Conniff: The Natural History of Art.

Are genetics a puppet master to art? I don’t know. I did really like the article though. I think there were a lot of good points, and a lot of things I hadn’t thought of before. I don’t know if I really buy the argument that our aesthetic preferences are ingrained into us through art… I, for one, tend to like forest scenery as much as Savanna-esque scenery. But I think the author of the article would argue that forests were historically a danger to primates and early humans, so I must like them because I want to be prepared for danger. Following this argument, couldn’t I say that the real reasons we are predisposed to Savanna landscapes is not because they remind us of our early homes, but because we are afraid of them? Looking at the pictures of Africa scenery throughout the article, I feel more dread than safety. The Savanna makes me think of lions and hyenas, and the fact that the whole thing is an open plane. I would prefer more dense landscapes if I were an early human, because they’d provide more cover. The open plain of the Savanna really makes me more nervous than comforted.

Someone in class brought up the point that if our DNA really does predispose us toward certain types of art, then why do we go through artistic phases? Styles like abstract art don’t really jive with this theory.

The portion of the article about eye patterns, however, is really interesting. I knew about eye patterns on butterfly wings, I hadn’t really connected scales or leopard fur to eyes, but I had never even considered wood patterns. One wall of the living room in my apartment is covered with these eye patterns, and it is pretty creepy now that I’ve connected the dots on the subject. I don’t think I’ll ever look at trees the same way again.

-->Ashley<--