Dog "Art" Isn't
This is a fun story about a school that trains dogs to assist people with disabilities that came up with a novel way of raising funds for their important work: Dog "art." Here's the story:
The owner of a fledgling dog-training academy in Salisbury has come up with a bizarre money-raising scheme. Mary Stadelbacher figured that if she could teach dogs to become service animals for the disabled, why couldn't she teach them to hold a paintbrush and swab a piece of art? Two years later, the owner of Shore Service Dogs has a collection of abstract paintings created by her three service dogs in training. Twenty of the works are being shown this month at a gallery at Salisbury University.A nice little feature to start the week, worth a chuckle and nothing more? Perhaps, but I see deeper currents. Perhaps I am obsessed--and there is certainly evidence for that proposition--but I see the story of the dog "artists" as pertinent to the crucial issue of human exceptionalism.The doggie DaVincis also have a line of greeting cards that has sold out as word spreads about the unusual works of art. One of the original works has sold for 350 dollars.
The dog art isn't actually art--at least not art created by a dog. The dogs are not expressing their aesthetic yearnings or attempting to create a thing of beauty. Rather, they are engaging in trained behavior that, for them, has no deeper meaning.
(The same is true about similar elephant paintings that are created in India, an example of which is reproduced at the right margin.) Any artistic elements in this story spring exclusively from human activities, and thus, the story beneath the story is that the paintings made by dog and elephant "artists" illustrate the truth of human exceptionalism.Only we could train a dog to paint--indeed only we can intentionally create a species with desired characteristics like we did with dogs. Moreover, only we can paint splotches on canvas and intend it as an artistic expression. And only we can look at a painted canvas--whether created by an artist or a trained animal--and perceive deeper levels of beauty and elegance. (The elephant painting is pretty good, I think. I like the red.) Yes, indeed: This story is really about human exceptionalism, and the amazing activities in which humans engage that are unique in the known history of the universe.
Now, you can see why I am invited to few parties.
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Art
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:05 AM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
what about whale song?
It is a creative and spontaneous expression done for their own reasons, perhaps to express their thoughts and feelings or social bonding.
I'd call that art.
Ah, Royale: You made my point. YOU call that art. Whales don't. They don't know what art is. They make sounds WE perceive as beautiful. They communicate for purposes for their own, to be sure, and it almost surely is involved in some manner with survival, including perhaps social bonding, mating, keeping connected as a pod, etc. But to claim that it is akin to singing or to express thoughts or feelings is to anthropomorphize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeargle
HKR: Ah yes, I forgot about the venerable smeargle. That explains it all.
Hmmm, 2 things:
1. Humans engage in "art" for survival. So, assuming that ALL whale song was for survival alone, it still is creative and spontaneous.
2. Last I checked, no one really knew why whales sing. It could very well be to express their thoughts and feelings. So I can't rule that out.
Now, as for ME calling it art when whales have no word for art, that's like saying that just because the Japanese don't have a word for "love," they are incapable of love.
Royale: Humans have used art for survival, but mostly for other things unique to human life, e.g., creating beauty for beauty's sake; expressing rage and grief (think Guernica), recording history, etc.
Whales singing (as we call it) may be spontaneous, but it is most likely instinctive, not creative. Animals don't create in that sense.
There is no evidence to support your proposition about whales, as you acknowledge. There is plenty of evidence that all human societies have love, whether or not there is a word for it.
Just a thought. The moral majority will not allow these loony scientists to play around with our next generations to create super humans (quite right too). So what if these loony scientists instead decide to develop a super creature from, say dogs (or easier, chimps) as their starting material; and they produce a breeding race cleverer (more artistic) and less violent than humans. Fantasy, yes- but then “Brave New World” was fantasy; can you think of a reason why this couldn’t happen? You cannot argue “Human Exceptionalism”, as that just begs the question (unless you’re just talking like a football supporter “my team rules”, or one who demands they are a member of the chosen race). In a rewritten “Planet of the Apes”, where the apes actually did do things better than the humans used to do – would you respect it? Or perhaps we wouldn’t be able to understand ape art.
