|
BIOBEHAVIOURAL BASIS OF ART R.F. Harle (c) 1999
The production and appreciation of art has mostly been considered a cultural phenomenon. biologists have paid little attention to the arts, especially Fine Art and Philosophers of Art (Aestheticians) have paid little attention to the possibility of a biological basis for art making. Consequently, a balanced investigation of why humans make and use art, with the exception of a small number of scholars, has not been carried out. Joyce and Dissanayake are two important researchers in this area of the biobehavioural basis of art making and appreciation. In this paper I discuss and defend their respective, compatible theories. Also I will attempt to show that art making and usage, not only have a biological foundation, but that foundation predates language acquisition and is equally, if not more important, than tool making in the evolution of Homo sapiens. This biological basis of art does not deny the importance and power of cultural evolutionary aspects of art but rather places culture in its correct relationship with the biological foundation of the arts. For a 'behaviour' to have a biological basis it must be 'hard-wired' into the genetic makeup of a species and have been selected for, on the basis of being an advantage to that species' survival. Those individuals that live long enough to reproduce are those that have adapted favourably to environmental conditions which allowed or helped such survival. Natural selection is the process whereby a species with the best 'fitness' to survive passes those 'fitness traits', such as camouflage, onto the next generation. For art to have a biological basis it must be shown that art had 'selected' survival fitness for the species. For an ethologist to consider that a species' trait has evolved it needs to satisfy a number of criteria: (a) it has survival value. It feels good so the animal will want to do it. (b) is a biological need. A significant amount of time and energy is spent doing it. (c) can be considered "a behaviour". That is, it is universally prevalent (Dissanayake, 1996. p.33). This paper will attempt to satisfy the above requirements. There is no society of humans known that do not have evidence of art making and usage. This universal preponderance of the arts indicates that there must be some 'advantage' to humans for bothering with what often appears a wasteful, non-functional, energy consuming activity. Homo sapiens are the only species that produce and use art. There are other species, such as birds, which appear to use art (bird song, nest decoration) but as I show further on these are instinctual, functional activities which actually help support the case for the unique use of art by humans. Before proceeding it is essential that I define the term art. When the word art is mentioned, most people tend to think of painting, drawing, perhaps opera, certain films and sculpture. In other words art in contemporary, common usage means Fine Art, objects which are removed from everyday life, placed on literal or metaphoric pedestals and in many cases reinforce elitist, ideological agendas. This separating art physically and psychologically from everyday life is a phenomenon which has only occurred in the last two or three hundred years. This type of art following Dissanayake's lead will be designated with a capital A. Art has only existed for two hundred years according to the postmodern interpretation, those special, aesthetically pleasing creations which existed prior to this were products of the arts (Dissanayake, 1996. p.57). This Art on an evolutionary time scale is but a second compared to a year and as such is almost extraneous to the investigation of a biological basis for art making. Despite this acknowledged fact, writers such as Dissanayake and Fuller persist with lengthy, irrelevant discussions of modern, and especially, postmodern Art. The French Salon style Art of the nineteenth century may well be back in fashion in a few years time! Style is a cultural matter, for example, the style of the figurehead on a Polynesian canoe is a matter of cultural evolution, the reason that humans actually created such a thing is a matter of biological evolution. The above description of Art may throw a little light on why such eminent biologists and evolutionists such as Dawkins, Gould and even Wilson himself have virtually ignored Art and the arts in their research. The misunderstanding between Art as a cultural product and the arts as products of both biological and cultural evolution seems to be the only reason. Art is the creation of objects or performance which has no immediately obvious functional purpose, which makes things 'special' and yet is as much a part of a society's daily activities as hunting or cooking (ibid). These objects or performances are the results of 'a behaviour of