Artes plasticas and emotion

Count Tolstoy wrote "The whole science of aesthetics fails to do what we might expect from it, being a mental activity calling itself a science; namely it does not define the qualities and laws of art. 

I carefully defined visual art following Dickie (1971:41), who wrote regarding classificatory definitions, that the definition needs to "specify the necessary and sufficient conditions needed for something to be a work of art. A necessary condition for being an X is a characteristic which any object must have in order to be an X. A sufficient condition of an X is a characteristic, which, if an object has that characteristic, it is an X."

As Socrates argued, if we examine a word's usage, we will find some element that is common to all examples of being, but not to other things, and then we will be able to isolate that element as the essence which the defines the category of things. 

I accept that art is human-made. I will discuss animal "art" at some point.Art arouses an emotion, referred to by some as the aesthetic emotion, meaning a unique emotion aroused only by making and viewing art. 

I carefully omitted the function of art when I defined it. As arouse emotion is a function I omitted it from my definition, writing that 

This definition, while appealing, has a number of problems. First, it fails to distinguish what art is from what art does (e.g., arouse an emotion). Further, it runs the risk of being tautological, inferring a mental state from the art and then using the mental state to explain art (Lewis-Williams 1982). In addition, although the emotion aroused by art is said to be pleasure, much of art is said to arouse grave feelings, or it may leave the viewer bewildered, confused, nonplussed, unsure of any emotional reaction (Anderson 1979). Indeed, art may not arouse any emotion; it may arouse “no aesthetic interest” (Brothwell 1976). Another issue, as McEvilley (1992: 161) noted, is that “one serous problem with a definition of art that stresses aesthetic or expressive qualities is that such a definition eliminates much of what has been called art for the last seventy years.”I recognize that the emotions associated with visual art and ritual can be profound. I also recognize, however, that not all viewers would have shared my response and that emotions are fleeting and difficult to articulate (Anderson 1979). Further, I don’t know what emotion the dancers were experiencing and I cannot tell you what thoughts or beliefs might have inspired their behavior. Are we really safe in assuming that all dancers share the same emotions, thoughts, and/or beliefs?

A more serious issue here, however, is that emotions and mental processes probably exist because of the influence they have on behavior, particularly social behavior. An exclusive focus on art and emotion may lead us to ignore art’s social effects. The assumption that any emotions associated with a behavior implies that the behavior is necessarily adaptive can lead even scientific studies astray. Eating high fat foods can be pleasurable; eating many such meals could help promote an early death from chronic disease. While the scarcity of fat in our ancestors’ diet may have promoted our ancestors’ taste for fat, fats are no longer a dietary scarcity. Environments change, and behaviors that were once adaptive may no longer be adaptive. To turn to art, we may say art arouses emotions, but have to ask what art and in whom does it arouse emotion. We don't know whether or not emotion is universally experienced by viewing or making art. We cannot know if art evolved because of any possible emotions associated with it nor can we argue that even if emotions were associated with art in the ancestral past that such emotions are currently adaptive - could art lead us to behave in maladaptive ways?  

The point of this discussion is not that thoughts or emotion, or even the presumed aesthetic emotion, are irrelevant to visual art. In fact, we can assume that visual art attracts us because it interests us, presumably by provoking some emotion. However, even if we assume that art does arouse an emotion, we still do not know what elicits the emotion. Is it aroused by the color, pattern, form, technique, or the experiences associated with the art object? 

This said, today I was reading  a book entitled Ancient Art and Ritual, written by Jane Ellen Harrison (LL.D and D.lit). It was published in 1913. She wrote, in regard to music, that not everyone responds to music - that people can be tone deaf. However, if they do respond emotionally to the music it is a much more profound experience. I need to think about that a little bit. Any suggestions, please let me know. 

Other possible characteristics to possibly be discussed at another time are 

Symbols and meaning

creativity and individualism 

Food rituals

Today, I was reading an article  by Marin (2010) on ritual architecture in complex hunter-gatherer communities. I was surprised and pleased to find a section on food rituals that basically says food rituals - feasting activities - played a critical role in transegalitarian societies. food rituals typically involve the consumption of special or exotic foods. they often are done in special places and at special times and may also involve ceremonies - dance, music, etc. 

I have coauthored a paper on food rituals (see reference below) and have long thought that food rituals are of particular importance - they are ancient and practiced around the world. This led to me the question of what effect the loss of such rituals has had and whether or not that loss may play a role not only in the weakening of families but in our obesity epidemic.

