Check out this collection of animal art and ponder the question...are humans really the only artists, and, if not, what do you think the animals are trying to say?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/animal-art/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Fentertainment+%28Wired%3A+Entertainment%29&pid=3118
I don't EVER want to doubt the abilities of animals...but for art, there needs to be intent. Even with Pollock, someone who wanted to erase consciousness from his art, he still went into his studio with the intent to create art. He may not have planned every drip or assigned meaning to every swoop, but he made them because it "felt" right. He did it for a reason, no matter how much he wanted to deny that. Art's all about intent. I can build a house, and it's just a house. I can rebuild that exact house, say it's art...and then it's art.
I don't think humans are the only creative animals, but I believe intent from the artist is needed for it to be considered art. Animals can do creative things...but whether or not it's intentionally creative or simply understood as creativity by us is still left to be determined. I think of it kind of like this...humans see faces in pretty much anything...Jesus in toast, virgin Mary in a water stain...I think it's probably a safe assumption that we also see intelligence or intelligent design in things that aren't there. From rocks that look purposefully cut, to animal made paintings, we assume they look as they do because of the reasons we understand. The rock WAS cut because it looks like a brick we'd cut, the animal WAS creating art because we make art like that. In reality, I think we just tend to see things we recognize, even if its something totally different. It may look like art...but that doesn't mean it is. Intent is the bottom line...and I think that's a barrier we have yet to cross in terms of animal art.
I don't EVER want to doubt the abilities of animals...but for art, there needs to be intent. Even with Pollock, someone who wanted to erase consciousness from his art, he still went into his studio with the intent to create art. He may not have planned every drip or assigned meaning to every swoop, but he made them because it "felt" right. He did it for a reason, no matter how much he wanted to deny that. Art's all about intent. I can build a house, and it's just a house. I can rebuild that exact house, say it's art...and then it's art.
I don't think humans are the only creative animals, but I believe intent from the artist is needed for it to be considered art. Animals can do creative things...but whether or not it's intentionally creative or simply understood as creativity by us is still left to be determined. I think of it kind of like this...humans see faces in pretty much anything...Jesus in toast, virgin Mary in a water stain...I think it's probably a safe assumption that we also see intelligence or intelligent design in things that aren't there. From rocks that look purposefully cut, to animal made paintings, we assume they look as they do because of the reasons we understand. The rock WAS cut because it looks like a brick we'd cut, the animal WAS creating art because we make art like that. In reality, I think we just tend to see things we recognize, even if its something totally different. It may look like art...but that doesn't mean it is. Intent is the bottom line...and I think that's a barrier we have yet to cross in terms of animal art.
No comments:
Post a Comment