art', much as a baby elephant is a result of the biological 'mating behaviour' of elephants. A further requirement for an aesthetic behaviour to be valid is that it is not subsumed by other behavioural traits such as ritual or play (Dissanayake, 1989. p.95). Both these behaviours have been given considerable attention by anthropologists, ethologists and psychologists, with the general conclusion, that they are essential biologically relevant precursors to the development and maintenance of human cultural development (Alland, 1977. pp.24-26). As I discuss further on, although aesthetic activity is closely related or at least conterminous with ritual and play behaviours, it exists in its own right as an advantageous evolutionary trait. Dissanayake calls this 'art behaviour', "making special" (Dissanayake, 1996. pp.57-58). "Making special" is the process of adding something more than is functionally necessary to an object or performance. The embellishment of the handle of a stone age weapon with marks or colour for example, did not make the weapon any more efficacious for hunting in itself. However, the 'psychological' advantage of the weapon's "specialness", may well have helped the hunter obtain more food, hence the better chance of survival. The concept of "making special", "... is the core defining feature of a behaviour of art..." (ibid.). This concept has a number of important implications which help answer previously, unsatisfactorily answered questions about the place of art in human existence. (a) The arts cover an enormous variety of activities, in fact, virtually all human activities from cooking to sexual reproduction to painting are open to being made special. Haute cuisine may be a cultural artefact but adding some pungent herb to a hunk of bison leg made the food more appetising, more likely to be accepted by a potential mate and hence gave the possessor of the "making special trait" a better chance of reproducing. The global disparity of art styles, together with a very narrow definition of the arts, tricked cultural philosophers into believing art was solely a product of culture. As I show shortly, culture would not be possible without the biologically advantageous trait of "making special". (b) Whether something is Art or not Art is a culturally relevant but biologically irrelevant question. From Dissanayake's species-centred perspective,"...what is relevant is that Homo aestheticus "needs" to make special and appreciate specialness" (ibid.). (c) Dissanayake disallows the contemporary defining of art as "...art is everything and everything is art" (ibid.) on the grounds that aesthetic intention and actively "making special" is a necessary factor in an object becoming art. Whilst I agree with her regarding intentionality I fail to see how intentionality in this sense is exclusively a biological rather than cultural evolutionary trait. (d) This behaviour of "making special" accentuates that the arts, "...have been physically, sensuously and emotionally satisfying and pleasurable to humans" (ibid.) "Emotionally satisfying" is of extreme importance in establishing the credibility of this theory and I discuss this in detail further on. Humans used naturally (non-aesthetically) occurring materials which satisfied their senses. By appropriating:
(e) The desire to make some things special as a biologically endowed need, is deep seated and widespread through both recorded and unrecorded human history. (f) The arts were originally a communal activity concerned with matters of survival, the objects and activities chosen to be made special were those which were of the greatest importance to survival such as obtaining food, ensuring fertility and appeasing an often 'angry' natural world. Superficially examined it appears that some animal activities are performed simply for their own sake. Such as extravagant, excessively melodious bird song, kittens playing with leaves blowing across the ground and with humans', "art for art's sake". However, in all cases I believe it can be shown that these activities have an evolutionary purpose (often unconscious and in the case of animals other than humans, instinctual) which is to increase their chances of survival and consequently the survival of their genes. Whilst Joyce does not specifically refer to "making special" his theoretical approach to a biological basis of art making is complementary to Dissanayake's. Joyce argues that, "...man created himself as he created his arts" (Joyce, 1975. p.4). I believe this deceptively simple statement is a major insight into understanding humanity. Acting instinctually as animals do, early humans added aesthetic embellishment to their various activities, at first this would have had the same effect as for the animals (which humans perhaps imitated), of increasing chances of fertility, food procurement and so on.
