this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
28 points (83.3% liked)

Art

679 readers
1 users here now

This is a community for art in any medium. Welcome!

Rules:

  1. This is a community to discuss all things related to art. Posts should be relevant to art, such as sharing art or news about art. To clarify, when we say "any medium," this includes media such as painting, film, music, literature, performance, video games, etc.
  2. Keep things civil. Critiquing art is fine but attacking other users for their opinions is not.
  3. Avoid excessive self-promotion. Yes, this is subjective and will be based on how popular this community becomes overall. If you can see a post about your own work on the first few pages, don't post another.
  4. Follow site-wide rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Photographer
jeffw
28
Making art is a uniquely human act, and one that provides a wellspring of health benefits (theconversation.com)
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw to c/art
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sterile_Technique 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Making art is definitely NOT uniquely human.

Just off the top of my head, there are birds that collect ornaments to decorate their nests to attract a mate, fish that sculpt complex patterns into sand for the same reason, and an elephant and an ape or something that were trained to paint (by a human, so admittedly a bit of a stretch, but still)

Bears have also been observed stopping to just sit and watch a sunset/rise, so while I'm not aware of any actually producing art, there are at least examples of non-humans capable of appreciating the same type of beauty that many art forms seek to capture.

[–] scrion 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

These are behaviors to attract a mate, so they serve a function and trigger an evolutionary response in the mate to be attracted. Just because the patterns and structures appear pleasing to us does not make them art.

There are pieces that are visually unappealing, but are with certainty still considered art.

I'd compile a list of different definitions of art (Beardsley, Danto, Dickie, Ranciere, Stock, Carroll, Zangwill etc.) and see if, given the context, the fabrications and behaviors of animals could be considered art - I've had similar conversations in the past and would love to take your position, but a better argument needs to be made in order to support that claim. Should I get a chance to do that homework anytime soon, I'll update this post.

[–] Sterile_Technique 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I mean, I can paint someone a picture with the hope of getting laid, it's still art.

Sex aside, producing art still satisfies other evolutionary responses like boredom.

None of that's a deal-breaker to be considered 'art'.

[–] scrion -1 points 5 months ago

Generally: Necessity and sufficiency

Not every painted picture becomes art. But before we dive into the discussion, let's talk semantics: if you're talking about art in the context of the expression or manifestation of an artistic skill or handicraft, then sure, the intricate products created by animals as part of their mating rituals are artworks.

However, so is every crayon painting created by a toddler in kindergarten. If that's what you'd like to talk about, I'm with you.

[–] Dkarma -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Someone doesn't understand the concept of agency do they???

Lol wow.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That's a whole other can of worms

[–] MikeOToxin 1 points 5 months ago

Ever seen an octopus nest?

Tell me that's not art.

So many other creatures make art. This is so reductive.