NationStates Jolt Archive

A selection of paintings by some of our close relatives

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16090-ape-art/1

I actually rather like the first one, not so keen on most of the others. Question is was Kanzi a better artist or is it just some random smearings of paint look better than others? Can animals actually create art? Is a birdsong music or just a collection of sounds? In other words is art only made by humans?

Google's logo is more artful.

So, when my nephew starts finger painting, I can sell it to idiots for thousands of dollars?

Only if you dress your nephew in a monkey suit.

Heh yea

Meh, the monkies paintings are cute, but I wouldn't buy them.

They maybe smart enough to draw but are they smart enough to bargain their fair share from the sale, you could throw them a couple of peanuts and they'd be happy.

I wonder they're smart enough to stitch footballs together?

Hmm...

They maybe smart enough to draw but are they smart enough to bargain their fair share from the sale, you could throw them a couple of peanuts and they'd be happy.

I wonder they're smart enough to stitch footballs together?

Hmm...

Nike saves the Orang Utan only to enslave them in sweatshops? Does nobody think of the children...

It's better art than some of the stuff I've seen at SFMOMA

The second one looks almost like a vase of flowers.
But how they managed to convince anything to collaborate with that insipid tramp, Sue Buck, is beyond me. Even orangutans should have higher standards . . .

A selection of paintings by some of our close relatives

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16090-ape-art/1

I actually rather like the first one, not so keen on most of the others. Question is was Kanzi a better artist or is it just some random smearings of paint look better than others? Can animals actually create art? Is a birdsong music or just a collection of sounds? In other words is art only made by humans?

Art is art, if one person looks at something and gets meaning from it I guess then concevibly we can call it art.

Heh yea

Meh, the monkies paintings are cute, but I wouldn't buy them.
They're God-damned apes...

The paintings are ok as proof of concepts, but only people who are pretty pretentious would actually buy them.

They're God-damned apes...

The paintings are ok as proof of concepts, but only people who are pretty pretentious would actually buy them.

*shrug* or simply people that liked the look of them.

*shrug* or simply people that liked the look of them.

It's finger painting....Hell if they want to look at that, then I got something my nephew made that they could buy.

Depends if the conception of the activity by the apes was one of creativity for the sake of aesthetic pleasure or rather as a means to get a reward from the human artist.

Birdsong is for communication and mate selection, I'm not sure they sing for their own enjoyment. Clearly we can consider anything 'art'.

Depends if the conception of the activity by the apes was one of creativity for the sake of aesthetic pleasure or rather as a means to get a reward from the human artist.

Birdsong is for communication and mate selection, I'm not sure they sing for their own enjoyment. Clearly we can consider anything 'art'.

Clearly, since apparently starving a dog is considered art in some circle.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

I've always preferred Elephant art. :p

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

It is art if you can convince people it is art.

I've always preferred Elephant art. :p

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

Jojo is quite good

It is art if you can convince people it is art.

Damn me are you feelin alright mate? That's two senible post, I feel faint, whats wrong with the world. Ohhhh it's all gone blur...

It is art if you can convince people it is art worth paying for.

Fixed :tongue:

I've always preferred Elephant art. :p

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

Hmm, they all seem to express some common elephant theme, the brushstroke drawn from top to bottom.

I wonder what they're trying to express, something about their size perhaps, the desire to be smaller than they are or perhaps an expression of their superiority, from themselves [top] to others [bottom]

I see in Jojo's dark colours, her wild themes - Deeply Moved, Wild Passion - perhaps a push for freedom, the stark release of School's Out, the primal colours perhaps signifying the passion within being unshackled at the 'end of class', the ability to be an individual, the dark backgrounds alluding to the nightmare of a life repressed. See how she eschews the straight-down lines of her peers, preferring a more complex array of squiggles, skewed, muddled, pointing to the complexity of life.

Elephant Tao is pretty clear on what he's about.

Interesting, interesting...

Still you can't beat a good painting of some dogs playing poker.

Hmm, they all seem to express some common elephant theme, the brushstroke drawn from top to bottom.

I wonder what they're trying to express, something about their size perhaps, the desire to be smaller than they are or perhaps an expression of their superiority, from themselves [top] to others [bottom]

I see in Jojo's dark colours, her wild themes - Deeply Moved, Wild Passion - perhaps a push for freedom, the stark release of School's Out, the primal colours perhaps signifying the passion within being unshackled at the 'end of class', the ability to be an individual, the dark backgrounds alluding to the nightmare of a life repressed. See how she eschews the straight-down lines of her peers, preferring a more complex array of squiggles, skewed, muddled, pointing to the complexity of life.

Elephant Tao is pretty clear on what he's about.

Interesting, interesting...

Of course Freud did say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

Damn me are you feelin alright mate? That's two senible post, I feel faint, whats wrong with the world. Ohhhh it's all gone blur...

Yay! He's disoriented! *steals your pants and scampers off*

Fixed :tongue:

"They say that modern painting is the panacea for all the ills of modern life, yet everybody still buys the painting that matches the couch!" -Bette Midler

Google's logo is more artful.

My areshole is more artful.

My areshole is more artful.

Proof!

no its not art.

art requires artistic intent on the part of the creator.

Proof!

Sorry, but this thread is pg-13.

no its not art.

art requires artistic intent on the part of the creator.

Does it though?

If you get something from it, it's art. If you get nothing from it, like me, then it's bullshit with a snappy story being sold to idiots.

Does it though?
yup

which is not to say that no one should buy the monkey paintings, that is their own decision, but they are no more art than the birdsong or the sunset is.

Does it though?
or did i misunderstand your question?

monkeys do not have artistic intent.

Well, if rich people like it... One art please! *waves around 300 big ones*

yup

which is not to say that no one should buy the monkey paintings, that is their own decision, but they are no more art than the birdsong or the sunset is.

So when people talk about the art of war, for example, their words are meaningless?

or did i misunderstand your question?

monkeys do not have artistic intent.

The ape, a bonobo chimp and not a monkey, is also capable of understanding spoken words and making stone tools. The ability to make stone tools indicates that the bonobo is capable of making artifacts for specific purposes. This opens the door to the possibility that the bonobo is also capable of making artifacts that have only abstract purposes, such as aesthetics.

It would actually be easy to find out. Does the bonobo ever paint something that he does not like? If so, that would constitute proof of criticism of the artifact, which would indicate that he is judging it on the abstract level required for making art.

or did i misunderstand your question?

monkeys do not have artistic intent.

No no, you understood fine. I don't think that the producer dos have to have artistic intent for somthing to be called art.

If somebody can see meaning in something, say a naturaly occouring waterfall, then we could concivably call that art, couldn't we?

The ape, a bonobo chimp and not a monkey, is also capable of understanding spoken words and making stone tools. The ability to make stone tools indicates that the bonobo is capable of making artifacts for specific purposes. This opens the door to the possibility that the bonobo is also capable of making artifacts that have only abstract purposes, such as aesthetics.

It would actually be easy to find out. Does the bonobo ever paint something that he does not like? If so, that would constitute proof of criticism of the artifact, which would indicate that he is judging it on the abstract level required for making art.
i wonder if anyone has tried testing that yet.

not art

No no, you understood fine. I don't think that the producer dos have to have artistic intent for somthing to be called art.

If somebody can see meaning in something, say a naturaly occouring waterfall, then we could concivably call that art, couldn't we?
no

its beautiful but its not art.

art is a kind of communication between the artist and the viewer. the successful piece of art speaks so strongly to a viewer that he is compelled to possess it or is stopped in his tracks to stare at it as if it is speaking directly to him.

I like it, but it's not art. Art is a human concept and it's exclusively human.

no

its beautiful but its not art.

art is a kind of communication between the artist and the viewer. the successful piece of art speaks so strongly to a viewer that he is compelled to possess it or is stopped in his tracks to stare at it as if it is speaking directly to him.
of course something that ISNT art can BECOME art through the medium of an artist.

so that an artist can find a few bicycle parts, stick them on a wall, and VOILA! its art.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/picassobullshead.jpg

of course something that ISNT art can BECOME art through the medium of an artist.

so that an artist can find a few bicycle parts, stick them on a wall, and VOILA! its art.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/picassobullshead.jpg

Apologies for using a film but I have reason...

If you've seen American Beauty, you remember the scene where the oddball shows the daughter the film of the plastic bag dancing in the wind.

I'm sure we could all connect to that, we've seen such a thing in real life before, it was just expressed in a meaningful way.

So what was the art?

The film scene expressing this moment?
The video whereby oddball guy could express that, I mean, someone was required to video and add meaning before it became art?
A plastic bag dancing in the wind?

Could one call simply seeing a plastic bag dancing in the wind a form of art, when does it become art?

The act itself
When someone observes that act - in that art requires an observer
When someone specifically creates for an observer to view

I don't know the answer myself.

Apologies for using a film but I have reason...

If you've seen American Beauty, you remember the scene where the oddball shows the daughter the film of the plastic bag dancing in the wind.

I'm sure we could all connect to that, we've seen such a thing in real life before, it was just expressed in a meaningful way.

So what was the art?

The film scene expressing this moment?
The video whereby oddball guy could express that, I mean, someone was required to video and add meaning before it became art?
A plastic bag dancing in the wind?

Could one call simply seeing a plastic bag dancing in the wind a form of art, when does it become art?

The act itself
When someone observes that act - in that art requires an observer
When someone specifically creates for an observer to view

I don't know the answer myself.
film is art.

bags blowing in the wind may be compelling but its not art.

although i could do a performance art thing where i set bags free to blow in the wind and the result would be art.

yeah, it requires artistic intent before it becomes art.

Birdsong is music!

film is art.

bags blowing in the wind may be compelling but its not art.

although i could do a performance art thing where i set bags free to blow in the wind and the result would be art.

yeah, it requires artistic intent before it becomes art.

:)

Yes, that is the definition of the word, I was rambling in my head.

:)

Yes, that is the definition of the word, I was rambling in my head.
so... to continue rambling...

if i see a spendid sunset and i call you over to look at it with me....did it just become art?

I like it, but it's not art. Art is a human concept and it's exclusively human.

