- cross-posted to:
- art@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- art@slrpnk.net
In the forests of eastern Australia, satin bowerbirds create structures known as “bowers.”
The males gather twigs and place them upright, in two bundles, with a gap in the middle, resulting in what looks like a miniature archway. All around the bower the bird scatters small objects – shells, pieces of plastic, flower petals – which all possess the same property: the color blue.
Studies suggest that the purpose of the bowers is to impress and attract females. But their beauty and intricacy has left some researchers wondering whether they shouldn’t be considered art.
Of course, figuring out whether something is a work of art requires answering some tricky philosophical questions. Are animals even capable of creating art? And how can we tell whether something is a work of art rather than just a coincidentally beautiful object? As a philosopher and artist who’s interested in aesthetics and biology, I recently wrote about the evolution of behaviors in animals that could be seen as art.
You must log in or register to comment.
Humans are animals 😉
This feels like a super obvious “yes” if art is understood to mean aesthetically pleasing for the sake of aesthetically pleasing, which lots of things animals do is, unless someone is trying to gatekeep it as something that requires human intention or understanding.
What is the difference this article is hung up on between being attracted to blue things and finding blue things beautiful? Genuinely, what other definition of beauty could there be than a thing one is drawn to looking at? What could appreciation mean that the desire to see it doesn’t cover?
I doubt the birds have much in the way of literacy of their art but at baseline how could it not be art?
It’s so they can pretend that animals become artists to “attract mates” (get laid), as where us refined and evolved humans… uhhh… totally don’t do that.
