Davies: Chapter One: Evolution and Culture

●        OVERVIEW

          ○        Does art have a natural/biological origin or a cultural/social one?

          ○        Positive or negative view of the role of museums for art

          ○        Tourist art, authenticity of native art, and double standards

          ○        Are the products of popular culture art?

          ○        Can we assume that ancient “art” is art?

●        ART AS NATURE VERSUS ART AS CULTURE

          ○        Biological vs cultural account of art’s origins

          ○        A nature/nurture argument  
     

●        Biological: 

• Activities involved in making and app art due to human bio evolution
• Art is universal and old

 ●       Cultural         

• Art a product of particular (recent) time and culture (localized at first)
• Art a product of 18^th century Europe
•  Concept of art familiar to us today emerged then
  

●        Arguments for biological account

●        Universal

          ○        Art exists all over the world and at all times

                    -        Mothers sing to children; people tell stories and dramaticize events in all cultures; they sing and dance, carve wood; all humans decorate and beatify env., bodies, and possessions

                    -        So they have music, drama, and art more generally

                              ■        Question 1.2, p. 21

●        Ancient

          ○        European cave paintings are 50,000 years old, as are some musical instruments

●        This art gives pleasure and value to those people

          ○        Even if functional as well (e.g., appeasing gods in ritual ceremonies)

●        Genetic story: Thus there is an underlying genetic disposition to art, passed from generation to generation because it enhances reproductive success of people who have such dispositions

          ○        Not one gene

          ○        Behaviors that genes code for are plastic and are molded by learning, development etc., namely shaped by socio-cultural context

          ○        Not denying art includes huge conventional and socio-historical component (but insisting it has strong biological component as well)

                    -        The contrasting cultural view insists that art behaviors are purely cultural and entirely contingent

●        Ways art might be adaptive (responsible for reproductive success)

          ○        Directly

                    -        Art behavior, like peacock’s tail, advertises our fitness as good mates (we are creative, talented, original, intelligent)

                              ■        So get more mates.....

                    -        Art intensifies and enriches our lives, brings us together and engenders cooperation and shared identity

                              ■        Enhances reproductive success by creating an env. in which individuals and their children can flourish

          ○        Indirect: Propensities to art not directly targeted by evolution but byproducts of other behaviors/capacities that were so targeted

                    -        These other behaviors/capacities are: curiosity, adaptability, intelligence, imagination, improvisational facility, patience

                              ■        These promote survival of people and their offspring

                    -        Once a creature with these behavioral capacities evolved and finds spare time it will inevitably use these talents to create and enjoy art

●        Arguments for Cultural Invention of Art (art purely cultural)

●        Distinction arts and crafts (saddle-making, boat building and plumbing)

          ○        Art products contemplated for own sake,

                    -        Ends in themselves

                    -        Value lies within them and not for benefits and uses of their effects.

          ○        Crafts aimed at useful function products serve

                    -        Means to an end

                    -        Value lie in the benefits they produce

          ○        Artist must be creative and original

          ○        Artisan not expected to be original

          ○        Good art not produced by slavish rule following or imitation      

          ○        Artisans follow rules, models, recipes

          ○        Good work of craft if matches template and performs desired function

          ○        Disinterestedness (DI) Spectator must distance herself from “interested” concerns: practical uses of art (personal or general)–so can have appro exp of pleasurable contemplation of work’s aes properties for own sake

          ○        User of a craft very much interested in its practical function and what benefits it can produce

●        Above conception of art a product of specific culture and history, not biology

          ○        Mid 18^th century, in Europe

          ○        Before 18^th century, “art” meant not nature (that is, anything created by humans)

●        Distinction between art and craft essential to our modern conception of art

          ○        Since no such distinction existed until 18^th century, there was no art before 18^th century

●        Before 18^th century, various artforms not recognized as comprising a unified group

          ○        Music was classed with math and astronomy

          ○        Poetry with grammar and rhetoric

          ○        Individuality not expected or highly valued

          ○        “Artists” were servants of church or court

                    -        Bach was a church composer who produced new music weekly

          ○        Only later did “artists” in our sense emerge

                    -        Independent, large numbers, signed as opposed to anonymous works, emphasis on originality, idea of artist as inspired and creative in ways artisans are not

          ○        Change in social status of artists due to emerging econ power of middle class who could patronize arts

●        Conclusion: Art not ancient and universal, but recent and localized socio-philosophical creation.