I am not certain about that. The fact that we evolved artistic behaviour indicates that at some point in our animal existence, we had some sort of precursor to that. Magpies decorate their nests with shiny things. Dolphins understand musical rhythms (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1473208.htm) and can use them to sing things we would recognise as melodies. Crows can learn how to deceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae#Intelligence), to create artifice.

so... to continue rambling...

if i see a spendid sunset and i call you over to look at it with me....did it just become art?

I have 50, 000 joke answers for this, the truth however...

Within my definition, the moment of reflecting on something awesome with somebody else is, at least, something intrinsic to art.

That might be the thrill of the chase, remembering either the hunt or war, it might be something so natural as a splendid sunset, but the sharing of the experience is certainly something, it seems our most basic need after air, food, water and shelter, and I think, at times, it beats them all.

no

its beautiful but its not art.

art is a kind of communication between the artist and the viewer. the successful piece of art speaks so strongly to a viewer that he is compelled to possess it or is stopped in his tracks to stare at it as if it is speaking directly to him.

Okay then once again I ask.

So when people talk about the art of war, for example, their words are meaningless?

Can animals actually create art? Is a birdsong music or just a collection of sounds? In other words is art only made by humans?

well given that alot of modern art or conceptual art is crap just like what that monkey painted, then yes, by those standards that is art

If by art one means the stuff of real artists, that holds a chance to be remembered for a long time, like portraits, or landscapes, etc, then no, it is not art

As others have pointed out, without knowing what is going on in the apes' brains as they paint, it's very hard to determine whether the paintings really constitute "art."

I do want to point out, though, that the people calling anyone who would buy these paintings "idiots" needs to learn basic reading comprehension. The money from the sales of these paintings goes to support ape conservation. What on earth is idiotic about choosing to donate in a way that gives you an interesting conversation piece in return?

Well, if rich people like it... One art please! *waves around 300 big ones*

I just spent that same amount of money on a hundred cups of coffee...

I'm freaking out right now....

Okay then once again I ask.

So when people talk about the art of war, for example, their words are meaningless?

An 'art' can be a trade or skill. A general who dances his soldiers around the field as if in ballet... probably has lightly armoured, and graceful troops however effective they may (or may not) be.

Seriously though, in this case it would be the art, or skill of knowing war. It's why not all BA's are directly related to Fine Arts.

As others have pointed out, without knowing what is going on in the apes' brains as they paint, it's very hard to determine whether the paintings really constitute "art."

I do want to point out, though, that the people calling anyone who would buy these paintings "idiots" needs to learn basic reading comprehension. The money from the sales of these paintings goes to support ape conservation. What on earth is idiotic about choosing to donate in a way that gives you an interesting conversation piece in return?

because Wilgrove's nephew could do the same thing, so why pay to save some apes by purchasing something rather unique, when you can have smoe kid splatter paint on a piece of paper?

I mean, really, what the hell do you think? That a thing could have value because of its unusual providence and not just its overt qualities?

Pft

An 'art' can be a trade or skill. A general who dances his soldiers around the field as if in ballet... probably has lightly armoured, and graceful troops however effective they may (or may not) be.

Seriously though, in this case it would be the art, or skill of knowing war. It's why not all BA's are directly related to Fine Arts.

Yet the general has no artistic intent and so according to some peoples defintion is not art.

because Wilgrove's nephew could do the same thing, so why pay to save some apes by purchasing something rather unique, when you can have smoe kid splatter paint on a piece of paper?

I mean, really, what the hell do you think? That a thing could have value because of its unusual providence and not just its overt qualities?

Pft

I know, I know, I'm crazy like that. Clearly anyone who's willing to buy one of those paintings should also be donating money for the preservation of Wilgrove's nephew. ;)

I am not certain about that. The fact that we evolved artistic behaviour indicates that at some point in our animal existence, we had some sort of precursor to that. Magpies decorate their nests with shiny things. Dolphins understand musical rhythms (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1473208.htm) and can use them to sing things we would recognise as melodies. Crows can learn how to deceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvidae#Intelligence), to create artifice.

But GoG, understanding musical rythms does not equate to being able to "create" music. Decorating the nest could be explained as something in the genetic code of the magpie. Those urges and capacities seem to be inherently human.

But GoG, understanding musical rythms does not equate to being able to "create" music. Decorating the nest could be explained as something in the genetic code of the magpie. Those urges and capacities seem to be inherently human.

Yeah but the piont is, until we can know for sure how the crows mind works, then we can't say for sure whether or not it has artistic intent.

Yeah but the piont is, until we can know for sure how the crows mind works, then we can't say for sure whether or not it has artistic intent.

It would be interesting indeed if it can be proven that animals have the capacity to create artifice as we do. But IMHO, those finger paints aren't art. Of course, much of what passes as art these days isn't truly art either, and this ape's marks seem to have more depths than those of today's so-called "artists"...

A lot of the modern art that you see in museums is simple proof that there are idiots out there who will pay anything for randomly placed heaps of excrement.

A lot of the modern art that you see in museums is simple proof that there are idiots out there who will pay anything for randomly placed heaps of excrement.

I doubt the excrement is placed randomly. I'm sure every heap of excrement was placed with great care and deliberation to appear random. *nod*

But GoG, understanding musical rythms does not equate to being able to "create" music. Decorating the nest could be explained as something in the genetic code of the magpie. Those urges and capacities seem to be inherently human.

History isn't on your side on this one. Creating and using tools was supposed to be "uniquely human." It's not. Being able to recognize oneself in a mirror was supposed to be "uniquely human." It's not. Language was supposed to be "uniquely human." It's not. The more we learn about other species, the more we consistently discover that we're not really terribly special. And when we're talking about great apes, our closest relatives, who we know can communicate complex and abstract concepts in human language, the odds that they can master a concept like "art" are honestly pretty darn good.

I doubt the excrement is placed randomly. I'm sure every heap of excrement was placed with great care and deliberation to appear random. *nod*

Depends on the artist. Smeared or shaped? Cubist?

It would be interesting indeed if it can be proven that animals have the capacity to create artifice as we do. But IMHO, those finger paints aren't art. Of course, much of what passes as art these days isn't truly art either, and this ape's marks seem to have more depths than those of today's so-called "artists"...

Miodern art isn't art! It's just random slashes of paint!

Depends on the artist. Smeared or shaped? Cubist?

Do you know how difficult it is to shit cubes? Takes years of practice!

Miodern art isn't art! It's just random slashes of paint!

That's why, as an art historian, I despise modern art. Starting with Warhol. Yuck!

Depends on the artist. Smeared or shaped? Cubist?

How about canned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit

I know, I know, I'm crazy like that. Clearly anyone who's willing to buy one of those paintings should also be donating money for the preservation of Wilgrove's nephew. ;)

Well I am always trying to get him on valium so he'll be quiet.

I like it, but it's not art. Art is a human concept and it's exclusively human.

So, a sentient and sapient alien from another planet is incapable of creating art because it isn't human?

If what you really meant is that art is exclusively a concept of sentient and sapient beings, then the question is - are these apes (or some of these apes) sentient and sapient?

The ones that I found interesting were the ones that were 'collaborations' between the apes and Sue Buck.

So, a sentient and sapient alien from another planet is incapable of creating art because it isn't human?

If what you really meant is that art is exclusively a concept of sentient and sapient beings, then the question is - are these apes (or some of these apes) sentient and sapient?

I would say that they are but to a different (i.e. much smaller) degree than humans. A quantitative rather than qualitative difference.

How about canned?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit

I'm in the wrong line of work! :eek:

Okay then once again I ask.

So when people talk about the art of war, for example, their words are meaningless?
yes.

at least meaningless as art.

So, a sentient and sapient alien from another planet is incapable of creating art because it isn't human?

Are there aliens? I'm sorry, but this comparison is ridiculous.

If what you really meant is that art is exclusively a concept of sentient and sapient beings, then the question is - are these apes (or some of these apes) sentient and sapient?

And no one can prove that these apes are sapient. Sentient, yes, they are. Sapient, who knows? Therefore, wether it's marks are art or not is still to be proven.

Therefore, wether it's marks are art or not is still to be proven.

Surely if it can think to take paint and put it on the canvas, it's sapient?

Surely if it can think to take paint and put it on the canvas, it's sapient?
but are those marks intended for anything other than getting a treat for doing it?

but are those marks intended for anything other than getting a treat for doing it?

They probably did it cause they wanted to, the first time they wouldn't've known that were gonna get a treat.

So, a sentient and sapient alien from another planet is incapable of creating art because it isn't human?

If what you really meant is that art is exclusively a concept of sentient and sapient beings, then the question is - are these apes (or some of these apes) sentient and sapient?

Are there aliens? I'm sorry, but this comparison is ridiculous.



And no one can prove that these apes are sapient. Sentient, yes, they are. Sapient, who knows? Therefore, wether it's marks are art or not is still to be proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_lines

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Nazca_monkey.jpg

Aieee!!! Alien Art! Aieee!!! :eek:

They probably did it cause they wanted to, the first time they wouldn't've known that were gonna get a treat.
monkeys dont have paint and canvas. it had to be provided.

monkeys dont have paint and canvas. it had to be provided.

Yeah, but they then painted because they wanted to. Also, they're not monkeys.

Yeah, but they then painted because they wanted to. Also, they're not monkeys.
did they paint because they liked the result or because they wanted a treat?

I think Ashmoria has a point - if a monkey in the wild drew something in the mud with a stick I would be more impressed that it was intentionally trying to do it.

did they paint because they liked the result or because they wanted a treat?You could ask that about most human artists too.

And no one can prove that these apes are sapient. Sentient, yes, they are. Sapient, who knows? Therefore, wether it's marks are art or not is still to be proven.

Define sapience.

Surely if it can think to take paint and put it on the canvas, it's sapient?

Did the outcome of the paint pleased the ape or did it just want to paint because it was a treat?

You could ask that about most human artists too.
and they would be able to give you an answer.

Define sapience.

Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

Can you say an ape has these qualities?

and they would be able to give you an answer.If a human does it for a treat, is it still art?

Did the outcome of the paint pleased the ape or did it just want to paint because it was a treat?

It's tnot the outcome, I don't think. It's the action of putting paint on canvas.

Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

Can you say an ape has these qualities?

Yes, they know not to go into deep water, attack leopards by themseslves, they know when to back down in fights, they plan hunts etc.

