chimp art

[jts]

This post could go under Aesthetics or under Humor or under Garbage Pile.

Of these 4 paintings, 3 of them were done by a chimpanzee. Which one was done by a human?

There is a story about a brush was tied to a donkey's tail to paint abstract art and the painting was taken seriously.

[Brant Gaede]

I see three. The human one was the Mona Lisa?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

dup

[Brant Gaede]

This post could go under Aesthetics or under Humor or under Garbage Pile.

Of these 4 paintings, 3 of them were done by a chimpanzee. Which one was done by a human?

There is a story about a brush was tied to a donkey's tail to paint abstract art and the painting was taken seriously.

My guess is the middle one.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

The third of four did not display. Only a little blue question mark is there indicating a failed link and load.

Of the three that did come up, the middle one was done by a human. The white ovals in the upper right third show too much structure for a chimpanzee.

[Jonathan]

This post could go under Aesthetics or under Humor or under Garbage Pile.

Of these 4 paintings, 3 of them were done by a chimpanzee. Which one was done by a human?

There is a story about a brush was tied to a donkey's tail to paint abstract art and the painting was taken seriously.

Obviously the second was created by a human.

What's the point of this thread? Is it that you can't see the representational figure in the painting which was created by a human? It's a pretty, wispy, female form. Kind of innocent and doll-like.

So, what does it have to do with your mentioning a story about a brush tied to a donkey's tail to paint abstract art that was taken seriously? Along with chimp paintings, you show an example of representational/figurative art created by a human, and you can't see the figure, and therefore you can't tell the difference between it and abstract paintings created by humans, or between it and paintings created by chimps, and therefore we're supposed to come to some conclusion or other about abstract art being indistinguishable from chimp paintings, but we are not to conclude that you can't distinguish between representational/figurative paintings and abstract paintings or chimp paintings?

Fail.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Denis Dutton (The Art Instinct) on

"Chimpanzee Art"

I haven't read all of The Art Instinct, only about a fourth of it, not consecutively but in scattered sections pertaining to particular issues. I find much to criticize in the material I have read.

An issue on which I think Dutton got it right, however, is that of (non-human) animal art. "Animals," he says, in concluding a brief (two pages total) passage in his Introduction, "do not create art." Here are his remarks about "chimpanzee 'art works.'"

The Art Instinct

Bloomsbury Press, 2009

pg. 7

[bold emphasis added]

[....] Animal lover though I am, I am bound to say that it does chimpanzees no favors to promote their delightful scrawls to the status of art in the distinctly human sense defined in chapter 3.

In captivity, chimpanzees enjoy brushing vivid colors onto white paper. Indeed, physically altering the sheet - expressing what the philosopher Thierry Lenain has aptly described as the chimp's joy in "disruption" - is the very essence of the thing. Many chimpanzee "art works" exist as objects with aesthetic appeal to us only because trainers remove the paper at the right point; otherwise, the chimp will continue to apply paint till there is nothing to see but a muddy blob.

This "pseudo-artistic play," as Lenain terms it, is a moment-by-moment engagement with pigment that involves no planning or intellectual context. Human art not only requires calculation of effects, it also needs an intention to create something you're going to want to look at after you've finished. Here, the contrast with chimpanzees is most telling: once they have been interrupted, or have ceased of their own accord to brush on paint, chimps show no interest in their productions, never returning again to look at them.

Ellen

[Guyau]

This seems not in contradiction of Dutton’s observations about “chimp art,” but it seems to be a pretty good review paper on its title, relevant to our nature as well as nature of other animals:

Animal Aesthetics - Wolfgang Welsch (2003)

If we follow Darwin, animal aesthetics seems to arise exclusively in the context of sexuality and not, for instance, in that of cognition. According to recent research, however, some aesthetic preferences in animals, for instance the preference for regular shapes, refer rather to order, and hence to cognitive, not sexual interest. The context of their origin is environmental, and the preferences are concerned with typical properties of the animals' habitat.[103] So there are reasons for broadening the picture[104] and to look also for further advancements of the aesthetic -- in animals and beyond.

[104] It should indeed be easy to complement Darwin's primarily sexual aesthetics with cognitive aesthetics, as Darwin himself pointed out that intellectual capacities are important for the aesthetic sense and that both co-develop in the evolution of the cerebral system.

Elephants that Paint, Birds that Make Music

G. Kaplan and L. J. Rogers (2006)

.
Here is a charming look by David MacLagan into The Art Instinct.

Again, the remarks of Mohan Matthen at the Author-Meets-Critics session are here.