So, coupled with a rapid increase in brain size (including, importantly the development of the emotional section of the brain), bipedalism - erect posture and 'perfection' of the human hand, humans left the instinctual animal world and through their 'system's feedback' gradually developed the unique creation we call culture. A glaringly obvious example of life-sustaining feedback is the body's ability to maintain homeostasis, what is not so obvious (and which has been neglected in many areas of inquiry) is the idea of life-creating 'feedback'. This concept is really what Joyce's statement above means. Each time the emerging human achieved success in hunting or escaping a life threatening disaster, the factors that were present were reinforced. Some of these factors were things "made special", it may have only been a particular vocal utterance or a band of ochre smeared on the forehead but coupled with the above mentioned evolving physical attributes a unique mental change gradually occurred. This was the ability to abstract the factor from the direct-experience-situation and reflect upon it at a distance, as it were. Humans have been doing this ever since with both advantages and disadvantages. If there ever was a "falling from grace" or "original sin" this was its genesis. Humans removed themselves from continual 'direct experience' and lived both in an illusory, abstract world and a direct experience world (Joyce, 1975. p.20). Drawings on cave walls depicting a speared animal indicate that early humans could carry the abstract mental image back from the field, as it were, and work on it and in turn it would work on them, developing self-consciousness. Psychologists and Artificial Intelligence researchers are finding that humans have,"...a highly evolved capacity for pattern recognition and discrimination. Such a capacity allows for the storage and coding of a great deal of useful information". This together with long-term memory storage is part of our hard-wired genetic makeup. It is not difficult to see how this evolved ability to, 'hold information in the head' and work on it, relates to artistic processes (Alland, 1977. p.32). This ability of humans to form abstract mental images and manipulate them is what makes our art creation unique among all creatures. The findings of Morris' research into the ability of chimpanzees to create art are quite instructive in the search for the biological basis of art. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that I have not used genetic basis of art in this essay as I do not want to give the impression that there is a specific gene which makes us create art. What has evolved is a 'behaviour of art' which has numerous complex genetic attributes such as the genes that code for our opposable thumbs, those that give us excellent colour vision compared to other animals and those that make our brains grow large (Alland, 1977. p.22). Morris' most prolific ape-artist was a chimp named Congo, Congo produced over four hundred pictures whilst being studied. The results of this exercise prove that humans and apes share some hard-wired aesthetic traits such as a liking for symmetry, similar pattern recognition, a feel for composition and so on. The vitally interesting thing about Morris' findings are; (a) apes do not create art in the wild, and (b) apes have no culture, yet have minimal aesthetic abilities similar to humans. The latter seems to dispel the theory that art is a product of cultural evolution only. The former point is most interesting as Morris concludes that art is only produced when basic survival needs have been taken care of. His chimps did not have to worry about predators or finding food and seemed to enjoy painting simply for its own sake, they would even forget about eating when they were engrossed in a complex piece of work (Morris. 1962. p.144). It seems to me we are witnessing a spurious correlation here, in that the human provision of painting equipment allows the apes to play and to exercise their curiosity. Young apes scratch in the ground or on trees with sticks but when they become adults they do not do this at all (ibid. 145). He speculates that this is because more important survival needs, need attending to. It is hard to believe that apes in their natural setting would not have some leisure time to embellish their favourite digging stick for example. Morris then argues that fruit-gathering species such as apes would have had no need for magic to help hunt for food and therefore there would have simply been no stimulus to create aesthetic magico-art works. It seems to me that being very well adapted to their forest environment, apes would have had a surfeit of leisure time with which to play or create art or build shelters, most certainly far more than that of early humans who were in the evolutionary stage of adapting to a new highly dangerous environment. Morris dismisses the increase in human brain size as too facile an explanation for the difference between ape and human artistic development (ibid.142). Perhaps as a single factor this may be so but we must be careful not to isolate possible variables and make assumptions. Brain size must have been a major factor nevertheless as, "...no ape, no matter how old or experienced, has yet been able to develop graphically to the pictorial stage of simple representation" [my emphasis] (ibid.142). An increase in brain size was accompanied with a number of other factors as previously mentioned, the combination of these factors each 'feeding back' to the other, plus the vital need for humans to develop a sophisticated communication system all served to push human evolution in the direction it did.