It's tnot the outcome, I don't think. It's the action of putting paint on canvas.

Not when it comes to art, is it not.

Yes, they know not to go into deep water, attack leopards by themseslves, they know when to back down in fights, they plan hunts etc.

That's instinctual. Art isn't instinctual.

That's instinctual. Art isn't instinctual.

That's not instinctual. Not actually planning a hunt beforehand and then using tactics to trap a monkey and corner it. That's using judgment.

If a human does it for a treat, is it still art?
not so much.

if it is done as a.... copy of something or as an assignment rather than as an attempt at art, its not particularly artistic. but its a hard judgement to make since we have inherently artistic brains.

That's not instinctual. Not actually planning a hunt beforehand and then using tactics to trap a monkey and corner it. That's using judgment.

Art, the creation of it, takes more than just planning and cornering a monkey in the hunt. Don't compare one with the other.

Art, the creation of it, takes more than just planning and cornering a monkey in the hunt. Don't compare one with the other.

But it's still using judgment.

But it's still using judgment.

But it's not enough to create art. One can plan all one wants to.

But it's not enough to create art. One can plan all one wants to.

How do you know it's not enough to create art? They created it, didn't they?

How do you know it's not enough to create art? They created it, didn't they?

Those finger marks are not art.

Those finger marks are not art.

Why not?

Jojo is quite good
I agree. :tongue:
Hmm, they all seem to express some common elephant theme, the brushstroke drawn from top to bottom.

I wonder what they're trying to express, something about their size perhaps, the desire to be smaller than they are or perhaps an expression of their superiority, from themselves [top] to others [bottom]

I see in Jojo's dark colours, her wild themes - Deeply Moved, Wild Passion - perhaps a push for freedom, the stark release of School's Out, the primal colours perhaps signifying the passion within being unshackled at the 'end of class', the ability to be an individual, the dark backgrounds alluding to the nightmare of a life repressed. See how she eschews the straight-down lines of her peers, preferring a more complex array of squiggles, skewed, muddled, pointing to the complexity of life.

Elephant Tao is pretty clear on what he's about.

Interesting, interesting...
I like it.
no its not art.

art requires artistic intent on the part of the creator.
And you can rule this out in chimps and elephants just how?
You can't. You don't know what they were intending to express and why they have chosen the colors they have.

You don't know what the intent is behind their works.

Hell, if you look at some modern art made by humans, you can't either, but you'd probably still consider it art because the maker "thought something while making it".

And you can rule this out in chimps and elephants just how?

Don't forget the orang-utans!

Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

Can you say an ape has these qualities?

Since at least one of the apes in question has language skills it shouldn't be too hard to dicover the answer if someone were to actually try, would it?

Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

Can you say an ape has these qualities?

I can honestly say that within certain contexts, chimps definitely show an ability to act with appropriate judgement. I find this definition too vague, though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm

Chimps show cognitive skills such as numerical memory.

I agree. :tongue:

I like it.

And you can rule this out in chimps and elephants just how?
You can't. You don't know what they were intending to express and why they have chosen the colors they have.

You don't know what the intent is behind their works.

Hell, if you look at some modern art made by humans, you can't either, but you'd probably still consider it art because the maker "thought something while making it".
i am very comfortable in my judgement that animals that show no artistic efforts on their own do not develop them when a paintbrush is put into their hands (or trunks)

Why not?
because they have no more intent to make art than the bird has an intent to make music.

Are there aliens? I'm sorry, but this comparison is ridiculous.

That rather misses the point of the comparison. If something is sentient and sapient, can it produce art despite not being Homo Sapiens?

We also have a chimp who was able to teach other chimps how to use sign language. I think that learning how to be bilingual would indicate sapience.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21569837/?gt1=10547

That rather misses the point of the comparison. If something is sentient and sapient, can it produce art despite not being Homo Sapiens?
there is no way to know until we meet such creatures.

Don't forget the orang-utans!
Oh, how could I?
i am very comfortable in my judgement that animals that show no artistic efforts on their own do not develop them when a paintbrush is put into their hands (or trunks)
Just because they didn't have the means doesn't mean they weren't in the mood for it.

I bet there's at least one elephant out there standing in the middle of nowhere admiring the sunset, wishing for a paintbrush and a canvas. ;)

Oh, how could I?

Just because they didn't have the means doesn't mean they weren't in the mood for it.

I bet there's at least one elephant out there standing in the middle of nowhere admiring the sunset, wishing for a paintbrush and a canvas. ;)
well when you find him and get his statement, ill be more than willing to admit my error!

Why am I reminded of the "Batman" episode where the great artists of Gotham included a Mexican bandit entry whose pet monkey threw paintballs at a canvas?

Köhler’s most well-known work on chimp cognition was in the use of tools to gain access to food. A chimp would have to stack boxes to reach a banana that was suspended out of reach, or insert a narrow stick into a thicker one to produce a tool long enough to reach food. While Köhler’s star chimp, Sultan, did not immediately put two shorter sticks together to make one long one, he worked on the sticks for over an hour. When they had fitted together, Sultan immediately used the new tool to retrieve the bananas. This solution demonstrates insight – recognizing the “problem space” – rather than foresight.

http://wkprc.eva.mpg.de/english/files/wolfgang_koehler.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

The famous studies accomplished by Wolfgang Kohler in the Canary Islands clearly demonstrated the use of rational cunning and conjugated actions by superior monkeys. Among the countless observations led by this scientist, there is one that, not only due to its humorous aspect, but also because of the existence of a definite abstract component in the process, deserves to be mentioned here. It has to do with the malicious and wicked attitude practiced by two male chimpanzees against a chicken: one of the monkeys presents a food to the fowl, encouraging it to approach. As soon as the chicken gets close enough, the other chimpanzee hits the fowl with a wire that he had maintained hidden behind his back. The chicken retreats but soon falls again in the trap, since its mind is not capable to establish association between the offer of food and the following blow. And the game goes on and on, until the monkeys, possibly tired of their joke, move away from the stupid gallinaceous. The abstract component is denounced by the evident forethought of an elaborated conspiracy, executed, in an united action, by the two chimpanzees.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/opiniao/pensamento_i.htm

----------------------------------------------------------

Chimpanzees have been shown to have abstract thinking skills, apparently.

I wouldn't buy them, but I wouldn't buy Pollock or Picasso either. The apes certainly show as much talent as Pollock.

Are there aliens? I'm sorry, but this comparison is ridiculous.



And no one can prove that these apes are sapient. Sentient, yes, they are. Sapient, who knows? Therefore, wether it's marks are art or not is still to be proven.

I love to disagree here :)

Actually I doubt there is such a thing as full sapient concept. I believe sapience is a much more fuzzy thing and that there are several degrees of sapience.

or did i misunderstand your question?

monkeys do not have artistic intent.

How can you be so sure?

monkeys dont have paint and canvas. it had to be provided.

And human painters don't have to get paint and canvas? It just magically appears for them?

We also have a chimp who was able to teach other chimps how to use sign language. I think that learning how to be bilingual would indicate sapience.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21569837/?gt1=10547

But it still wouldn't prove, without a doubt, that apes are capable of producing art.

But it still wouldn't prove, without a doubt, that apes are capable of producing art.

It does prove, without a doubt, that they are capable of producing art. i.e they have the abstract reasoning skills, sentience and sapience required.

Now, other than your own belief in human exclusivity, do you have any evidence for your claim that chimps cannot make art?

It does prove, without a doubt, that they are capable of producing art. i.e they have the abstract reasoning skills, sentience and sapience required.

Now, other than your own belief in human exclusivity, do you have any evidence for your claim that chimps cannot make art?

To me, art is and always will be, a human thing. No evidence, whatsoever though, Mr. GoG.

It does prove, without a doubt, that they are capable of producing art. i.e they have the abstract reasoning skills, sentience and sapience required.


But no shred of proof of creativity or artistic imagination. Besides, learning a sign language shows the capability to learn and remember signals, and to be able to reproduce them, which the chimp did for its kids. I don't think it shows any reasoning skills, at least not to the extent where it would be anywhere near enough to create art.

My areshole is more artful.It's been done (http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=6459).

And human painters don't have to get paint and canvas? It just magically appears for them?
there is no question of a human's artistic intent.

But no shred of proof of creativity or artistic imagination. Besides, learning a sign language shows the capability to learn and remember signals, and to be able to reproduce them, which the chimp did for its kids. I don't think it shows any reasoning skills, at least not to the extent where it would be anywhere near enough to create art.

How do we prove creativity or artistic imagination in humans? Until we have a test that we know works on humans and then use it on chimps, we can't say for sure.

And language definitely uses abstract reasoning skills. One of the first words learnt by Washoe was 'more', which she then used when demanding more of different things, including non-material things like play, affection, and the wish to be alone. 'More' is an abstract concept, a way of defining a comparative quantity. Yet Washoe was able to effectively communicate this concept in such a way as to resolve her problems. If that's not a rational application of an abstract concept, I don't know what is.

How much reasoning skill does it take to make art?

It does prove, without a doubt, that they are capable of producing art. i.e they have the abstract reasoning skills, sentience and sapience required.

Now, other than your own belief in human exclusivity, do you have any evidence for your claim that chimps cannot make art?
no it doesnt.

having a small amount of abstract reason skill does not mean that they have artistic thoughts.

To me, art is and always will be, a human thing. No evidence, whatsoever though, Mr. GoG.

So you DO mean that art is exclusive to Homo Sapiens and hypothetical sentient and sapient aliens are not capable of producing art simply because they are genetically different than us?

I don't follow your "logic".

Until we have a test that we know works on humans and then use it on chimps, we can't say for sure.


Exactly, and judging by the fact that the painting is really just random meaningless scribbles, and that the chimp more than certainly does not have the creativity to produce modern ironic conceptual art, it is reasonable to assume that the chimp did not have artistic intent.


And language definitely uses abstract reasoning skills. One of the first words learnt by Washoe was 'more', which she then used when demanding more of different things, including non-material things like play, affection, and the wish to be alone. 'More' is an abstract concept, a way of defining a comparative quantity. Yet Washoe was able to effectively communicate this concept in such a way as to resolve her problems. If that's not a rational application of an abstract concept, I don't know what is.