          ○        See question about facemask used once, 1.5, p. 21

●        Follows that: Non-Western cultures (and western culture prior to 18^th century) do not have art in our sense

                    -        Though not creators of art, they “have own functionally similar practices”

          ○        Or:

          ○        Their objects can become art by being appropriated into the western art world

          ○        If western culture has become thoroughly globalized, people from other societies make art now

●        Objection: What about Leonardo da Vinci (1400s), Shakespeare (1500s), Greek Tragedy? All before 18^th century

          ○        Leonardo would probably not have distinguished his painting from the practical products of artisans as sharply as we do.

●        ANCIENT ART

●        Can we just assume that ancient rock paintings (or non-Western dances) are art, without knowing the intentions of the makers of the ancient pictures or how they were regarded or used in those cultures?

          ○        Could argue that this would make us unable to fully (or properly) interpret these artworks (figure out their symbolic, metaphorical or religious meanings), but we can still identify them as art.

●        And we identify them as art because of their formal beauty, such as grace elegance and balance

          ○        Obvious someone gone to great trouble to create them and that these properties are important to the thing’s function or valuable in own right

          ○        If such properties marginal or absent, not art

●        Objection: But if (formal) beauty is the mark of art, much contemporary art would not be art (as not beautiful)

          ○        Some of this sets out to be ugly

●        Reply: Claim is not beauty nec for art, but that in the history and origin of art, properties that universally strike the audience as beautiful will be present

●        ROLE AND STATUS OF THE ART MUSEUM:

          ○        Tension between community-based art versus museum-based art

●        Negative

          ○        Separating art from context of creation and role in community, destroys its relevance and power

          ○        Art should intensify and add significance to people’s lives by its immediate involvement in things that directly affect them, like religion and rites, work/entertainment

          ○        When we put art in a museum/symphony hall, it can no longer engage with daily existence of community

          ○        Examples

                    -        Take Bach’s cantatas out of their performance in 18^th century church services and play them in a symphony hall (undermines their meaning/nature?)

                    -        Rip altarpieces from churches and display in museum

                    -        “Acquisitive imperialism has seen global harvest of statues from cultures around the world”

                              ■    Ancient marble statues removed from Athens, Greece in 18^th century have not been returned from British museum even though Greek government requested it

          ○        Displaying art in a warehouse, pinned and labeled, kills it, alienates if from setting in which it matters to ordinary folk, thus impoverishing their lives

          ○        See question 1.6, p. 21 (Japanese tea cups)

          ○        See question 1.7, p. 22 about work songs and authentic performances

●        Positive

          ○        Art museums provide for undisturbed contemplation of art and this is the proper way to appreciate it

          ○        Contextualizing artworks by ordering them by artist/period/style is best for their appreciation

                    -        Consider listening to boring church sermons in order to hear Bach’s music

                    -        Gloomy interior of churches are poor conditions for viewing carvings and paintings

          ○        High art been created for museum/concert hall; they are its natural home

          ○        Museums bring art out of hands of private wealthy people and put it on public display for people who might otherwise not see it

          ○        Museums guard and treasure art that would otherwise have been lost

●        Museums changing

          ○        Material from other cultures transferred from natural history to art museums

          ○        Display products of domestic skills such as weaving, quilting, and sewing

          ○        Theme rooms that bring paintings, sculptures, rugs, furniture that might coexist outside the museum: show how art integrated in social context

          ○        Is this good or bad?

●        TOURIST ART

●        Double standard and romantic ideological toward native ‘primitive” arts

          ○        Cultural tourists seek out spiritual nourishment in what they identify as art in these primitive cultures

          ○        Use standards of authenticity not apply to western artists/art

                    -        No problem if American composer is influenced by music from foreign culture

                    -        No problem if American uses an instrument manufactured in Japan

                    -        Not condemn a performance because it is staged for a fee-paying audience who are mostly tourists

          ○        Performances of non-Western music in indigenous contexts dismissed as inauthentic if any taint of Western influence or commercialism

●        See question 1.1 p. 20-21

●        STATUS OF POPULAR ART

●        If view art as old and universal likely to be inclusive and regard modern pop entertainments as art

          ○        Even if not of the best kind

●        If view art as product of 18^th century, likely to be more conservative

          ○        Put art on higher pedestal than ordinary occupations and functional artifacts

●        Critique of pop art

          ○        Conservatism that equates art with highest achievements of Western civilization

                    -        Distinguish fine art from other cultural products aimed at amusing or entertaining

          ○        Distinguishes art from works of pop entertainment

                    -        Which are despised along with the crafts

          ○        Because entertainments aim to be accessible, they target lowest common level of taste and rely on stereotypes and formulas that inhibit audience’s imaginative and critical engagement

                    -        But don’t thriller genres (example of pop art) demand imaginative engagement and critical analysis from audience?

●        Some not oppose folk or popular art as such, but mass art, product of tech of mass dissemination