Sorry, I'm using an English keyboard set up with US software. Some characters take on ives of their own.
Anarkick: Thanks for writing.
Ah, yes: The uplifted ape scenario. But beyond this, your post seems to show an emotional commitment to human unexceptionalism, which I always find sad, if interesting.
Such fantasy hypotheticals are irrelevant to human exceptionalism, because we are what we are in the here and now in the real world as it is, and there is no reason whatsoever to knock ourselves off of the pedestal of exceptionalism--which gives us both rights and duties. I mean, if being human isn't what gives us responsibilities, such as treating animals humanely, what does?
Whether we one day meet advanced space aliens or turn chimps--which are at least as violent as humans, by the way--into genetically engineered super beings is a fun parlor game, but we should not allow such musings to impact our understanding of our species as being at the apex of evolution/creation (take your pick)in the known universe.
If chimps were so elevated, they wouldn't be chimps any more and we would have to assess their moral standing as a species based on what we found. If they were as intelligent as us, if they created like we do, if they were truly moral beings like we are, etc., our treatment of those beings would have to take those matters into account--just as we should now take into account chimps intelligence and need for social interaction. It might well be that there would then be two exceptional species, with both rights and duties. But until that day, we are it.
There was once a letter to the editor written in response to one of my animal rights columns. The writer angrily stated that I would refuse to recognize animal rights even if an animal were to write a symphony. But animals can't write symphonies. It was a rebuttal that didn't rebut because it took what isn't and pretended it was what is.
You’re good. But you wrote a book about the possibility of human exceptionalism taken beyond the laws of sense; I was merely positing the idea that unexceptional other species could be made exceptional by demented scientists; Brave New World for the rats.
I do not have an emotional commitment to human unexceptionalism, I merely asked a question (which you haven’t answered) . I am not stuck on these points (and, perhaps worry that you seem concerned to shout that us humans are great – why bother if we are?). Of course humans are exceptional; doesn’t always make them good, though. And, unfortunately, being human does not lead to us treating animals, or foreign peoples humanely. Chimps as violent as humans? I don’t think there were ANY chimps employed at Dachau, no Chimps in the air crews bombing Dresden. HELL, neither us Brits, nor the bloody Spaniards used Chimps to help us kill of indiginous races in America.
Great thesis; but it would sound a lot better if the human race really were a bunch of nice guys.
And remember, most of us (something like 99.99%) don’t write symphonies. Pretty close t the amount of non-human animals who don’t write symphonies – think about it. (In brackets – don’t be so arrogant; it my help with your general audience, but it puts the browsers off)
I'm not sure what book you are referring to.
Chimps are very violent, but they obviously can't do Dachau because they are incapable of envisioning the efficiency and technology. But they would wipe out a competing clan of chimps. But chimp "genocide" isn't evil. It isn't even wrong. It was what chimps do.
However, when we act that way, we act evilly. That makes Dachaus all too human, alas. We are the only species that can act evilly because we are the only species that are moral beings.
I did answer your question in the paragraph that begins, "If chimps were so elevated..."
Thank you for the comment, "Don't be so arrogant," because I just don't get that. Humans are the most advanced species known in the universe. That gives us certain claims and rights, but also responsibilities that no other species has. For example, would anyone expect an elephant to protect the environment?
It isn't arrogance. It is to recognize what is, it seems to me. Indeed, even denying human exceptionalism is an act of human exceptionalism.
I was referring to Consumers Guide to a Brave New World. Something that Huxley (if he were alive today) would probably object to. But never mind that. The actual question was; if some other species do get cleverer than us (by whatever means – that’s why I bring your book into it), where then in human supremacy? (the point of quoting the book was to remind you that you agree that the argument ‘no way can it happen’ is not a valid argument).
Somewhat irrelevant, but chimp genocide is seriously exaggerated (perhaps you’ve been reading Desmond Morris). Mind, I wouldn’t argue with a chimp.