I agree with the need to develop co-operative planning, however, the real language Morris refers to above must have been a developing language of the arts, a language of symbols. We need to keep constantly in mind that pictorial representation (and Art) is a much advanced development on fundamental mark making and embellishment, this is supported by the fact that apes cannot handle pictorial representation. The ability to think in an abstract way, together with the need for co-operation and planning, required early humans to think in an artistic way. Only after rudimentary concept and symbol formation abilities were developed could logic, reasoning and hence technological and verbal language development be possible. Put simply, tool making and language must have come after fundamental artistic abilities were developed (Joyce, 1975. p.23). Many scholars cite the cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira when discussing early humans' art, however, as Morris notes, "Obviously these were not his first fumbling attempts but mature expressions of an advanced picture-making culture, the origins of which appear to be lost to us forever" (ibid. p.143). Morris' astute observation lends further weight to Joyce's theory. In discussing Morris' research and the undeniable (fundamental, non-cultural) aesthetic link between humans and apes, we have only been discussing images, not "making special" all the other activities that constitute the arts such as music, dance, the enhancement of food, shelter beautification, clothing design and so on. It is worth noting that although Morris only observed image making with the apes others such as MacKinnon point out that, "...chimpanzees, in captivity, dress up and enjoy self-decoration; they have a natural sense of rhythm and love to beat on drums; they make wind-borne patterns with dust..." (Fuller, 1983. p.10). For humans to go to so much trouble "making special", creating what at first appears to be non-functional embellishment of objects, bodies (including dead bodies) and performances there must have been a 'feedback' response that was pleasurable, a response that incited the first humans to continue the fledgling aesthetic activity. This response was an emotional one. Emotions have never been one of science's great areas of investigation. In the past they were thought of as altogether too subjective, unmeasurable and unreliable, and in a sense were ignored. This has changed only recently with the work of a small number of neurophysiologists, one such notable researcher is Antonio Damasio. Damasio and his colleagues have shown that there are specific areas in the human brain that handle emotional response. Persons who have had this prefrontal area (specifically the ventral and medial sectors of the frontal lobe) damaged or diseased are not effected in any way except they show no emotional, feeling response to stimuli that bring normal brained humans to tears or moral indignation (Damasio, 1994. pp.54-56). The implications of these findings for our discussion are important because the arts appeal to our feeling nature. Balanced composition, analogous and complementary colour arrangements, repetitive rhythms, supple bodily movement and so on help us feel good. Pattern repetition in art works have been shown to reduce stress levels (Dissanayake, 1996. p.84). An advantage of invoking a positive emotional response is that social ceremonies, including rituals, would be much more gratifying to participants if they felt good. Making the ceremonies "special" and extraordinary would assure group participation and consequently coherence (Dissanayake, 1989. p.152). Embellishment of ordinary objects, including the body, would have helped make these fledgling social gatherings enjoyable. The survival value of feeling emotionally content, having reduced stress levels and group coherence and cooperation must have been (and still is) high. Consequently those biological traits that made things "special" and emotionally satisfying would be selected for. Many ceremonies and things, "made special", tend to take one out of reality and into a sort of magically satisfying phantasy world. This is of course as true today with novels, films, music and so on, as it must have been in ancient times when humans danced around camp fires or chanted sacred sounds. Fuller explains that there is a very good biological reason for this, 'slipping into a phantasy world', it is based on the phenomenon known as neoteny. There was a decisive advance in human evolution when Neanderthal man changed into Cromagnon, this was mainly due to the much higher rate of infant survival. Because of the increased brain (hence cranium) size, those with a soft or flexible cranium survived the birth process better than the Neanderthals and apes whose skulls are virtually ossified at birth. The trade off was that the human infants took much longer to mature, human infants are totally helpless for much longer than any other mammals and as such need the special nurturing of the mother. "Neoteny is a process through which the early stages and features in the development of an animal are retained into later periods of growth" (Fuller, 1983. pp.13-15). The importance of this extended period of physical dependence, for our discussion, is the way the infant comes to understand reality. Winnicott, a pioneer of psychoanalysis, argues that, "...the infant makes its first contact with reality through 'moments of illusion' which the mother provides" (ibid. p.15). This results in the infant, "...acquiring the illusion that there is an external reality that corresponds to his capacity to create" (ibid.). Without going into the fine details of Winnicot's theory, it is sufficient to understand that when the time comes for the mother, at weaning, to dispel the infant's illusory world there is considerable resistance on the part of infant to this process. The infant tries to avoid this separation, "...by the filling in of the potential space with creative playing, with the use of symbols, and with all that eventually adds up to a cultural life" (ibid. p.16). Neoteny in itself does not provide the biological foundation of an art behaviour, it has however, "...endowed us with the capacity for symbolic and imaginative thought, and gave rise to a dream life fuller than that of any other species" (ibid. p.18). The extended period of creative play that results from neoteny is important in itself for two reasons. Firstly, it seems to have both a similar and different function to that of play in other animals. The similarity is that it occurs at a time when the animal is not concerned with the survival realities of life, as a fully independent entity. The difference is that in animals, play is functional, the kitten chasing leaves or shadows is practising instinctual hunting skills. The human infant is developing its imagination, ability to use metaphor, symbol formation and conceptual skills. The very attributes necessary for creation of; the arts, tools and the ultimate abstract symbolic creation, language.