Extremely extremely basic reasoning skills, the very very very basics of reasoning.

no it doesnt.

having a small amount of abstract reason skill does not mean that they have artistic thoughts.

So, mentally handicapped people and small children can't make art either, then?

Exactly, and judging by the fact that the painting is really just random meaningless scribbles, and that the chimp more than certainly does not have the creativity to produce modern ironic conceptual art, it is reasonable to assume that the chimp did not have artistic intent.

Having the capability of creating modern ironic concepts is not necessary for art, unless you claim that small children are also incapable of art. And you are assuming that they are 'random, meaningless scribbles'.

Extremely extremely basic reasoning skills, the very very very basics of reasoning.

Fine. I claim it is a difference of degree, rather than qualitative. Humans do it much better, but we do the same thing.

So when people talk about the art of war, for example, their words are meaningless?

No, but this is English. The word 'art' has several meanings. In the context of the phrase "The Art of War", it has a similar meaning to "The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" or "The Art of Mathematics" (as opposed to "The Science of Mathematics"). They refer to a more practical approach, concerned with results as opposed to pure theory.

To take a nice historical example, the Art of Astronomy used to refer to carrying out astronomical calculations by appropriate methods, in order to cast horoscopes, etc. It did not refer to theorising about the heavens --- that was the Science of Physics --- simply to the practical concerns. So War, like Astronomy, is an art, but is probably not art.

I like it, but it's not art. Art is a human concept and it's exclusively human.

Why?

Are there aliens? I'm sorry, but this comparison is ridiculous.

No, it's in no way ridiculous. It's a very useful hypothetical, and one that will be of practical concern at some point in the near future.

While we will probably not encounter Aliens, we are likely to develop AI. Once this has been done, there will be a second undeniably intelligent consciousness on Earth*, and questions about previously purely human pursuits will gain new relevance. So shall we recast the question?

Can a strong AI produce art?

I argue yes. Such a being is able to think, reason, and learn. As a result, I see no reason it would not be able to learn a sense of aesthetics, and then to develop artistic talents and abilities. If it is producing images with a sense of composition, technical skill, and intent, why are those images not art?

*Yes, this can be argued. I'm happy to take it up in a new thread, if you want.

Having the capability of creating modern ironic concepts is not necessary for art

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's required if it intends for those scribbles to mean anything/


, unless you claim that small children are also incapable of art. And you are assuming that they are 'random, meaningless scribbles'.


Very often when very young children just randomly plop paint all over a piece of paper, it is random meaningless scribbles, with no actual purpose other than the fun of plopping paint on paper. However, most of the time what children draw does vaguely resemble something, even if very crude.


Fine. I claim it is a difference of degree, rather than qualitative. Humans do it much better, but we do the same thing.

But why do you think this?

So, mentally handicapped people and small children can't make art either, then?
that depends on the person.

people are wired for art.

Why?

Who are known for creating art?

No, it's in no way ridiculous. It's a very useful hypothetical, and one that will be of practical concern at some point in the near future.

While we will probably not encounter Aliens, we are likely to develop AI. Once this has been done, there will be a second undeniably intelligent consciousness on Earth*, and questions about previously purely human pursuits will gain new relevance. So shall we recast the question?

Can a strong AI produce art?

I argue yes. Such a being is able to think, reason, and learn. As a result, I see no reason it would not be able to learn a sense of aesthetics, and then to develop artistic talents and abilities. If it is producing images with a sense of composition, technical skill, and intent, why are those images not art?

*Yes, this can be argued. I'm happy to take it up in a new thread, if you want.

AI, as in artificial intelligence? No. It can't.

While It's really fun to sit here and read all of your unsubstantiated beliefs about human exclusivity in the arts, I have to go.

Hydesland: many minimalist artists do not use modern ironic concepts or anything like that. Giacometti just painted what he saw. Kandinsky tried to simplify and simplify. While you may like it if your art 'meant' something, it is not necessary for art. Watching children make art teaches you that.

Ashmoria:If all people are wired for art, it can't depend on the person. If you mean that some are and some aren't, why can't this apply to chimps?

AI, as in artificial intelligence? No. It can't.

Why not?

Giacometti just painted what he saw.

Which is creative intent, and the ape did not just paint what he saw.


Kandinsky tried to simplify and simplify.

Which was a reactionary style of art with creative intent, something I highly doubt the ape was trying to do.


While you may like it if your art 'meant' something, it is not necessary for art.

Depends how you define meaning. The artists you mention have specific intentions as to what their art is to look like or to represent, I doubt the ape does.

Why not?

Because it's artificial intelligence. Just because we pass data into a computer, as an example, does not mean that the computer is capable of complex thought processes or of art. It may be able to recreate with pixels and lines simple pictures, but an AI is not capable of creating things like, say, La Pietá from Michaelangelo or a Saint Sebastián from Raphael Sanzio.

While It's really fun to sit here and read all of your unsubstantiated beliefs about human exclusivity in the arts, I have to go.

Hydesland: many minimalist artists do not use modern ironic concepts or anything like that. Giacometti just painted what he saw. Kandinsky tried to simplify and simplify. While you may like it if your art 'meant' something, it is not necessary for art. Watching children make art teaches you that.

Ashmoria:If all people are wired for art, it can't depend on the person. If you mean that some are and some aren't, why can't this apply to chimps?
because there is no evidence that a chimp does anything artistic.

if we had real examples of chimps working on things just to be pretty or compelling and then showing them to other chimps so that the other chimps could admire them, then i would believe in chimp art.

Because it's artificial intelligence.

Point being?

Just because we pass data into a computer, as an example, does not mean that the computer is capable of complex thought processes or of art.

Simply passing data into a computer does not an AI make. An AI would be capable of complex thought, that's what makes it a true AI.

It may be able to recreate with pixels and lines simple pictures, but an AI is not capable of creating things like, say, La Pietá from Michaelangelo or a Saint Sebastián from Raphael Sanzio.

Proof?

This is just a straight reply to the OP without much looking into the rest of the thread....

No, it isn't.

Point being?



Simply passing data into a computer does not an AI make. An AI would be capable of complex thought, that's what makes it a true AI.



Proof?

However smart our AI computers get, they will not even be temporarily replicate our intelligence only then to surge ahead of us to become our galactic-cloud self-extensions, the supernovas of our extrahuman intelligence. That is fun to imagine, but it is science fiction. We need to mount a more humble effort from within the computer community to learn about ourselves in enough depth and detail to fashion computers that resemble us.

http://artsandminds.typepad.com/artsandminds/2008/08/artificial-inte.html

Mayer Spivak

http://artsandminds.typepad.com/artsandminds/2008/08/artificial-inte.html

Mayer Spivak

Mayer Spivack is a consultant and advisor on organizational behavior, innovation, and learning, based near Boston, Massachusetts. He is also an artist working in a variety of media.

What part of that makes him an expert on AI?

Can a strong AI produce art?Wouldn't it just be the art of the creator of the AI?

Wouldn't it just be the art of the creator of the AI?

Is any art you produce the art of your parents?

Is any art you produce the art of your parents?

Our parents dont program our brain.

shouldnt any jugdment on art made by AI wait until there is AI sophisticated enough to at least seem to make art on its own?

Can a strong AI produce art?

I argue yes. Such a being is able to think, reason, and learn. As a result, I see no reason it would not be able to learn a sense of aesthetics, and then to develop artistic talents and abilities. If it is producing images with a sense of composition, technical skill, and intent, why are those images not art?
I agree, but I think the interesting question is "Where does this sense of aesthetic come from?" In order for the being to be a truly creative entity, its aesthetic needs to be its own, rather than a result of human imposition, and while I don't think this is impossible, I do think it would be difficult to formulate how to teach a machine to develop an appreciation for image and music without at some level applying a heuristic.

-snip-

Care to provide us with some AI that you believe is currently capable of producing art with its own artistic imagination or intent?

Is any art you produce the art of your parents?They didn't program my brain.

Our parents dont program our brain.
Beat me to it.

Just because we pass data into a computer, as an example, does not mean that the computer is capable of complex thought processes or of art.
What, in your opinion, is it in Humans that means they are capable of such complexities?

While we will probably not encounter Aliens, we are likely to develop AI.
I would completely reverse that statement.

Its safe to say that until we have such a strong AI like the one we're talking about, this is all speculation.

Our parents dont program our brain.

Are you sure of that?

Besides an AI of the level I'm discussing is (theoretically) programed with nothing more than the ability to learn and adapt. We're not discussing a computer programed to make art in this hypothetical, we're discussing a computer that attains sentience and sapience. Could such a being create art? The opinion of at least one person on this board is no, and the only reason that has been forthcoming appears to boil down to "It's not Homo Sapiens."

Way to miss the point of the hypothetical again everyone.

we're discussing a computer that attains sentience and sapience
If by "computer", you mean a programmed system, it does not, by definition, possess sentience or sapience.

If by "computer", you mean a programmed system, it does not, by definition, possess sentience or sapience.

Reread the parts you didn't quote. What prevents such a computer from attaining those qualities?

Are you sure of that?

Besides an AI of the level I'm discussing is (theoretically) programed with nothing more than the ability to learn and adapt. We're not discussing a computer programed to make art in this hypothetical, we're discussing a computer that attains sentience and sapience. Could such a being create art? The opinion of at least one person on this board is no, and the only reason that has been forthcoming appears to boil down to "It's not Homo Sapiens."Our parents do not personally build our bodies, construct our brains, and program them. They may raise us, influence us, but they do not construct our entire sentience, sapience, and worldview.

No, it's not art because its intelligence and its sapience are created by a human. That in itself is the art of the human, not to mention any art the machine would create.

Way to miss the point of the hypothetical again everyone.
what IS the point of this hypothetical as regards the OP?

There's very little chance of resolving this with short answers, we're talking about a long line of consciousness where it's difficult to pinpoint where art comes in.

Art is built from simply wanting to communicate, from the dance of bees to the drawing of an arrow into the sand to point a direction. From there we've moved to communicating emotions and abstract ideas through art but, at it's base, it's communication.

In some sense, one might say the monkeys are communicating something, even if it's simply a desire to please whoever's directing them to draw, but in the sense of creating art, of trying to communicate something through the drawings in and of themselves, I very much doubt the monkeys are truly doing that.