We know that our ancestors began to ritualize behaviors associated with food procurement, preparation and consumption as far back as 20,000 years ago, around the time that our ancestors began to domesticate plants. It was at that time that they began making ground stone tools (e.g., mortars, pestles and milling stones). They also made pottery vessels that they used to prepare and to share food. The analysis of residues in vessels dating back to the Pleistocene, between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, in sites located in Japan suggests that these vessels were used for the preparation of marine products and terrestrial foods. By the Neolithic there is evidence that pottery was used to serve food and drinks to larger groups. Further, more attention was being paid to producing a better quality pottery. As Halstead points out, the care and skill lavished on Middle Neolithic pottery "underlines the social importance of hospitality." The use of finer pottery and the serving of food to larger groups also are strong suggestions that they were performing food rituals.

People around the world regularly perform food rituals. Some food rituals are simple - e.g., the evening meal - while others are more complex - e.g., a seder. They are characterized by the fact that they occur in special places (e.g., a dining room, a religious building) and at special times (which can include events like thanksgiving or an evening meal held at a certain time). They also can involve the use of special equipment in the preparation of the food (and remember the preparation was often a highly social event) and the use of special food serving items. Food rituals also include a predictable sequence, with some beginning with a prayer, and among the foods eaten (e.g., salad main course, desert). Finally, good manners are typically required. 

          In regard to obesity, the ritualization of any behavior not only results in the slowing down of the behavior, but food rituals help people restrain their consumption. Food rituals typically last longer and are more highly social than a non-ritualized meal. As Bossard and Boll argue, food rituals provide the mechanism through which important social ties are established and nurtured. Rituals also reinforce family identify, thus giving all family members a sense of belonging. Food rituals are powerful organizers of family life and they serve as strategies that promote the stability of the family in times of stress and change. In Africa, family rituals promote consensus building and assist in resolving conflict and rebuilding broken social relationships. In times of change, including migration, the continuation of family food rituals can help keep families strong.  

In China, family rituals are said to be key to Chinese culture. So important were family rituals that S. W. Williams would claim that family rituals had “an influence in the formation of Chinese character, in upholding good order, promoting industry, and cultivating habits of peace thrift…” In Aboriginal families in Australia, rituals have been found to strengthen family relationships and communication.The family, Demir writes is “the buffer institution in the society. During times of social change, family ensures the smooth functioning of this transformation process in the society. For this reason, the institution of family is of vital importance for every society.”

NOTE: all references provided on request or are listed in the Coe article below. 

Coe, K., Benitez, T., Tasevska, N., et al. (2018). The use of family rituals in eating behaviors in Hispanic mothers. Family and Community Health, 41(1): 28.

Morin, J. (2020). Ritual architecture in prehistoric hunter-gatherer communities: A potential example from Keatley Creek on the Canadian Plateau. American Antiquity, 73(3) 599-625. 

Visual art: The replicable unit

I remember once, in the dark of night, wrestling with the idea of  the transmission of ideas, which everyone seems to talk about and accept. However, truth to tell, can ideas be transmitted? Do they leap with abandon - or caution - from head to head? Do we all share a great consciousness from which we draw ideas in the dark of night or light of day? Did our mothers lower their foreheads to ours, when we were wee children sitting on their laps, so we could absorb their thoughts?

I thought not. Now that that issue is settled, a second and related issue is persistence, not only transmission from one individual to another, but from one generation of kin to the next. I assume the transmission, for a great many years - millenia - was between kin because our ancestors lived in small groups of kin. Although we may see little cultural persistence these days, it certainly was characteristic of the past. 

To quote M. G. Houston (1920: 2), “we are confronted with an extraordinary conservation or persistence of style, not only through the centuries, but through millenniums [sic].”  Boas (1955: 144, 169) referred to this continuity in style as “fixed type” or “fixity” of design and form. Despite Alexander’s lament that he is “not optimistic about the usefulness of searches for unalterable or ‘basic’ human social behaviors as a method for solving our problems” (1987: 9), the millennia that traditions have lasted suggest that humans often had fairly stable social strategies.

So, I have argued that the replicable unit, a unit that persisted across vast swaths of time, was the use of color, pattern, and or form used solely to attract attention to a body, object or message. Art is not a meme, if a meme is an idea. Art is a behavior - painting, sculpting, dancing singing, making music.... 

A third related question is does visual art have a function? Replication, particularly across generations, seems to imply a function. Don't we tend to copy things we observe that "work" - that have an effect we want to create? 