These abilities could not have evolved to, a stage ready for the emergence of language without having at least some influence in other areas of human development. Many of these abilities are just those that are necessary for fundamental arts. This means the arts must have been present, even in a limited sense, prior to language acquisition. Secondly, it is important for the health of the growing infant. Not only physically as in learning coordination, as Morris points out, but psychologically, especially emotionally. I must disagree with Morris when he states that, "Self-Rewarding Activities" in which he includes play, "...may inadvertently keep the animal mentally and physically healthy" (Morris, 1962. p.144). Surely any activity that keeps the entity healthy is not inadvertent. Any activity, including apparent self-rewarding ones must have a biologically advantageous function. The kitten, whilst it grows physically, can hone its hunting skills against the leaf, a harmless adversary in the protective environment of its parents. The confidence the animal gains in these play activities is essential to its future health as an adult and not in any way inadvertent. Morris also includes curiosity, self-expression and investigation under the self-rewarding banner. These may have aspects of satisfaction to the animal performing them but they also have direct implications for survival. This brings me to the universality of the arts. No activity as widespread as the arts could have no survival value.
Postmodernist theory tells us that we cannot judge cultural objects, such as primitive art works, out of context. In other words we cannot really have any dialogue with art works created in other cultures for purposes, such as a fertility rite, that we have no idea of. Whilst this is partly correct and provides a caution for us not to make value-judgements as to such art works' efficacy (for their original purpose), it is glaringly naive in that it does not consider that there is a universal understanding of aesthetic values. An ancient Javanese mask used in a ritual to rid the village of evil spirits, still effects us today. It communicates to us through the emotion of fear. The colours used, facial contortion/expression and embellishment with bones/feathers and so on, that is, its artistic elements, are used to convey meaning. The fact that we can be moved by classical music, African Mali drumming, ancient Indian statues or pre-historic rock paintings in Arnhem Land indicates that humans possess a trans-cultural, innate aesthetic faculty. Some of the greatest artists of the twentieth century, Henry Moore and Pablo Picasso are two that come to mind, were deeply moved, and inspired in their own work by careful study of African tribal carvings. My personal experience as a professional sculptor in communicating with sculptors of totally different cultures (Nepalese, Japanese, New Guinea highlanders) prove to me, that a universal aesthetic language exists. In the case of stone sculptures the language consists of form, texture, balance and so on. Sculptors not only appreciate each others work but actually communicate with each other despite having no common verbal language. Aesthetic communication works at the same level as say, sexual communication. A man and woman from totally different cultures, with different languages and cultures, have no difficulty in understanding that they both may desire to have sex. This is because both persons possess an innate, genetically hard-wired, 'mating behaviour'. The arts are trans-cultural because humans also possess an innate, genetically hard-wired 'art behaviour'. Despite Dissanayake's relentless 'bashing' of postmodernism, the Art of postmodernism is still, even considering its cultural relevance, a "making special" of rational daily features of our society. It continues to fulfil the biologically evolved ability to abstract concrete matters and fill them with specialness, and as such, speak to members of the global community. We may or may not like what postmodern Art says, but that is a cultural matter. It is the "making special" that engages us or invites a response from the audience. Andy Warhol's, "Campbell's Soup Cans", speak to us both in an aesthetic and cultural way. The repetitive patterns, composition, colours and the removal of a 'utility' item to the art gallery wall satisfy our innate aesthetic sense. Just as the body decoration, designs and colour, the special dance rhythms and so on of the Australian Aborigines' corroboree also satisfy the innate human aesthetic sense. In conclusion I have attempted to show that the unique human ability to create arts can be traced back to a biological not cultural base. Our aesthetic ability is a complex combination of a number of quite disparate evolutionary factors, which acting alone would not have allowed, "man to become man". These factors, as Joyce suggests, made it possible for humans to create themselves as they created their arts. To be sure, culture developed alongside the arts, each reinforcing the other but it is Art that is a product of both biological and cultural evolution. The arts, the human trait of an 'art behaviour', evolved biologically as surely as did the behaviours of mating and hunting. What Dissanayake and Joyce (supported by Morris, Alland and Fuller) have achieved is a radical new theory which answers many unanswered questions and helps explain the unique animal, Homo aestheticus. In this essay I have tried to develop a synthesis of their theories to provide a comprehensive ground for further investigation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Aldrich,
V.C. 1963. Philosophy of Art. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
|
|
| essays | |