Impossible to tell really, when they draw a banana I might think they're onto something.

Our parents do not personally build our bodies, construct our brains, and program them. They may raise us, influence us, but they do not construct our entire sentience, sapience, and worldview.

No, it's not art because its intelligence and its sapience are created by a human. That in itself is the art of the human, not to mention any art the machine would create.
This is not to say I think the concept of art is a uniquely human one.

Care to provide us with some AI that you believe is currently capable of producing art with its own artistic imagination or intent?
Ooh, I've got a topical example. How about Jazz improv software? There was an article on Slashdot a few days ago about ImproSculpt, which writes music on the basis of random transposition of sampled sound.

The problem with the software is, of course, that the sense of discernment between what we would call aesthetic and what is simply noise is limited. Sometimes you get some weirdly pleasant effects, while others you get squealing. In theory, you can teach the machine to recognise (independent of hard-coding) when it produces something that you would find pleasant or unpleasant, but how you would go about letting it decide its own criteria of aesthetic sound is not obvious.

Way to miss the point of the hypothetical again everyone.Is the condescension really necessary?

Ooh, I've got a topical example. How about Jazz improv software? There was an article on Slashdot a few days ago about ImproSculpt, which writes music on the basis of random transposition of sampled sound.


Bold mine.


but how you would go about letting it decide its own criteria of aesthetic sound is not obvious.

Ah, I thought you were talking about AI technology we currently have.

what IS the point of this hypothetical as regards the OP?

"Can something non-human create art?" Also "Can those who say no come up with a better reason than "It's not human"?" Judging the amount of what I wrote people are having to ignore to back their no I'd say the answer to the second is "No, they can't".

Ooh, I've got a topical example. How about Jazz improv software? There was an article on Slashdot a few days ago about ImproSculpt, which writes music on the basis of random transposition of sampled sound.

The problem with the software is, of course, that the sense of discernment between what we would call aesthetic and what is simply noise is limited. Sometimes you get some weirdly pleasant effects, while others you get squealing. In theory, you can teach the machine to recognise when it produces something that you would find pleasant or unpleasant, but how you would go about letting it decide its own criteria of aesthetic sound is not obvious.

Inasmuch as I find Peking Opera the equivalent of scraping one's nails down a blackboard, music is clearly culturally based in terms of the note structure and rhythm we enjoy - we have to learn to like music, although we inherently enjoy sounds, or at least the difference between sounds.

So, theoretically, I can imagine an AI coming to appreciate music, creating it even, but I think we're a long, long way from that.

“But is it art?” is a question that artists have been inciting for over a century since Marcel Duchamp exhibited his readymades (most famously his ‘fountain’ or rather, urinal).

The people who are selling these apes’ paintings aren’t claiming them to be ‘art’, they’re just hoping to raise money for a just cause by selling novelty items. The fact that a child could do them is not important; the importance is that they’re painted by apes, and that in itself is unusual and interesting enough to attract buyers. Heck, I’d pay money for one if I had it because at least I know that it would help the apes out, and not fund the reckless lifestyle of some artist (many artists are hardworking people, and it’s a tough life for anyone who doesn’t hit it big, but nowadays most of the people at the top are pretentious and overpaid).

But at the same time it is a worthy question because it’s not the first time that it’s been asked in relation to apes. Over 3 years ago some paintings of a chimp from the ‘60s went on sale and surprised everyone by fetching several times their estimates. Not only that but they were sold in a gallery along with works by famous artists – some of which failed to sell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/20/entertainment/main703057.shtml

Whether its art or not I can’t really say, because I don’t even agree with some modern art (or should that be postmodern?) being given that name. The modern consensus, though, nowadays, is that anything can be art – provided you’ve gone to some sort of institution that can back you up and say that you’re an artist. Once you have that you can easily exhibit your ‘unmade bed’ (à la Tracey Emin) and be applauded (or bewilder and embitter people, like most of the public). So technically, unless the apes have been to an art college that is willing to give them their artist status, then it’s not art... Well, at least that’s the way that it seems to work with the more controversial art that seems to be the only kind of contemporary art that makes the news (it’s not all rubbish, honest!).

"Can something non-human create art?" Also "Can those who say no come up with a better reason than "It's not human"?" Judging the amount of what I wrote people are having to ignore to back their no I'd say the answer to the second is "No, they can't".
yes but your hypothetical is more "can we imagine a kind of non-human art?"

sure we can.

that doesnt make monkey paintings art.

Reread the parts you didn't quote.
Just because I did not quote your whole post does not mean I did not read it.
What prevents such a computer from attaining those qualities?
Spontaneity is not a quality that is compatible with the essence of a "computer". We might be able to create a device whose behavior is quantum-unpredictable, which cannot be programmed at all because it has "a mind of its own" and will do whatever it decides to do-- but by definition, that is not a "computer" anymore, and nothing that we are doing with computers leads anywhere in that direction, rather the opposite.

Bold mine.
I was quick to say "On the Basis of". There is an additional level of complexity involved in the software that means that certain rules are applied to limit the randomness of the resulting sound (pseudorandomness, to be perfectly honest, but with a cyclic period beyond the bounds of feasible computability, so it's effectively random).

Isn't human creativity similar? We know certain rules, use certain techniques, have certain feelings, but the basic impulse of our ideas as to the freedom within these boundaries is chaotic. The thin line of genius is that which can reach into madness and drag what is found there kicking and screaming into form.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that art is whatever you want it to be. If you like dogs playing cards painted on black velvet, then that's art - for you. If you like Monet, Manet and Picasso, then that's art - for you. If I don't consider it art, then, for me, it's not art I don't care how anyone else regards it. That said, the apes' daubs on canvas are at least as much art as Pollock's paint drizzles on canvas - in my opinion.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think an ape can create art, then he/she is creating art.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that art is whatever you want it to be. If you like dogs playing cards painted on black velvet, then that's art - for you. If you like Monet, Manet and Picasso, then that's art - for you. If I don't consider it art, then, for me, it's not art I don't care how anyone else regards it. That said, the apes' daubs on canvas are at least as much art as Pollock's paint drizzles on canvas - in my opinion.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think an ape can create art, then he/she is creating art.
you are SOOO wrong about jackson pollock. have you seen his work in person?

Ah, I thought you were talking about AI technology we currently have.
I was, which was why it's not obvious how you could go about letting it decide its own systems of aesthetics. AI genuinely can learn (or at least build a weighted knowledge base and modify it in response to live stimuli, if you call that learning), but to use different learning techniques in parallel (sometimes called boosting) and to learn (a) how to learn new learning techniques, and (b) how to decide which learning technique to use in a given situation, would effectively encompass the whole of artificial intelligence into a single entity, and I would not want to be responsible for that particular implementation.

Such a program would probably be to big and clumsy to work efficiently, so perhaps one solution is to build some notion of artificial stupidity into the mix?

Isn't human creativity similar?

I'm certain it isn't, and if this were to be true I would find it incredibly disturbing.


We know certain rules, use certain techniques, have certain feelings, but the basic impulse of our ideas as to the freedom within these boundaries is chaotic.

What makes you say that? As a musician, my basic impulse is to create pleasurable sound, not random chaos.

It's art to me, but it's partially because I recently read a book on visual anthropology which goes into the concept of "ape" art.

It doesn't mean it's good art, though.

Art is a very broad and complex term.

What makes you say that? As a musician, my basic impulse is to create pleasurable sound, not random chaos.

Yoko Ono created random chaos.

Just because you don't like that, doesn't mean it's not "art".

you are SOOO wrong about jackson pollock. have you seen his work in person?

If someone has the audacity to call Pollock "not art", they probably don't have a very broad art education.

Yoko Ono created random chaos.

Just because you don't like that, doesn't mean it's not "art".
Don't forget John Cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3

If someone has the audacity to call Pollock "not art", they probably don't have a very broad art education.
its greatness is far more obvious in person than it is looking at a reproduction in a book.

It's art to me, but it's partially because I recently read a book on visual anthropology which goes into the concept of "ape" art.

It doesn't mean it's good art, though.

Art is a very broad and complex term.
what did it say about ape art?

its my contention that without artistic intent, its not art. so nothing made by an ape can be art because they dont DO art.

did the book have a different contention?

what did it say about ape art?

its my contention that without artistic intent, its not art. so nothing made by an ape can be art because they dont DO art.

did the book have a different contention?

Art is what created language. Even before human kind, apes were able to etch drawings or representations. They may not have seemed like representations to us, but it is still representative of some sort of higher thinking. When you look at caveman's paintings, their symbols, their representations, they may not look like anything comprehensible and they may not have even had "artistic" intent, but we must remember that this is before the notion of "artistic" intent existed. It was more so a way of explaining the world, understanding the world and most importantly documenting the world. From these drawings, language develops. Symbols that have meanings, series of symbols that have meanings etc. These symbols are still "drawings" and their purpose is to document. I consider writing an art form, just as this book does in a way. It's an amazing book. It's mostly about ethnographic or anthropological film, but it's first chapter really made me open my eyes and understand the whole notion of the correlation between art and documentation. It was very interesting. It's just called "Visual Anthropology".

I'm pretty much of the opinion that art is whatever you want it to be. If you like dogs playing cards painted on black velvet, then that's art - for you. If you like Monet, Manet and Picasso, then that's art - for you. If I don't consider it art, then, for me, it's not art I don't care how anyone else regards it. That said, the apes' daubs on canvas are at least as much art as Pollock's paint drizzles on canvas - in my opinion.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think an ape can create art, then he/she is creating art.

Art =/= liking it.

Just because you don't like Pollock, it doesn't mean it's not art.

Art is what created language. Even before human kind, apes were able to etch drawings or representations. They may not have seemed like representations to us, but it is still representative of some sort of higher thinking. When you look at caveman's paintings, their symbols, their representations, they may not look like anything comprehensible and they may not have even had "artistic" intent, but we must remember that this is before the notion of "artistic" intent existed. It was more so a way of explaining the world, understanding the world and most importantly documenting the world. From these drawings, language develops. Symbols that have meanings, series of symbols that have meanings etc. These symbols are still "drawings" and their purpose is to document. I consider writing an art form, just as this book does in a way. It's an amazing book. It's mostly about ethnographic or anthropological film, but it's first chapter really made me open my eyes and understand the whole notion of the correlation between art and documentation. It was very interesting. It's just called "Visual Anthropology".
are they making this contention about current apes or just the apes who became humans?

