II. Artifact 2 – Art as a Survival Trait

Objective:

  • Consider the origins of art
  • Explore a brief history of Western Art
  • Examine multiple perspectives for evaluating art

Original Post:

In this lecture, Dutton defines what is beauty, and identify that the definition many of us identify beauty is wrong. As many defines beauty as something attractive and extremely beautiful in the mind of its beholder. However, while he disagree with this definition he point out to the fact that “Beauty is nature way of acting at a distance”(Dutton). To identify this Dutton explain Charles Darwin view toward beauty as Darwin identify that the peacock feathers is beautiful, thus Darwin concludes that even the “peahen think the peacock feathers are beautiful”.

Thus, Dutton identify beauty to be a natural instinct that is embedded deep with in our minds that overall purpose is to encourage reproduction through sex. But he also identify that beauty is not only used in attraction for opposite sex but also in products that are thus revolutionized in such a way that it can be use to attract the opposite sex this he defines survival trait by art. This was shown in his example of the homo erectus using is sharpened blade to attract a female. The sharpened blade is thus consider an art use to impress the opposite sex. Finally, according to Dutton this is the definition of beauty:

“Is in the mind of the beholder Beauty? No its deep in our mind, its a gift pass down from the intelligence skill and rich emotional line of our most ancient ancestors our powerful reaction to images, to the expression of emotion in art, to the beauty of music, to the night sky will be with us and our descendants for as long as the human race exist” (Dutton).

In this view, Beauty purpose as defined by Dutton is consider as a survival trait. However, this definition does not really fit in scenario or homosexuals. As homosexual are attracted to the same sex and if beauty was all about survival instinct, wouldn’t there be no such thing as homosexuality?As homosexual finds similar sex often beautiful and thus is totally opposite of the survival instinct or have develop a suppressing sense towards the sense of beauty with the touch of modernization?
Or is beauty not about survival at all but is just the mind of the beholder that defines beauty.

Peacock_Wooing_Peahen

Reflection:

Art as suggested by Dutton is more just than something we gain pleasure from as he suggest that art goes back to the beginning of human evolution and started with our earlier species of the Homo Erectus. Furthermore, Dutton states that art is a survival trait that uses pleasure of beauty as its weapon to gain advantage over the other ( “Survival of the fittest”). Thus, Dutton claims that art is not something that is learned to appreciate rather appreciating art is something that is in our DNA. The picture above shows male Peacock, which is attracted to the female peacock by her beautiful feathers is trying to impress the female peacock by dancing. In this example we can see the work of both art and beauty in work to insure survival of a pea species. As by attracting the opposite sex to each other art and beauty are thus part of a instinct that merely insure the mating of a species to insure survival. This view can also be seen in Dissanayake theory of “art for life sake” that is defined by her her as a “palaeoanthrophychobilogical” view of art.

Furthermore, Dissanayake uses the term paleoanthrophychobiological to name the survival trait of art because both modernism and post-mordernism theory of art does not see art for art sake rather they evaluate art with their different point of views. As in the Modernism theory of art, art is seen as an ideology and thus one must have an disinterested view in art to appreciate the pleasure associated with it and thus suggest that art is universal. While, the Post-Modernism theory of art suggest that art from other cultures cannot be appreciated because of the change in interpretation of art to ones own cultural standard thus robing the artifact of its artistic value placed by its maker thus, in this sense art is not universal. Finally, the paleoanthrophychobiological view consist of both modernism and post-mordernism view of art and see art as a species-centered art or as in Dutton words a Survival trait that is in out DNA which, can be seen in the most common example of the male and female peacock.

Future:

An interesting point of view that I would life to further like to research in the future is thus considering the high society of art merely based on the view how one form of art is consider superior to another or to be more specific how can one consider a specific art to be more valuable than another.

Bibliography:

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

PREVIOUS <ARTIFACT 2> NEXT