Is Art Cultural?
In the Ted talk video that was assigned for this week Denis Dutton, an art philosopher, looks at what beauty really is and what makes art. He gives us a “theory of beauty” in which he tries to give an explanation for why some forms of art and expression are cross culturally considered great like Shakespeare or American Jazz. He takes a Darwinian approach looking at how we have evolved to enjoy art and beauty. This sort of flies in the face of the idiom “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” he is instead saying ideas of beauty and art are programmed into us the same way other emotional reactions like fear and disgust are. This is a very interesting way to look at art and one that I have never considered. The ideas he is presenting even transcend the human experience, pointing out the mating rituals of animals that use beauty to attract mates like the peacock; this is a really amazing concept, the idea that animals can understand beauty and react to it is “natures way of acting at a distance.” What I think this means is that beauty is forcing our biological action. Then the distinction is made that this does not only apply to natural beauty but also artistic beauty, he cites the fact that artistic objects have been found along with the entire span of human history, going back as far as the homosapien and hand axes that were strictly for beauty. The only real question I have is that all other animals may be able to notice beauty, but why do they not then create art? If beauty and art is not at all cultural and completely biological, then it would seem that close relatives to the homosapien like other primates would also create art.
Filed under Unit 03 | Comments (5)5 Responses to “Is Art Cultural?”
In your post, you talk about how certain things such as emotions and ideas of beauty are already programmed into us. When Dutton goes to explain the theory behind it, he says that it is because of our ancestors. That early humans thought a certain way, so since that time, we have adapted to their likes and we think certain things are beautiful because of them. Do you think that Dutton is right about this? That we are not influenced by our surroundings, but are already programmed to define certain things as beautiful?
Just like beauty, I believe that art comes in many different forms. So when you ask the question, “Why don’t other animals also create art?” Well I believe that they do. As for peacocks, they use the beauty in their peacock to attract the attention of other females. Other animals such as birds and flamingos, they dance as a mating ritual, and from my perspective, I consider this a form of art. Just like with us humans, art does not only have to be looked upon as paintings, but they can come in a form of a poem or a song, that can also be considered art.
Hi, I enjoyed your post about the cultural aspect of art. I think that your analysis of the ted talk is very intriguing and I THINK THAT BY CONSIDERING ART being ‘programming to us’ , art has become a presentation and a genetic reaction of people. I think that for your question why animals could also be presented with art yet they could not seem to create art, I argue that animals might create art as well, in the forms that we don’t usually understand as art. The mentality difference between human and animals made the understanding and presentation of art very different. Also, even if we take a Darwinian approach in the discussion of art, we could not say that art is something that is entirely biological. I believe that there are spiritual aspects in art that should not be overlooked. In general, I enjoyed your summary of the Ted Talk!
I really appreciated the question you posed about whether or not animals are able to recognize beauty and create a piece of art themselves. However I am a little curious to know if animals truly know what beauty is or if it is their instinctive nature via mating call that they are attracted biologically to their mate or actually recognize the beauty in their partner. The way Dutton tried to tie back our ability to identify and perceive what is beautiful to our evolution of the early homosapien. On the contrary, he did make a point that when we do look at something beautiful it is “probably” due to the fact that our old ancestors were the first ones to provoke that emotion when looking at a piece of art. I semi agree and disagree with this statement he conjured up. I feel we do in someway or another have to thank our ancestors for discovering the emotion when looking at anything. However, I feel it is all based on our previous experiences as humans and the ability of our brain networking that allows us to judge whether something is beautiful or not. It is also very hard to distinguish nowadays what is the true meaning of art, as people have gone with the concept and ran with it encompassing almost anything “beautiful” or “imaginative” as art.
Andreap, I think that you have an interesting perspective on whether animals create art, as you point out the beauty of the peacock may be art for the peacock. It makes me wonder if animals created art would we as humans be able to understand it as art? As Btao pointed out the mental differences between our species and others are so different that art for an animal may be completely unrecognizable from our humanistic perspective. I also am not sure if I complexly agree with Dutton, as with most things there is probably a balance between biology and society. I think that Baconlover really expanded on this by questioning if animals have the ability to recognize art. It is important to not anthropomorphize animals and assume that they have the cognitive ability to recognize art. It may be a distinctly human experience to notice and create art for the sake of art, and for the animal beauty only goes as far as to further biological drives and incentives.
I also believe that the beauty is programmed into us, people will care about beauty in our daily life in different ways. For animals, it also be programmed into them, just like the example shows about peacock. However, I do not think beauty is forcing our biological action, instead, beauty may force our natural action. Natural action is not really equals to biological action. Also the animals do create art, like the honeycomb. Bees gather nectars and build up a honeycomb, and the honeycomb itself can be treated like an artwork and it created by bees naturally. Built up a honeycomb is more like a natural actions for bees than biological actions. Until now, scientists could not found out why the bees will built up the nest like the honeycomb, so we can only view this as a natural action, and the shape of honeycomb is like a perfect artwork.