[Brant Gaede]

Denis Dutton (The Art Instinct) on

"Chimpanzee Art"

I haven't read all of The Art Instinct, only about a fourth of it, not consecutively but in scattered sections pertaining to particular issues. I find much to criticize in the material I have read.

An issue on which I think Dutton got it right, however, is that of (non-human) animal art. "Animals," he says, in concluding a brief (two pages total) passage in his Introduction, "do not create art." Here are his remarks about "chimpanzee 'art works.'"

The Art Instinct

Bloomsbury Press, 2009

pg. 7

[bold emphasis added]

[....] Animal lover though I am, I am bound to say that it does chimpanzees no favors to promote their delightful scrawls to the status of art in the distinctly human sense defined in chapter 3.

In captivity, chimpanzees enjoy brushing vivid colors onto white paper. Indeed, physically altering the sheet - expressing what the philosopher Thierry Lenain has aptly described as the chimp's joy in "disruption" - is the very essence of the thing. Many chimpanzee "art works" exist as objects with aesthetic appeal to us only because trainers remove the paper at the right point; otherwise, the chimp will continue to apply paint till there is nothing to see but a muddy blob.

This "pseudo-artistic play," as Lenain terms it, is a moment-by-moment engagement with pigment that involves no planning or intellectual context. Human art not only requires calculation of effects, it also needs an intention to create something you're going to want to look at after you've finished. Here, the contrast with chimpanzees is most telling: once they have been interrupted, or have ceased of their own accord to brush on paint, chimps show no interest in their productions, never returning again to look at them.

Ellen

Human art work only requires a human. Human is as human does. You cannot look at the most god-awful to you (or me) abstract painting you just saw someone create and say it's not a human art work because it was within the capability, we (opps!) think, of a Chimp. We (oops, oops!--sorry, Greg) cannot say therefore that what the human just did is not art whatever we (I give up, Greg, it must be my latent leftism) think of "Chimp art." It's like comparing astrology to science and saying there's astrology in science therefore it's not science because of some (seemingly) weird congruence.

Leave the Chimp, bring the rest.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Obviously the second was created by a human.

[...] the representational figure in the painting which was created by a human? It's a pretty, wispy, female form. Kind of innocent and doll-like.

[....] Along with chimp paintings, you show an example of representational/figurative art created by a human [...].

I agree about the second painting's obviously being done by a human, but I'm puzzled by your describing it as "representational/figurative." Why that description? Just because of the suggestion of a female form?

What of this painting? (Click on the image to the left for a full-screen view.) Do you describe that as "representational/figurative"?

