31 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI doubt those paintings would have had anything like that interest if they were done by a human. They have elephants doing such things and I doubt they mean anything to the chimps and elephants when they make those random images. They don't say to themselves
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4109664.stm
(Why is "conscious thought"--surely a tricky one to define--used as the basis for granting animals rights?)
"This represents my inner angst at the deaths in Kosovo" or some such.
The neandertal flutes allowed them to express inner feelings and to elicite spirits.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by sonhouseHow would you know? By the way that isn't how abstract painters work either. Abstract art is so-called because it is non-representational. Look closely at photos of Jackson Pollock; you can see the chimp inside.
I doubt those paintings would have had anything like that interest if they were done by a human. They have elephants doing such things and I doubt they mean anything to the chimps and elephants when they make those random images. They don't say to themselves
"This represents my inner angst at the deaths in Kosovo" or some such.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell abstract art represents only random associations and could be done by a computer just as easily as Pollock or a chimp. In humans the randomness is deliberate. In chimps there can't be a deliberate attempt at randomness because they don't understand deliberateness in order to subvert it into randomness at will like a real artist. Pollock could have chosen at any time to do the Sistine Chapel or portraits or landscapes. The chimp has no such choice.
How would you know? By the way that isn't how abstract painters work either. Abstract art is so-called because it is non-representational. Look closely at photos of Jackson Pollock; you can see the chimp inside.
31 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy do you assume the chimp's stuff is random? Just because he can't draw landscapes or portraits doesn't mean his stuff isn't art. Quite a lot of artists can't draw very well at all...A chimp that takes a stick, strips the leaves and sticks into in a termite hole to catch the tasty white ants isn't acting randomly, he's quite conscious of what he's doing. Where did the first chimp who did that get the inspiration from?
Well abstract art represents only random associations and could be done by a computer just as easily as Pollock or a chimp. In humans the randomness is deliberate. In chimps there can't be a deliberate attempt at randomness because they don't understand deliberateness in order to subvert it into randomness at will like a real artist. Pollock could have chos ...[text shortened]... at any time to do the Sistine Chapel or portraits or landscapes. The chimp has no such choice.
By the way not all chimpanzees like doing art. Congo, the chimpanzee artist whose works went for more at auction than Renoir, was a rare creative individual--a genius--
"Congo became a household name when he appeared alongside Desmond Morris in the television series Zoo Time. At the same time Dr Morris began a series of experiments to try to find out about the artistic sensibilities of chimpanzees.
At first Congo splashed the paint on, as any chimp would. But Dr Morris yesterday told the Guardian how over two years in the late 1950s Congo suddenly changed the way he held the brush and became much more intense about his paintings.
Dr Morris said: "I was amazed. He focused on what he was doing. Every line he made logically followed the last one."
Congo confined his work to the sheet of paper or canvas in front of him, rarely letting the paint dribble on to the table or floor.
The chimp also seemed to know when a picture was finished, putting down his brush. If the picture was taken away and brought back later he would refuse to work on it. But if a fresh canvas was presented he would set to work again." http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,1481762,00.html
(I really like this one and would proudly hang it on my wall--if I could afford it:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/collectors-go-bananas/2005/06/21/1119321734103.html )
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell maybe he was focussed on making something on the canvas but that was with prompting and training after a two year effort like you said. I didn't say chimps were unconscious, they pass the mirror test so they clearly have self awareness. But left to himself with with no prompting from humans, he would be unlikely to start painting. I agree there can be individual chimps with much higher creativity and intelligence than the average for chimpdom.
Why do you assume the chimp's stuff is random? Just because he can't draw landscapes or portraits doesn't mean his stuff isn't art. Quite a lot of artists can't draw very well at all...A chimp that takes a stick, strips the leaves and sticks into in a termite hole to catch the tasty white ants isn't acting randomly, he's quite conscious of what he's do ...[text shortened]... tp://www.smh.com.au/news/world/collectors-go-bananas/2005/06/21/1119321734103.html )
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's excellent!
I really like this one and would proudly hang it on my wall--if I could afford it:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/collectors-go-bananas/2005/06/21/1119321734103.html
I would hang it too, especially because it is an excellent proof that Humanity's special status isn't granted by the ability to create art.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou must have had a saaaaad childhood. Did your parents raise you on valium? Or crab-apples?
Same as any child!
Even I can recall cartoons I drew as a 4 or 5 year old -- they were actually discouraged by my parents; which, btw, only made me more prolific. You should get out more and see how creative children really can be on their own; the stick-in-sand artworks in a slum being case in point. Don't get me started on the graffiti.
What is the difference between adult- and childhood when it comes to creativity? Are children any less creative than adults? To the contrary, I believe it is the exact opposite.
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course he had some prompting (coloured pencils, books for colouring, etc.) but he has a point about the creativity of children.
My childhood was a garden of delight. --Did you learn to draw entirely unaided? Did you not perhaps have a kindergarten teacher or elder sibling? What I mean is did you have no prompting from humans?
Obviously, humans are more creative than any other animal on Earth, but what I think is important for your point, which I agree with, is that art is not exclusive to humans.
PS: Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
31 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaChildren are incredibly creative. I have some experience of them. My point in response to sonhouse was that a hypothetical child raised in total isolation would probably not be able to draw. He was making a point about drawing skill, unless I misunderstood him. I'll go out on a limb and declare that human beings seem to be more inventive than animals. However creativity is not their exclusive preserve. (Another question is what exactly creativity might be.)
Of course he had some prompting (coloured pencils, books for colouring, etc.) but he has a point about the creativity of children.
Obviously, humans are more creative than any other animal on Earth, but what I think is important for your point, which I agree with, is that art is not exclusive to humans.
PS: Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
What is to be made of the Neanderthal flute? Do we have any real idea of their genetic difference?
31 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAwesome information. Thanks for sharing.
Why do you assume the chimp's stuff is random? Just because he can't draw landscapes or portraits doesn't mean his stuff isn't art. Quite a lot of artists can't draw very well at all...A chimp that takes a stick, strips the leaves and sticks into in a termite hole to catch the tasty white ants isn't acting randomly, he's quite conscious of what he's do ...[text shortened]... tp://www.smh.com.au/news/world/collectors-go-bananas/2005/06/21/1119321734103.html )
31 Jul 06
I guess I should clarify my point. I was thinking about that Neandertal flute. THAT dude had no promting. At some point in time, before which there was no art, some genius started making marks or carving a shape or noticed a certain branch looked a bit like a bird and then he shaped it more clearly into a bird. There were no precursers to this activity. They came up with all of it, jewelry, cave drawings, flutes, sculpture, dance,song, language all on their own. THATS what I mean by not being prompted or taught. They by definition had to teach themselves.