What is art? Is it simply something that looks nice, could be interpreted to look nice, could be interpreted to somehow represent a thought, could be interpreted to somehow mean something. This view has some merit. However, I believe that art is the conscious transference of emotion to form. At a more metaphysical level, art is the connection between thought and the divine. The key is that it must be conscious and the emphasis must be on the making of art, and not the seeing of it.

are they making this contention about current apes or just the apes who became humans?

No. Apes apes. It's not a large part of the book. It's like... a page or two. They include pictures of apes in zoos painting paintings that look very similar to the one posted here. The whole point is that depiction existed before human nature.

No. Apes apes. It's not a large part of the book. It's like... a page or two. They include pictures of apes in zoos painting paintings that look very similar to the one posted here. The whole point is that depiction existed before human nature.

I'm just not sure we have any evidence of ape drawings outside captivity - are you saying there is, that there's some cave somewhere with 80, 000 year old ape pictures?

I'm not sure there's any evidence that apes use symbols to communicate at all, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Why does it have to have an artist's intent to be art? If an ape managed to make a painting of random colors and some guy decided to put it in a gallery without telling anyone who painted it, wouldn't it be art? If the people viewing or experiencing it believe it is art, then isn't it art?

And what about practical forms of art, like a table. The designer is designing a table for a function, but surely it has some sort of aesthetic, so wouldn't it be art?

I'm just not sure we have any evidence of ape drawings outside captivity - are you saying there is, that there's some cave somewhere with 80, 000 year old ape pictures?

I'm not sure there's any evidence that apes use symbols to communicate at all, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

I'll get back to you on that one.

And what about practical forms of art, like a table. The designer is designing a table for a function, but surely it has some sort of aesthetic, so wouldn't it be art?

Yes.

Art is what created language.

You know, my parents would debate long nights over this statement, my father studied psychology and my mother linguistics and they very much differ over this, especially if you replace 'art' with intelligence.

One side argues that the ability to speak accelerated our intelligence, the other argues that the depth of our speech comes from our intelligence.

I can't remember the details but it always came down to the same sticking point, 5 hours and a few bottles of wine later: do dogs dream like we do.

Clearly something's happening, they yelp, wag the tail and more but one side said that wasn't the same, they would never consciously understand they were dreaming, the other said they would.

Slightly irrelevant.

Art =/= liking it.

Just because you don't like Pollock, it doesn't mean it's not art.

Art is subjective, it can't be quantified. Since it is subjective, what it comes down to is individual opinion. I've had more than a bellyful of pretentious posers who, because they "studied" art, think they have the ability to tell me, or anyone else, what is and is not art. If it speaks to you, then it is, to you, art. If it doesn't speak to you, it's not. Klee speaks to me, Mondrian speaks to me, Magritte speaks to me, some of Picasso does, as well. Pollock doesn't speak to me, strangely, Andy Warhol does.

“But is it art?” is a question that artists have been inciting for over a century since Marcel Duchamp exhibited his readymades (most famously his ‘fountain’ or rather, urinal).

The people who are selling these apes’ paintings aren’t claiming them to be ‘art’, they’re just hoping to raise money for a just cause by selling novelty items. The fact that a child could do them is not important; the importance is that they’re painted by apes, and that in itself is unusual and interesting enough to attract buyers. Heck, I’d pay money for one if I had it because at least I know that it would help the apes out, and not fund the reckless lifestyle of some artist (many artists are hardworking people, and it’s a tough life for anyone who doesn’t hit it big, but nowadays most of the people at the top are pretentious and overpaid).

But at the same time it is a worthy question because it’s not the first time that it’s been asked in relation to apes. Over 3 years ago some paintings of a chimp from the ‘60s went on sale and surprised everyone by fetching several times their estimates. Not only that but they were sold in a gallery along with works by famous artists – some of which failed to sell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/20/entertainment/main703057.shtml

Whether its art or not I can’t really say, because I don’t even agree with some modern art (or should that be postmodern?) being given that name. The modern consensus, though, nowadays, is that anything can be art – provided you’ve gone to some sort of institution that can back you up and say that you’re an artist. Once you have that you can easily exhibit your ‘unmade bed’ (à la Tracey Emin) and be applauded (or bewilder and embitter people, like most of the public). So technically, unless the apes have been to an art college that is willing to give them their artist status, then it’s not art... Well, at least that’s the way that it seems to work with the more controversial art that seems to be the only kind of contemporary art that makes the news (it’s not all rubbish, honest!).

I hope you keep posting.

Interesting that some primate art does sell quite well - I think Desmond Morris of Naked Ape fame is a collector (not well known but he also is a surrealist painter). What I find interesting is that the work of the different animals show individuality and some are better than others. I do think Kanzi is the best of the ape painters, and to me Jojo is the best of the elephant painters. However I don't think their paintings are art, but I think it shows that they have the potential to create art.

My view is that to create art you need to have the concept of art as part of your culture. There is no evidence that in the wild that apes or elephants do. But if in a zoo animals over several generations start passing on a liking for painting and show evidence that they appreciate some paintings more than others - then I think we might have genuine animal art. Essentially to me it would have to be art to another monkey or elephant not necessarily to a human.

Art =/= liking it.

Just because you don't like Pollock, it doesn't mean it's not art.

It just means I'm not a complete idiot.

Art is subjective, it can't be quantified. Since it is subjective, what it comes down to is individual opinion. I've had more than a bellyful of pretentious posers who, because they "studied" art, think they have the ability to tell me, or anyone else, what is and is not art. If it speaks to you, then it is, to you, art. If it doesn't speak to you, it's not. Klee speaks to me, Mondrian speaks to me, Magritte speaks to me, some of Picasso does, as well. Pollock doesn't speak to me, strangely, Andy Warhol does.

Uh, no.

If by "computer", you mean a programmed system, it does not, by definition, possess sentience or sapience.

Whyever not? Now, I will be upfront about this: I'm about to be conducting a purely hypothetical thought experiment, not anything we are even close to in real life. Still, I feel we may be able to learn something from thinking about it.

Consider the following computer:

It is made up of several billion tiny integrated circuits, each of which is connected to a couple hundred others as inputs, and sends output to another couple hundred, according to a very simple, and easily programmed, rule: If more than about 100 of the inputs are turned on, then output is sent to all the others.

Now imagine we 'program' this. We turn on or off a large number of these small circuits, and then set the thing going. Patterns of electrical activity will move through it, as inputs and outputs interact. If we send in electrical stimuli to some of the ICs, then patterns will move through the rest in response to this.

Of course, you're going to say it's not thinking. But what I have just described is (approximately) a brain. Each of these ICs plays the role of a single neuron, and acts roughly like a neuron does. So now let us really take a step into the SF world, and imagine copying exactly someone's brain patterns into this device.

Then is it thinking? As far as the person 'inside' it is concerned, there is a neural system exactly like the one they have been using. Inputs come in to the appropriate places, and are then interpreted as lights or sounds or smells. Outputs sent to the appropriate places produce the relevant changes in input for moving legs, or turning the head. As far as it goes, it seems exactly real. And if our person is a fairly introspective type, they can think about whatever they feel like, using computer hardware for their brain instead of neural wetware.

-=-

So there we have it. It's definitely not a normal computer, nor is it an approach that we will likely take towards AI, especially for anything as complex as a human. We could, however, put a bumblebee or the like 'into' a device like that, and even get fairly close to doing that with our current technology, so it's not as totally far fetched as it seems.

The important part, of course, is that this is an electrical computer system, which happens to be doing exactly what a brain would do. If we give it different inputs, then it will naturally learn differently to the original human model, and could theoretically develop into its own personality. It which case it surely possesses both sentience and sapience, and we have thus disproved your original contention.

-=-

But aha! you say. In order to do this, I have had to conjur up an impractical and Science Fictional computer, therefore my conclusions have no relevance to reality. That may be true. But it only seems so far fetched because we are (as yet) nowhere near achieving a strong AI. Let us examine another, now real life, example.

There is a type of processor called a 'Field Programmable Gate Array'. What these are is collections of a hundred or so small switches, which can be reprogrammed dynamically in hardware. The important result of this is that one can rapidly try multiple designs of a processor, and refine one's ideas rather rapidly if needed.

A while back, experiments were done into programming these through genetic algorithms. The aim was to produce a chip that could distinguish between two tones --- not a wholly tricky task, but one that is somewhat interesting to consider. The method was very simple: A large batch of random designs were seeded. These were then tested, and the ones which performed best were used to weight the seeding of the next generation. In essence, each new generation of attempts was made by combining the most successful of the previous generation. This combination was (notably) not made by a human picking and choosing which bits of each, but by randomly combining them. There was effectively no human input in the process.

Now, these chips fairly rapidly gained the ability to accurately distinguish between the tones. With no human design or input, but simply subjected to very basic evolutionary pressures, they became able to tell the difference. Most interestingly, they did it in a completely different way to the way a human would have. Instead of using a clearly defined digital method with all 100 gates, a small part (17, iirc) of the gates were used, and analog effects were also exploited (5 gates were only connected to each other, and should have had no effect on the whole design. However, removing any of these caused it to cease working).

The important part of this is that a computer chip that could distinguish between sounds was produced without human intervention to design it, completely destroying any contention that a computer can only do what a human programs it to.

-=-

So how is this all relevant to the original topic? Quite simply, really. If a non human system can in fact think and be sentient, surely it is not too much of a jump to imagine them being able to develop an artistic sense, and then produce art. Whether said non human system is an AI, an alien, or a chimpanzee

Art is subjective, it can't be quantified. Since it is subjective, what it comes down to is individual opinion. I've had more than a bellyful of pretentious posers who, because they "studied" art, think they have the ability to tell me, or anyone else, what is and is not art. If it speaks to you, then it is, to you, art. If it doesn't speak to you, it's not. Klee speaks to me, Mondrian speaks to me, Magritte speaks to me, some of Picasso does, as well. Pollock doesn't speak to me, strangely, Andy Warhol does.
no.

art is not a "oh i like this pretty picture" thing.

it is not subjective. its a process. its a communication between the artist and his (mostly) invisible unknown audience.

it is not required that anyone like it in order for it to be art. if no one likes it, its failed art. its not required that every piece of art made by a great artist be great.

it might annoy you that someone like jackson pollock is exalted when you dont like his art or the way he made it. that doesnt mean its not art. all it might mean is that it is over valued. *shrug* so many things are.