---

I'm suspicious about the 3rd painting, the one which didn't show up when Jerry first did the post. The image url says it's a "painting-by-the-chimpanzee-congo-london-zoo." I suspect the help of significant maneuvering to get the result (assuming a chimp indeed was a participant in the production).

~~~

Stephen, Thanks for the quote and the links.

Ellen

[anthony]

"...remove the paper at the right point..."

In other words, it doesn't know when to end, where to start, or have a clue of what to achieve.

Ergo: A chimp is not a being of volitional consciousness.

But it surely took much pleasure in splattering paint.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not taking any paper away from a chimp.

I won't go near one.

--Brant

a wimp

[Jonathan]

Obviously the second was created by a human.

[...] the representational figure in the painting which was created by a human? It's a pretty, wispy, female form. Kind of innocent and doll-like.

[....] Along with chimp paintings, you show an example of representational/figurative art created by a human [...].

I agree about the second painting's obviously being done by a human, but I'm puzzled by your describing it as "representational/figurative." Why that description? Just because of the suggestion of a female form?

No, I am not limited to seeing, recognizing and identifying merely a "suggestion" of a female form just because you or others may be. I see very controlled, selectively stylized human proportions. I see a very clearly and easy-to-recognize-as-human form.

I suspect that you're not even referring to the same part of the painting that I am. Ellen, where in the painting do you think the figure is that I'm talking about? Describe its shape and colors. Which parts of the human body are shown, and which are not? Is the figure wearing clothing, and if so, what type of clothing and what color?

Btw, on the other thread, your latest post mentions your inability to see any "big picture" points that I claim to be making. Well, this thread, and your and others inability to see what I see, is yet another perfect illustration of one of my points.

What of this painting? (Click on the image to the left for a full-screen view.) Do you describe that as "representational/figurative"?

I would describe that image as containing very simple and childlike representations of identifiable objects. It's no where near to having the detail and controlled selectivity of the female form in this thread's second painting example.

J

[Jonathan]

"...remove the paper at the right point..."

In other words, it doesn't know when to end, where to start, or have a clue of what to achieve.

Ergo: A chimp is not a being of volitional consciousness.

But it surely took much pleasure in splattering paint.

No, I think the actual "in other words" is that human aesthetic selectivity was involved in the creation of the images, and probably in their being chosen for display because of their obviously higher aesthetic value than paintings which were created by chimps without any human selectivity involved.

J

[Jonathan]

How about anyone else here? Can any of you see the representational figure of the doll-like female form? Here's some help: Her proportions are stylized to be somewhat more like Precious Moments figurines than like an accurate representation of real human anatomical proportions.

Anyone?

J

[Brant Gaede]

If you mean the second pic, I think I do.

For the record, I sorta like the Chimp Art. It has a kind of paternalistic charm. The Objectivist estheticians are wanting to present paint and canvas and brushes to their own chimps--and take 'em away when "done." Maybe one in ten (a hundred?) might qualify for keeping and celebrating upstairs, out of the smelly oubliette.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

Oh, cool, Billy! Thanks for the detective work!

Let's look at some more of her art.

Can anyone here, other than Billy and me, see the representational figures in these? Anyone?

J

[Brant Gaede]

No wonder it was cropped.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Obviously the second was created by a human.

[...] the representational figure in the painting which was created by a human? It's a pretty, wispy, female form. Kind of innocent and doll-like.

[....] Along with chimp paintings, you show an example of representational/figurative art created by a human [...].

I agree about the second painting's obviously being done by a human, but I'm puzzled by your describing it as "representational/figurative." Why that description? Just because of the suggestion of a female form?

No, I am not limited to seeing, recognizing and identifying merely a "suggestion" of a female form just because you or others may be. I see very controlled, selectively stylized human proportions. I see a very clearly and easy-to-recognize-as-human form.

I suspect that you're not even referring to the same part of the painting that I am. Ellen, where in the painting do you think the figure is that I'm talking about? Describe its shape and colors. Which parts of the human body are shown, and which are not? Is the figure wearing clothing, and if so, what type of clothing and what color?

Btw, on the other thread, your latest post mentions your inability to see any "big picture" points that I claim to be making. Well, this thread, and your and others inability to see what I see, is yet another perfect illustration of one of my points.

What of this painting? (Click on the image to the left for a full-screen view.) Do you describe that as "representational/figurative"?

I would describe that image as containing very simple and childlike representations of identifiable objects. It's no where near to having the detail and controlled selectivity of the female form in this thread's second painting example.

J

Yes, I see the figure. A female head about center looking toward the painting's right and wearing some sort of flowing gossamerish attire.

However, the Kandinsky, though the human figures aren't as detailed, depicts a whole scene. What I'm wondering about is if you classify the Kandinsky as "abstract" while classifying the other one as "representational" and, if so, on what basis.

Ellen

~~~

The third painting from Jerry's post has disappeared again.

[Brant Gaede]

No wonder it was cropped.

(First illustration post 18)

[Ellen Stuttle]

However, the Kandinsky, though the human figures aren't as detailed, depicts a whole scene. What I'm wondering about is if you classify the Kandinsky as "abstract" while classifying the other one as "representational" and, if so, on what basis.

Also, how would you classify a stick figure?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Yes, I see the figure. A female head about center looking toward the painting's right and wearing some sort of flowing gossamerish attire.

Oh, so now you see the figure? Before it was only a mere "suggestion" of a figure, but now it's an actual figure?

J

[Jonathan]

However, the Kandinsky, though the human figures aren't as detailed, depicts a whole scene. What I'm wondering about is if you classify the Kandinsky as "abstract" while classifying the other one as "representational" and, if so, on what basis.

Also, how would you classify a stick figure?

Ellen

How would you classify rough or rudimentary figures? Perhaps as somewhere between abstract and representational?

J

[Brant Gaede]

Could we not say all art is a mixture of abstract and representational with variable ratios? Or, what is being represented is actually in our heads when we experience it hence it is also abstract by that metric? Art is a thing then, becomes an idea of sorts, frequently an idea with no word for a label.

I still think it's best to talk about various art forms not so much art itself for the word covers too much: a novel is art, music is art, etc. I do think this discussion is mostly about paintings. Music strikes me as purely abstract unless you add lyrics, maybe.

--Brant

my first two sentences may be contradictory

you know,after all is said and done artists will keep on doing what they were doing before