In "But They Don't Have Our Concept Of Art," Denis Dutton raises the issues of appropriation, colonialism, anthropological ethnocentrism, and aesthetic ethnocentrism.
I chose to respond to the question raised by DKJ in Q & A #10 through the issues raised by Dutton. I developed my philosophic inquiry from a bio-evolutionary, ecological viewpoint rather than an aesthetic or an anthropological perspective.
Individual and societal concepts of art are ecological reflections of the diverse historic, cultural, and environmental origins of the concept-holders. Given the great biodiversity of the planet’s natural communities, divergence in the composition of concepts between individual and group inhabitants would occur naturally along a continuum. Along this continuum, the nature and degree of conceptual divergence would reflect the degree of difference-intensity between the inhabitants’ respective natural communities. This intensity is remarkably related to each society’s original concept-producers and the ecologically-driven processes necessary for the fulfillment of their life-cycle requirements within their respective natural communities.
The life-cycle requirements of tribal individuals and communities of the Saharan Desert, Tibet, and the Amazon Jungle would necessarily be met through radically different means. This is true, as well, for the individuals and communities of Hong Kong, Montreal, and Los Angeles.
Adoption and modification of others’ goods and practices are normal elements in the evolutionary process; these traits are characteristically found among intelligent species.
I believe the appropriation of others’ goods is an instinctual element of the evolutionary process common to all species morphologically capable of such actions. Appropriative behavior originates from ancient survival mechanisms. Such primitive appropriative behavior is not dependent on cognitive intelligence.
Appropriative and cognitive behaviors can, and do, co-occur. Appropriative behaviors classically manifest as part of the developmental process in faunal species. Juvenile members of intelligent, sentient species may mature beyond appropriative behaviors if such behaviors are not necessary to the life-cycle success of the organism, and the organism has the necessary levels of mental and psychological health to function as a healthy member of their society.
Organisms displaying entitled, uncompassionate, or non-empathetic orientations would be considered lacking sufficient necessary, mental or psychological health to be viewed as viable members of their society. These traits have become more common in large, technologically orientated, consumptive-driven, Western-style modern societies.
Choosing not to appropriate an other’s goods is a reflection of an individual’s morality. Morality has resource relational and opportunity-dependent requirements, which are necessary for its creation and maintenance. A sufficient amount of necessary familial, societal, educational, genetic, and environmental resources in appropriate, but not necessarily specific, combinations can facilitate the moral development of individual persons.
Intelligence is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient requirement for moral behavior. Intelligent cogitation and morality should be the foundation of our conceptions of art, and our willingness to accept, to reject, or refuse to inappropriately judge others' concepts of art and artifacts.
The volumes of passionate discourse produced in arguments attempting to define art, and the inflamed proselytizing of a preferred concept by certain individuals and factions within some cultural, artistic, and philosophical societies, is what I find significant about competing theories of the nature of art.
Environmental biodiversity and bioproductivity in combination with cultural and cognitive perceptions could serve as cardinal influences in the development and composition of human-created concepts and artifacts. If that were the case, then environmental, biological, cognitive, and moral evolutionary processes could prompt re-conceptualizations of humankind's constructs.
Art, one of the constructs that human beings are the most passionate about, has the potential to perform as a pivotal axis around which humankind might progress to its next evolutionary rung.
Perhaps we might apply techniques of Biomimicry to art and constructs of art, viewing and valuing art based not in the context of what we can extract from it, but instead by what we may learn from it. (http://www.biomimicry.net/)
Questions:
1. Is art an organic element of evolution, biological in origin like morality - born out of a survival instinct, or does art only exist as a construct? Is it both, more, or other?
2. Why do so many people possess that passion-driven need to produce a defining determination of what constitutes art? What do you think humankind will gain from such a determination?
