home

 

Dennis Dutton

The art instinct

This is one of several books I read on ''the origins of art''. A year ago I read a book about art in different cultures, which included an essay with the title ''The Arts After Darwin -Does Art have an adaptive function?'' Maybe that is why i was a bit disappointed with the book of Dutton -he does a lot of explaining for the uninformed reader. When he does offer new information, it mostly illustrates old theories.

Dutton describes how our sense of beauty helped us survive throughout our evolution: we like green landscapes, good looking partners and such. He then gives 12 aspects of art: for instance ''skill'' and ''originality''. You would think he would systematically talk about possible evolutionary origins for these aspects, but he doesn't. After defending art as a concept or phenomenon that exist in all cultures, he talks about storytelling and how it could help people survive. From language he moves to art as the result of sexual selection: people show off how good they are at something. Because we want our partners to have good mental capabilities, we judge them not just by their attractive bodies, but also by their taste, originality, intelligence -of which we can find proof in their art.

Other explanations of art he explicitly rejects: art is in essence not moral, religious or political. Art is in essence not social. His defense of these rejections, at the end of the book, is short and not very convincing. I would say that religion and fantasy are important: isn't art not partly the result of our inborn capability for escapism, or to overcome stress? Singing a song to forget how tired you are, looking at a flower after a friend died, writing a poem about him, dreaming that his soul has transferred to an animal.

To illustrate that art is not for social cohesion, Dutton talks about the members of a famous string quartet who actually hate each other . He argues that this can not be explained by the theory of art as a means to reinforce social cohesion. But of course it can: you can equally argue that this example proves how music can bring difficult characters together. If these four man would be forced to work together in another complicated matter, say, hunting down a mammoth, their playing together will have taught them how to overcome their differences temporarily for a greater good.

Talking about playing, Dutton doesn't write much about play. Play seems to be important in the development of animals: rewarding curiosity, combining social and motoric skills - isn't the connection with art obvious? You could devote a whole chapter to this, but  Dutton doesn't seem so interested. His rejections of social and moral origins of art are not only unconvincing, they also directly contradict his theory of art as the result of sexual selection. Earlier he acknowledged that you would find a partner with some moral virtues more attractive, because he would be a good parent and helper. I can think of more: not only a partner, you would like the leader of your tribe also to show some creativity, intelligence and moral standards. That leader will of course have more chances to procreate. The sexual selection could also be more complex: the leader is more likely to keep you alive if you can provide him
with things that make him look strong and intelligent. So art, politics, morality and sexuality are intertwined, and the basic brain circuits for appreciating and creating art can all together have evolved in order to deal with this complexity. In fact, this combination is what we see in Shakespeare, Caravaggio, and Mozart opera's. The immorality of the characters does not, as Dutton states, prove that art is not essentially moral, to the contrary, moral statements are often made by examples of evil. And there is more to explore in this direction: researchers of morality nowadays recognize some intercultural moral concepts, like purity. Lack of purity can lead to disgust. Disgust for impure food, for impure race, for a mix of styles in an artwork. Just like the love for the green landscape, this developed taste has to do with competition, health, survival, but not necessarily with sexual selection. I will not talk about philosophical questions he avoids, such as: is the origin of art also it's essence, partly because I read the book in Dutch and I don't know if all the concepts were translated accurately.  I think I made my point about the limitations of Duttons view. However, I also have things to say in his defense. If you would think that Dutton kills the magic of art by rationalizing everything, that is not what he does. He talks with an honest passion about the art he loves. But in a way, this makes his theory even less convincing. The great experience that art gives him, deserves a greater theory.