Many scholars, some quite famous, do argue that art - any of the arts, has no function, that art merely exists or that it "exists for its own sake." One implication of Darwin’s theory is that behaviors we now regard as characteristic of our species, and that would include visual art, persisted precisely because they did have a function. As art is a universal and ancient cultural behavior, which has persisted despite costs that can be quite high, it quite possibly is an adaptation that, at least in the past, must have been important to humans.  As an aside, the cost of art involved not only learning the techniques and perfecting them, to the degree necessary, but also the actual time spend in the application of color or the modification of form. It also included the time spent acquiring the necessary resources, which could be quite arduous and which could involve facing danger. It is said that the Australians had to cross into enemy territory to get the pigments they needed.  

So, next time I will continue talking about art and make suggestions regarding its many functions. I really don't know why I am, after a hiatus of so many years, decades even, talking about art. For a long time it seemed that life held so many other challenges that needed to be addressed. 

Thinking of many  things:

This morning, at 3am when I woke up, many thoughts cluttered my mind when I tried to decide what to write. 

First, I thought about heroines - the strong women in tales of the past. I am perhaps one of the only woman in the US who mourns the loss of that work, the ownership of our own brand of heroism. That topic, however, would take a lot of time and research and I need to work on my book, work on the quilt I am making, and finish the mosaic I have done.

As an aside, making a quilt is a daunting activity. It is beyond my scope of comprension how they can make a quilt like a log cabin or whatever, and end up having enough fabric. If you go near to the end without enough what would  you do? They must be amazing planners with mathematical minds.

Second, the thought of writing about the origin of storytelling seemed intriguing - I am writing about it now for another project. We assume that humans could tell stories when, based on cranial volume, they had evolved a brain that was  big  and complex enough to do things like store vast amounts of information and had evolved other biological traits, like the hyoid bone, which would make made speech possible. What these probably mean is that we had language and there is no way to know for sure that stories were being told. It seems clear to me that the earliest evidence is found in cave art, which clearly seems to tell stories. Maybe someday. 

Third, I thought a bit about braces - straightening teeth. What is that communicating - affluence? meeting our own idea of what looks good? In many countries they are not as interesting in that expense and process. 

Fourth, though it doesn't seem like such a good idea in the light of day, i thought if might be interesting to write about recipes.  I was reading some messages about recipes for cooking game.  I thought of  

Recipes for Cooking Bambi and his Friends

Cooking Curious George with Carrots and Kale

Roasting Rudolph over an Open Fire, or 

Cooking with Jiminy Cricket 

Cooking Turtle in a Taurine: what to do with the turtle or won the race and collapsed from exhaustion. 

Or (because we now know trees communicate) Killing your tree's best friend: how to heal a broken heart.

Enough of this tomfoolery - hum, what word did we use for goofy girls? 

Pecking Orders, Hierarchies, Cabbages and Kings

A while back, it was probably over a year ago and thus the information in this post may be out of date, I listened to a lecture on dominance. Dominance is an interesting word. Basically it means have influence of power over another person. 

It seems to me that influence over and power over might be referring to two different things - a hierarchy versus a pecking order. Some people are interested in dominance/power. I am not really, it is sort of boring as so much has been written about it.  

Power refers to the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. The sentence used to explain power was -  "she had me under her power", which seems to suggest that to some degree the "powerful person" is using her "power" to serve her own interests. 

Influence, on the  other hand, refers to: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. A synonym, on the other hand, seems to be less self-interested, but perhaps not.

Anyway, the deeper you try to figure this out, the more confusing it gets, as influence can be defined by power and power by influence. I, however, wonder if they are not quite different things and maybe the dictionaries are not precise enough.

Here is what I wrote, long about, about hierarchies, as nearly everyone agrees that the  these terms have something to do with rank - the person at the top of a hierarchy has influence or power over the person below. 

Anyway, here is how I tried to explain it: long ago

The Maternal Hierarchy

Mammals are distinguished by a ranked relationship; offspring are subordinate to, or dependent upon, a mother who guides, while offspring follow. The prolonged immaturity of human and primate offspring reflects not only their dependency, but also the mother’s responsibility. The survival of offspring depends fundamentally on this long-term ranked relationship. The first human hierarchy, or ranked relationship, was that between the mother and her child. Humans appear to respond to such hierarchies and form them often. This hierarchy, which is part of kinship systems in many parts of the world, not only  “provides the child with a blueprint for the parameters of most anticipated social interaction” but, as Tonkinson (1978: 12) described among the Mardujara of Australia, it allows children to learn “the norms of appropriate kinship behaviors…without over-coercion from adults.”