Funny, though, you seem to be arguing now that what makes humans special is that we can be evil…
And yes, you are right; elephants will not be allowed to protect the environment, and even if they were it would not occur to them to do so. However, elephants do little towards destroying the environment. Humans are destroying the environment (and elephants).
So your point is that humans are morally superior because they care about, and want to improve the environment. While it is exactly them who are messing the environment up?
Actually, I think Huxley would be as worried about what is happening in biotech as I am.
I don't think it can happen. I think the space alien potential is the most likely, as very unlikely as it is. If they were more clever than us, then you would deal with what was, and we would cease to be the one exceptional species. But that would not diminish our rights or responsibilities.
I have been to the animal parks in Africa. Elephants tear the heck out of the environment. But hey, that's what elephants do.
We are not exceptional because we can do evil. Rather, it is because we are exceptional that we, alone, are capable of evil. And we are also capable of good. That comes from being moral beings, of which, so far, we are the only ones.
Don't you believe there is a hierarchy of moral worth?
re: Huxley
The beauty of literature is that each reader sees something different in the work. Thus, barring an admission by the author, it's all speculative what the author was going for.
So, everyone can say, "Huxley is on my side."
re: Whale song
OK, where are you getting your information?
Or, are you just assuming that whale song is un-exceptional simply because only humans are exceptional and whales are not humans?
Given that research into the social, intellectual, and creative complexity of animals repeatedly produces very surprising results, I would give the benefit of the doubt to whales that they might be highly exceptional.
And what is your definition of "art?" If your definition is so precise, then you can easily exclude whale songs or any animal "art."
Only picasso paintings are art. Whales cannot paint like picasso. Therefore, whales can't do art.
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/patterson01.htm
Wow! A gorilla with human-like intelligence?
In attempting to demonstrate that something is the case -- say, that animals have language -- the burden of proof is on whoever wants to make that point. It is not on anyone who is skeptical of the claim.
That is: if you say that Koko the gorilla, or a whale, or a parrot, has language, it is up to you to prove it. No one else has to disprove it (logically speaking it is impossible to prove a negative, anyway).
Since this conversation is happening at all, it is obvious that no such thing has been proven about any animal. For why would we be arguing about a fact?
The same goes for animal "art." If you can prove that an animal means anything by what it does, please show us. But don't ask us to disprove anything; that's a classic logical fallacy called "shifting the burden of proof," and only shows that you don't have any evidence to back up your claim.
For what it's worth, Wesley, I think you'd be a blast at a dinner party. At least there would be a guarantee of some thought-provoking discussion.
I do wonder why one of your posters seems so gung-ho about knocking humanity "off its pedastal"?
Don't get me wrong. I think its a sign of human goodness to love and respect animals. But it seems obvious to me that it would rob animals of their natural dignity if we turned them into freaks with human intelligence? So you manage to create a dog with human intellect. It still will have dog vocal anatomy, so it won't be able to speak. It won't have an opposable thumb, so it will have difficulty writing. And worst of all, it will have a consciousness of its mortality, and as we all know, dogs have much shorter life expectancies than humans.
Once the dog with a human brain figures out that its miserable predicament was preordained by some pinhead in a lab coat, I pity the research scientist who masterminded the fiasco. My best advice to anyone foolish enough to tamper with nature in this way is to experiment on little dogs. It will be harder for their victims to rip out their throats, that way.
BACC: Thanks for stopping by. Good point. Also note that the idea is to elevate animals to the level of humans in order to prove that humans are not exceptional. ?????