Quick clarification for everyone - Are we agreeing here that there is a difference between

A work of Art,
A creative work designed to elicit aesthetic appreciation, and
A work that succeeds in that endeavour?
I'm happy to accept that distinction, but it does influence how I respond to the question.

I'm certain it isn't, and if this were to be true I would find it incredibly disturbing.

What makes you say that? As a musician, my basic impulse is to create pleasurable sound, not random chaos.
I think what you're getting at is the difference between performing music and creating music. I'm referring to the spontaneous and intuitive composition process as much as I am the actual performance (as a jazz pianist, the distinction between the two faculties has become somewhat blurred in my mind).

How you decide what to put down on a blank manuscript? You might start with a simple melody, harmonize it then play around with variations, but where does that melody come from? You choose to begin with a few known chord progressions and use that to inform your tune, but how do you decide what sequence to follow? Even given these starting points, there is still an infinity of variation you might use to modify and characterise how the piece develops, so how do you first come up with a possible phrasing?

There is inevitably a chaotic and random element somewhere in the process. The question is not "is there randomness?" but rather "just how random is it?". The answer, assuming you have a reasonable grounding in musical theory and have practiced quite a bit yourself, is "not very". I would generally not, for instance, pollute the bass-line in an upcoming F7-BbM6 progression by sustaining every note in the C1-C2 octave at once, because that's just not harmonious (it might make later harmony seem nicer by contrast, but dischord has its limits; if you want to keep a job in a piano lounge, you won't be too experimental!), in keeping with what the audience might be expecting to hear or sufficiently in line with what they could understand as a variation. However, there's so much I can do in keeping with good music theory that it's all about whatever I think will work. And so many things (themselves highly variable) do work, occasionally across a variety of performance styles, moods and pieces.

The only way to actually play something in all of this potentiality is to go on impulse. It's an impulse that is informed and restrained by mood, circumstance and theory, but beneath all of that is a raw, chaotic energy that means that I don't even know half the time precisely what I'm going to play next.

What, in your opinion, is it in Humans that means they are capable of such complexities?

The capacity to feel emotion, which, granted, is also part of other beings in the planet, like apes. But the complexity of creating artifice, that is, IMO, something solely human.

What part of that makes him an expert on AI?

If you read that thoroughly, you would've seen Spivak was also egressed from MIT.

If you read that thoroughly, you would've seen Spivak was also egressed from MIT.

To quote his CV:


1959 - 1962 MIT Instrumentation Laboratory, Gyro Research Group Research and Design Engineering
Planned, researched, designed, and implemented mechanical and electro-mechanical devices for use in fabricating high precision air bearings, position sensors, and ball bearing races intended for inertial navigation gyroscopes. Participated in design team work making contributions in the conceptual design of inertial guidance systems.

EDUCATION:

1962-1964 MIT, Boston, MA, Master of City Planning,


And a link (http://artsandminds.typepad.com/about.html).

While it was MIT, it's also not experience at all relevant to AI.

no.

art is not a "oh i like this pretty picture" thing.

it is not subjective. its a process. its a communication between the artist and his (mostly) invisible unknown audience.

it is not required that anyone like it in order for it to be art. if no one likes it, its failed art. its not required that every piece of art made by a great artist be great.

it might annoy you that someone like jackson pollock is exalted when you dont like his art or the way he made it. that doesnt mean its not art. all it might mean is that it is over valued. *shrug* so many things are.Whether or not it is art is subjective. Also:
art–noun

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

Nowhere in there does it say that intent is explicitly needed, or that the significance comes from the artist.

Whether or not it is art is subjective. Also:
art–noun

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

Nowhere in there does it say that intent is explicitly needed, or that the significance comes from the artist.
not that i am impressed by dictionary definitions but artistic intent sure does seem to be implied by that definition.

not that i am impressed by dictionary definitions but artistic intent sure does seem to be implied by that definition.It's the definition of art. What's there to be impressed about? And all the 'or s' in that definition seems to say otherwise.

It's the definition of art. What's there to be impressed about? And all the 'or s' in that definition seems to say otherwise.
aethetic criteria implies intent.

aethetic criteria implies intent.That can imply intent of the viewer. The viewer can imply the criteria can they not?

That can imply intent of the viewer. The viewer can imply the criteria can they not?
oh

the viewer.

either the communication is successful or it isnt eh?

how many people have to find it somewhat compelling before its art?

To quote his CV:



And a link (http://artsandminds.typepad.com/about.html).

While it was MIT, it's also not experience at all relevant to AI.

Did you read the whole article? Apparently not. But let me indulge you a bit more in why is that I say AI cannot produce works of art (irrelevant for that matter to the OP). This is an articel from Susan C. Gunn about wether AI can have Near Death experiences (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p64735w15k179153/fulltext.pdf?page=1). I provide it to exemplify my point that apes, like the one in the OP, cannot produce art because the experience of art is more of a human labor.

ABSTRACT. Since a computer model begins as an instance of writing, that
is, a "text," it is appropriate to examine this kind of discourse through the
perspective of literary criticism. I examine Stephen Thaler's (1995) "intelligent"
computer program and conclude that the gedanken creatures are constructed
upon a structuralist theory of the text, which cannot support a
complete simulation of human intelligence or experience.

And she continues on saying:
...even
if a machine could be programmed to imitate human linguistic behavior
flawlessly, the question of whether this is sufficient reason to
ascribe intelligence remains open...
In short, A.I. cannot, at the moment, produce art.

I actually like them. This research could prove interesting in understanding the development of artistic interest and expression in early humans. It may one day pave the way to allowing humanity to be less concerned with our own mortality

One argument against art being innately human is that humans were around a long time before doing anything we would recognise as it.

Which is creative intent, and the ape did not just paint what he saw.

No. Giacometti was trying to move away from intentions and into direct translation of visual experience. While you are correct that the chimp was not trying to do the exact same thing, they are both similar in that the artistic intent does not have to be a cerebral or 'meaningful' one.

Which was a reactionary style of art with creative intent, something I highly doubt the ape was trying to do.

I understand that you doubt that the ape had artistic intent. What I would lie to know is if you have any evidence for such a belief.

Depends how you define meaning. The artists you mention have specific intentions as to what their art is to look like or to represent, I doubt the ape does.

See above.

because there is no evidence that a chimp does anything artistic.

if we had real examples of chimps working on things just to be pretty or compelling and then showing them to other chimps so that the other chimps could admire them, then i would believe in chimp art.

What would constitute as evidence? We have already seen evidence that apes have sentience, sapience, abstract reasoning (which includes abstract intent), and other components apparently required for art. You seem to be asking for some sort of test that conclusively proves intent.

I'm just not sure we have any evidence of ape drawings outside captivity - are you saying there is, that there's some cave somewhere with 80, 000 year old ape pictures?

I'm not sure there's any evidence that apes use symbols to communicate at all, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

If you consider words to be auditory or visual symbols of communication, then there is proof that apes use symbols to communicate.

What would constitute as evidence? We have already seen evidence that apes have sentience, sapience, abstract reasoning (which includes abstract intent), and other components apparently required for art. You seem to be asking for some sort of test that conclusively proves intent.


what i said.

when a chimp in the wild is seen making something for no reason other than that its "pretty" (understanding that pretty would be different for a chimp than for me) and showing it to others for them to appreciate, ill believe in chimp art.

Did you read the whole article? Apparently not. But let me indulge you a bit more in why is that I say AI cannot produce works of art (irrelevant for that matter to the OP). This is an articel from Susan C. Gunn about wether AI can have Near Death experiences (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p64735w15k179153/fulltext.pdf?page=1). I provide it to exemplify my point that apes, like the one in the OP, cannot produce art because the experience of art is more of a human labor.
Going purely from the abstract (I'm not registered with Springerlink at the minute), there is a fundamental flaw in her argument, which is that you can determine the ability to experience by an analysis of structure. Allow me to propose the (very obvious) counter-example - that of a human corpse. There is nothing present in the body that was not there when it was alive; what is different about it is that it is no longer in operation.

The capacity to feel emotion, which, granted, is also part of other beings in the planet, like apes. But the complexity of creating artifice, that is, IMO, something solely human.
So what makes humans capable of creating complexities is that complex creation is a purely human property?

oh

the viewer.

either the communication is successful or it isnt eh?

how many people have to find it somewhat compelling before its art?I didn't say that the viewer exclusively decided the criteria, I said a viewer could decide criteria and label something as art. See my example of someone putting an ape's painting in a gallery without telling who painted it. Someone could view it, be moved by it, and decide it is art all without any artistic intent of the actual artist.

I didn't say that the viewer exclusively decided the criteria, I said a viewer could decide criteria and label something as art. See my example of someone putting an ape's painting in a gallery without telling who painted it. Someone could view it, be moved by it, and decide it is art all without any artistic intent.
yes but would they be right?

we can be as moved by a great sunset as by a great painting but that doesnt make the sunset into art.

yes but would they be right?

we can be as moved by a great sunset as by a great painting but that doesnt make the sunset into art.Is there right and wrong with art? Considering how hard it is to pin down a definition of art, I'd say calling something art is a subjective choice.

But, depending on you to talk to, the sunset does not have a creator. If it did, you could consider it art.

Is there right and wrong with art? Considering how hard it is to pin down a definition of art, I'd say calling something art is a subjective choice.

But, depending on you to talk to, the sunset does not have a creator. If it did, you could consider it art.
i was thinking that, maybe, art is our attempt to take on the creative role of god. so our beautiful paintings and scuptures are moving because they put us in the same roles as god the creator.


its wrong to confuse our love of beauty with art. there are many things in the natural world that are as moving as any piece of art but our appreciation of them does not transform them into art.

what i said.

when a chimp in the wild is seen making something for no reason other than that its "pretty" (understanding that pretty would be different for a chimp than for me) and showing it to others for them to appreciate, ill believe in chimp art.