Mothers have seldom been seen as shedding light on human hierarchies, despite the fact that as early as 1651, Hobbes (1946:131) recognized that the first human ranked social relationship was that between a mother and her child. He wrote that “in the condition of mere nature, where there are no matrimonial laws…the right of dominion over the child depends on [the mother’s] will.” While Hobbes then ignored this ranked relationship, he implied that mothers used their influence to promote the survival of their offspring and to encourage their offspring to cooperate with her and with each other.

Although Hobbes used the word “dominion,” a more appropriate term to use when speaking of the mother-child relationship may be hierarchy (Steadman 1997). Hiero, the root of the word, is a Greek word meaning sacred or keeper of sacred things; archos means to rule or lead. Hierarchs were leaders of religious groups or societies and obligated not only to supernatural beings (often ancestors), but also to the people whose servant they were said to be. Hierarchy, rather than implying exploitation, may imply generosity, obligation, and even subordination (Santos Granero 1991: 229; van Baal 1981). A hierarch is defined by service, not merely by rights. Hierarchs, like ancestral mothers, are obligated to those who are older, one’s ancestors, and those who are younger, one’s descendants or metaphorical children.

The association of high rank and duty or obligation is not confined to hierarchs living in the classical world. According to Barrera Vásquez (1980: 343-344)

Maya hieroglyphic script talks about ‘lineage authority’ using the Yucatex Mayan term kuch, which refers to burden, such as a burden that is carried on a tumpline against one’s back, a burden of conscience, a responsibility, an obligation, or the authority of an office.

The higher ranked individual, in a hierarchy, is a servant to the lower ranked individuals. To paraphrase van Baal (1981: 114), the higher a person’s position in the hierarchy of power, the more is expected, the greater are the obligations.

The exploitation of subordinates, often assumed to be a privilege of rank, is true of a pecking order, not a hierarchy. A pecking order is distinguished from a hierarchy in that the individual at the top has dominance or rank, but no obligations to the one(s) at the bottom, just as the one at the bottom has no influence over the one at the top (Steadman 1997). Pecking orders are impersonal and competitive: hierarchies are personal and involve a vertical form of cooperation. Pecking orders do not imply cooperation in any form: accepting one’s fate because one has no choice, or knows that death would be the consequence of making a choice, is not a form of cooperation.

More on the Plastic Arts

In my definition of the plastic arts I say something like t color, pattern, and form used SOLELY to attract attention to something. That something may be a message. 

So, to return to the prior discussion, a fence, as exciting as it might be to include it in the category of art , would not be an example of art if it has a function beyond attracting attention - it is used to mark territory such as private property.  Similarly, the placement of red ochre on a burial may be classified as art, unless the red ochre was used as a something like a preservative, which, as it probably was not so used, would fit within the category of art. Dental decoration, which can be very  painful and cause many problems, serves no function that I can see, and thus would be an example of art, as would be tribal tattoos, intentional cranial deformation and, oh yes, the paintings we see in art museums, art galleries and neighborhood Sunday painters' exhibits. 

A however, if a daring young artist erected a fence in an art museum exhibit, and, as in the case of Dubuffet's urinal, art experts said it was art, it would be classified as art. And, ignoring the snobbery here, as the urinal or the fence, was placed there solely to attract attention to the object, it would be art by my definition.  The fact is that these artists were communicating something like "i am  expanding the definition of art," or "I am thumbing my nose at the art establishment" - is a topic for another day. 

A "problem" with this definition is that is ignores what is called fine art - art's snobbery, the snobbery that  results from the insistence that X is art if and only if some self-proclaimed art "expert" has decided it is art. My proposed definition would allow for the inclusion of all color form and pattern used solely to attract attention.... and, not just the color, form and pattern that the rich and elite hang on their walls or exhibit in their hallways. 

I used the word "problem" above, as this definition will be resisted by a vast number of people, those with other axes to grind.  

To be continued

PUBLIC HEALTH

PUBLIC HEALTH AND EMERGING HEALTH CRISES 

I want to use this blog to think things through  as I probably don't have enough time to get them written up in a fashion (e.g, adding academic jargon; the correct citations; cautionary notes, properly formatting the paper) that would satisfy the editor or reviewers of an academic journal. I hope, however, that these thoughts will inspire discussions that can  help improve the field.  Here goes what is merely a draft:

PUBLIC HEALTH CHALLENGES

As public health is aimed at ensuring and protecting the health of the public, it depends, to some significant degree, on its ability to influence behavior in ways that promote health. Early in its history, public successfully prevented the spread of infectious diseases through the development of sanitation systems -- that provided individuals with access to potable water and mechanisms for the safe disposal of waste. 

