries the title of Distinguished University Professor at Auburn University, where he has been a member of the faculty for over thirty years. He has owned, bred, and exhibited a number of breeds, including Afghan Hounds, Pekingese and, in recent years, Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He is currently approved by the AKC to judge forty-three breeds.