Since we have never seen a human do this in the wild, why do you assume that humans make art?

Since we have never seen a human do this in the wild, why do you assume that humans make art?
i feel that you are wrong in your assertion that humans dont make art in the wild.

i feel that you are wrong in your assertion that humans dont make art in the wild.

But do you have evidence?

If you consider Amazonian aboriginals to be living 'in the wild', then that would constitute evidence. But you would have to include their societal structure as 'wild' humans. You get into the sticky situation where a being that is capable of acting on aesthetic impulses may no longer be considered wild.

I guess I am looking for a definition of art that fully encompasses the human experience of art but excludes the chimpanzee experience.

Surely prehistoric cave paintings are examples of 'wild' humans producing art

Consider the following computer:

It is made up of several billion tiny integrated circuits, each of which is connected to a couple hundred others as inputs, and sends output to another couple hundred, according to a very simple, and easily programmed, rule: If more than about 100 of the inputs are turned on, then output is sent to all the others...Of course, you're going to say it's not thinking. But what I have just described is (approximately) a brain.

If that is a deterministic rule, then it is NOT a model of what the brain does. What you need is: if about 100 of the inputs turn on, it MIGHT or MIGHT NOT send output, depending on whether it "feels like it".
Each of these ICs plays the role of a single neuron, and acts roughly like a neuron does.

Except for the spontaneity which makes the brain the brain.
It is a matter of religious faith among "Strong AI" believers that the brain is a deterministic algorithmic system. I believe that is simply not true, and that the mechanisms within the brain for amplifying quantum-uncertain events so that they can have macroscopic consequences are essential: the freedom is not an illusion; it is the essence of what makes us what we are. In particular it is what makes creativity possible, which is the topic here at hand.

But do you have evidence?

If you consider Amazonian aboriginals to be living 'in the wild', then that would constitute evidence. But you would have to include their societal structure as 'wild' humans. You get into the sticky situation where a being that is capable of acting on aesthetic impulses may no longer be considered wild.

I guess I am looking for a definition of art that fully encompasses the human experience of art but excludes the chimpanzee experience.
you would have to start with an example of chimp art made without human involvement.

Surely prehistoric cave paintings are examples of 'wild' humans producing art

They are examples of early hominids making art. Many of these early hominids had cranial structures similar to modern chimpanzees.

And we can't know for certain that the protohuman illustrator had artistic intent. We can assume this based on modern human behaviour, but if we do that, we might as well assume that chimpanzees have the same intent for the same reason.

They are examples of early hominids making art. Many of these early hominids had cranial structures similar to modern chimpanzees.

And we can't know for certain that the protohuman illustrator had artistic intent. We can assume this based on modern human behaviour, but if we do that, we might as well assume that chimpanzees have the same intent for the same reason.
no

cave art is by true humans.

They are examples of early hominids making art. Many of these early hominids had cranial structures similar to modern chimpanzees.

And we can't know for certain that the protohuman illustrator had artistic intent. We can assume this based on modern human behaviour, but if we do that, we might as well assume that chimpanzees have the same intent for the same reason.

Definitely humans rather than other hominids. They are about 30,000 years old.

you would have to start with an example of chimp art made without human involvement.

Sure. Please define art for me.

no

cave art is by true humans.

Definitely humans rather than other hominids. They are about 30,000 years old.

Source.

Sure. Please define art for me.
art is a form of communication between artist and viewer done by a non-verbal medium like painting, sculpture, collage, etc. that tramsmits some kind of aesthetic idea.

Source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

not that it matters since the age of cave painting is immaterial to the point at hand.

Art is what created language.
Neanderthals, it has been discovered, invented the flute 80,000 years ago.
Neanderthals then invented language 79,980 years ago when the second generation of flute-playing Neanderthals began to grow up, and the first generation needed some way to express the thought, "UGH! These kids today, and their music!"

The interesting point about cave art is that the oldest is about 30,000 years old whereas modern humans have been around for about 200,000.

We did not produce art until fairly late. It is something that developed with culture not as an innate part of being human. It could be debated whether cave art is even art at all.

art is a form of communication between artist and viewer done by a non-verbal medium like painting, sculpture, collage, etc. that tramsmits some kind of aesthetic idea.

Then poetry is not art?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

not that it matters since the age of cave painting is immaterial to the point at hand.

You're correct. Since we can't show artistic intent, we can not use this as evidence that humans produced art in the wild.

The interesting point about cave art is that the oldest is about 30,000 years old whereas modern humans have been around for about 200,000.

We did not produce art until fairly late. It is something that developed with culture not as an innate part of being human. It could be debated whether cave art is even art at all.
there is no way to know eh?

its doubtful that it is pure art. but there does seem to be some kind of aesthetic rule being followed so it may well be "kinda art" in the same way that....tole painted chairs are kinda art.

Then poetry is not art?
*shrug*

if you want to make a case for it being art ill listen to it.

You're correct. Since we can't show artistic intent, we can not use this as evidence that humans produced art in the wild.
your point being?

we know that people make art without the intervention of chimps.

can we say that chimps make art without the intervetion of humans?

So what makes humans capable of creating complexities is that complex creation is a purely human property?

The complexity of human emotion.

If a chimp scrawls in the forest and there's no-one there to see it, is it art?

If a chimp scrawls in the forest and there's no-one there to see it, is it art?

I was wondering when someone would come up with one of these.:tongue:

*shrug*

if you want to make a case for it being art ill listen to it.

No. I don't think so. It is obvious that poetry is art, and that your definition is therefore wrong.

your point being?

we know that people make art without the intervention of chimps.

can we say that chimps make art without the intervetion of humans?

Point is that you asked for evidence that chimps do it in the wild, but you don't hold humans to the same standard.

The complexity of human emotion.

Do you have any evidence that complex emotional lives is uniquely human?

Do you have any evidence that complex emotional lives is uniquely human?

No, I do not have a concise study on the subject, if that's what you're asking for. But, just to check, have you ever seen a lion go through the deep, emotional ache of having it's companion taken by another lion? Because that happens almost everyday in the wild and you don't hear about lions going through counceling. Do you?

No, I do not have a concise study on the subject, if that's what you're asking for. But, just to check, have you ever seen a lion go through the deep, emotional ache of having it's companion taken by another lion? Because that happens almost everyday in the wild and you don't hear about lions going through counceling. Do you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316788/

That's a link to an article describing mourning behaviour in a captive chimpanzee.

http://www.janegoodall.org/Gombe-Chimp-Blog/detail.asp?Entry_ID=99

And one describing the same behaviour in wild chimpanzees.

*shrug*

if you want to make a case for it being art ill listen to it.What about theatre? Poetry and theatre aren't art by your definition?

I still don't think a specific communication of the artist's idea is needed for it to be art. Meaning is what the person who experiences makes it. If someone looks at a painting and finds symbolism that the artist did not intend, does it cease to be symbolism?

What about theatre? Poetry and theatre aren't art by your definition?

I still don't think a specific communication of the artist's idea is needed for it to be art. Meaning is what the person who experiences makes it. If someone looks at a painting and finds symbolism that the artist did not intend, does it cease to be symbolism?
You're walking a pretty fuzzy line here. Meaning is at once a combination of that which is made, that which is observed and that which is within the medium. It is possible to derive meaning from unintentional mess, it is possible to create acknowledged garbage from the best of intentions, it is possible that meaning be within a work and neither appreciated nor intended, and for any moderation of the three to be the case.

I think what a lot of people assert is that for something to be art necessitates meaning at all levels, from intention, through the medium to the observer. I don't think this's the case; a work can be art and yet fail to be appreciated, or be an unintentional masterpiece. What's fundamentally important is that the medium itself is a symphony of meaning. If you can view a piece outside of all context and still derive some sense of enlightenment as a result of it, it's Art.

You're walking a pretty fuzzy line here. Meaning is at once a combination of that which is made, that which is observed and that which is within the medium. It is possible to derive meaning from unintentional mess, it is possible to create acknowledged garbage from the best of intentions, it is possible that meaning be within a work and neither appreciated nor intended, and for any moderation of the three to be the case.

I think what a lot of people assert is that for something to be art necessitates meaning at all levels, from intention, through the medium to the observer. I don't think this's the case; a work can be art and yet fail to be appreciated, or be an unintentional masterpiece. What's fundamentally important is that the medium itself is a symphony of meaning. If you can view a piece outside of all context and still derive some sense of enlightenment as a result of it, it's Art.

Then you are saying that the work of the chimps is art if one of these three is present?

Neanderthals, it has been discovered, invented the flute 80,000 years ago.
Neanderthals then invented language 79,980 years ago when the second generation of flute-playing Neanderthals began to grow up, and the first generation needed some way to express the thought, "UGH! These kids today, and their music!"

:mad: I'm so sick of people snipping one section of everything I say.

:mad: I'm so sick of people

Me too ;)

A lot of differences come from individual ideas of what art is.

For me, it's the conscious creation of something that goes beyond utilitarian purposes.

So at some very basic level, chimps may create art, I've yet to see any evidence though.

However...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT-fctr32pE

That, for me, is indicative of the ability to create art, they're not trained to do this, and if chimps are equal to dolphins then I'd concede the possibility.

Then you are saying that the work of the chimps is art if one of these three is present?
I think that what makes it art is specifically that the Second is present; that is, that the work speaks its own meaning. A work's status as art is based on some objective abstract property that the relationship between its aspects creates an emergent complex meaning.

The difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that since it's an objective property of the work itself, whether something is Art would be intrinsically unknown and unknowable. We all have an opinion as to whether it's Art, and whether the paintings speak for themselves, and the artistic community can have collaborative and agreement of opinion (rarely universal, of course), but we can't actually make the final leap and say "that is Art", not even given universal subjective agreement. On the other hand, doesn't that seem reasonable, given the debate we have at the minute?

It's entirely plausible that the chimps could make art - in order to judge that to be the case, though, it needs to have meaning independent of the fact that it's the chimps that made it and of a specific observer's own imposition of meaning upon it. I'm not sure that what we've been shown does that in general (though I might suggest that the OP's image 3, in particular, has grounds to be considered an exception); on the other hand, someone without my ethnocentric paradigm might think differently.