ROFL.. If I could afford to throw one, you'd be invited to mine.. {{{ hugs you }}}
Art for survival, oy, okayyy.. I consider web design "artistic", and I'm trying to make it pay off, ipso facto, I guess art for survival.. :))
Whale "song" as art.. Is human communication considered "art"..? :\
From: http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2004/03/the_things_you_.html
If you people worry about some activists trying to elevate other animals as humans, I think you need to worry about others who degrade humans as subhuman. Consider this quote: "Say what you like about the man, but his
analysis here is spot on. There really isn't any mystery to the
problems African countries are having, and one doesn't have to look to unfounded nonsense about African subhuman intelligence to understand what went wrong : as Lee Kuan Yew himself mentions, many of the first African leaders, like Sekou Toure and Julius Nyerere, were extremely intelligent individuals, well read and thoroughly versed in the ways of
the world. LSE-inspired marxism and the artificial natures of the
African states were the root causes of the disasters that subsequently unfolded"
HKR: This site is dedicated to making sure no human is demeaned as sub human. A corollary of human exceptionalism is intrinsic human value simply and merely because it is human.
Just came across this in a story on the spiritual vapidity of modern weddings. Apparently, to the delight of People magazine, a couple had their dog be the "best man":
“The rabbi said, ‘Can we have the rings?’ and my aunt let him out of his carrier to go down the aisle,” says Lisa. (Yes, he’s wearing a yarmulke.)
I guess as long as weddings are such farces nowadays, why not just turn them into comedy routines?
This has certainly been an interesting and thought-provoking post, as have the responses.
This may sound crazy, but what exactly does an animal artist have to do with human exceptionalism?
Exceptionalism - humans are the only creatures that we know of that grasp morality and make moral decisions. We're also the only creatures able to understand the intrinsic worth of others, both of our own kind and of animals. Therefore, all of us, from conception to grave, are exceptioanl and should be respected as such.
I don't really understand this connection to art. Things are pretty. They look nice. They please the eye. They smell nice. Some art tells a story or communicates an idea or emotion. Some art is just enjoyable to look at. Some art is repulsive and is generated to get a negative response.
Some animals like certian songs and "sing" along with them (my neighbor's dog adores "With Arms Wide Open" by Creed and will run over to howl along with it). They like the feel of certain fabrics. They like the way some paints look and will look at certain drawings or sketches for hours, the way they look out at the land around them when they're resting.
Morality, ethics, deeper emotional attachments that go beyond mere instinct - those all require an exceptional being (humans). Art may provoke those feelings that only exceptional beings have, but it provokes milder reactions that don't require exceptionalism, too. I feel no deep attachment to the Mona Lisa (The Last Supper's a different story, though).
Mona Lisa is pretty to look at. It has nice colors. It has a pleasant subject. My cat would feel as much looking at a rug I made and hung on the wall.
Teaching a dog or elephant to paint is just giving them some small tools and enough training for them to put a pretty color they may like, put it someplace where it shows up nicely, and makes a pleasant composition that appeals to them and to us. It's no Last Supper, but it's pleasing, and may be pleasing to them, too.
I'd agree that great art requires exceptionalism to appreciate, but some art doesn't require much more than finding patterns you like.
So, maybe I'm kookie, but I don't see how this pertains at all to human exceptionalism. I belive in human exceptionalism. I proudly stand on a pillar with everyone who shares any form of Human DNA, including my autistic nephews and my Godmother's son who has Down's Syndrom, and say, yup, we're exceptional, deal. But given everything I read in the original post and in the subsequent posts, I don't see how you could say, "A painting dog is evidence that humans aren't exceptional!" or "A painitng dog is evidence that only humans are exceptional!"
Maybe *I'm* the weird one who shouldn't be invited to parties.
It was a fun little entry, no big deal really, but it certainly received the responses I hoped for.
To your question: Only humans "do" art, whether to create it or appreciate it. A dog, as you noted, is behaving based on training. The elephant painted the pretty picture I put up. But the elephant doesn't know it is pretty. It just put paint on a canvas based on being trained to do so. Only humans can look at it and like or dislike it as art.
Your cat story is a perfect example. Your cat would just as soon sharpen her claws on the Mona Lisa as look at it. If the Last Supper weren't a wall fresco, she would just as soon pee on it or take a nap on it as be touched deeply by it as you are. (I have seen it. Close up, it isn't such a big deal. From a distance it takes on a three-dimensional quality that is quite amazing.) Van Gogh could have no meaning to her. But canvas, now that could have some good use in making her a better mouse catcher!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home