Once sanitation systems were in place and antibiotics were developed, chronic diseases begin to replace infectious diseases. As it seemed evident that lifestyle choices played a role in disease risk, interventions were developed; over time, based on assumptions regarding which of many factors actually influenced behavior, increasingly complex health promotion models were developed, tested, and accepted. Yet, despite the fact that a significant investment has been made in health promotion, interventions often do not result in the desired changes and even when changes in behavior are made, they tend not to be sustained. Large scale intervention trials (Baum and Fisher, 2014:215) write "have yet to demonstrate the expected efficacy of behavioral interventions to modify health outcomes. ”[H]uman truculence," Graham and Martin 2012: 451) explain,

often persists, yielding various unfortunate results, including relapse, morbidity, and premature mortality. Humans reliably act in irrational, defiant, indulgent, fickle and seemingly incapable of sustaining the cool-headed rationally, in injurious ways...Human nature is too emotional, apparently self-destructive, defiant, contrary, indulgent, fickle and seemingly incapable of sustaining the cool headed, linear logic that longevity requires."

On a fundamental level, as Graham and Martin (2012: 451) point out, “it is not yet known what variables best predict successful outcomes.”

Looming public health crises – e.g., obesity, opioid use, consumption of ultraprocessed food, sexual transmitted infections, and the failure of parents to immunize their children - are challenges now faced by public health. And, although diet pills, antibiotics and policies regarding needle exchanges help, the issue of what factors - unemployment, poverty, mental health, the breakdown of the family, etc. are involved in the initiation and continued use of opioids are not understand nor yet adequately addressed. 

---

To be continued....

 

art

Last night I was looking at ways to falsify my own definition of art, which basically says

Visual Art:  The modification of an object or body through the use of color, line, pattern, or form that is done solely to attract attention to to a body, object, or message. Visual art is a mechanism to attract attention to things. As it is used in association with something, it thereby attracts attention to that something. That “something” may be a message to which visual art draws attention. The proximate aim of visual art is to attract attention, perhaps by provoking emotions. To the extent that visual art is an adaptation then its ultimate function is to influence social behavior in ways that promote if not reproductive success then success in leaving descendants.

I realized that by this definition a fence is a form of art, as is a tattoo, as is intentional cranial deformation, as is dental modification as are a great many things - as I argue in a publication on "art the replicable unit." 

All of these are forms of communication. In the past, color (red ochre - was used in burials; dental decoration communicated one's clan or tribe; intentional cranial deformation communicated one's ancestry and social status; tattoos communicated one's ancestry. Today, some of these are no longer seen; others now communicate something new: "I am an iconoclast, I am a member of Hell's Angels, or whatever. A fence communicates ownership. This pretty much leads me to the position that art is merely a form of communication, but such a vital one that we pay a considerable amount of attention to it -- it is a form of communication that - just a as color, form, and pattern do in other species - attracts and holds our attention. 

So, to get on my soapbox, in ending this -- Yes, perhaps we all should define our terms and attempt to falsify them -- a task that can and probably should be done - at least if we want to call ourselves a science. At the very least, it forces us to think outside the box we have built in our own minds and perhaps to recognize that we realized this all along - looking back over the papers I have written since my first years of graduate school. The first paper that I wrote during  my masters program was for an animal behavior class taught by John Alcock. In it I look at the use of color, form, and pattern across non human species. 

To be continued. 

At least since Aristotle and probably long before him, people have wondered what the meaning of life might be.

Meaning is defined in various ways, but basically it refers to the end, purpose or significance of something, in this case a human life. 

For Aristotle, life has a purpose or function, which is earthly happiness, which can be achieved only through reason and virtue. The aim of life, he seems to be saying is to be a good person, a moral person, and that in being such a person we will find happiness.

Yesterday, I read through the Myth of Sisyphus to find the answer to that question that Camus proposed:  

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."

For evolutionary biologists the aim of life is to reproduce. For humans, reproduction is not a simple thing. Our offspring, perhaps unfortunately, are altricial. They don't hatch out of eggs and race down the beach to the ocean where they, in turn, hopefully survive long enough to reproduce. If our offspring are, in turn, to be successful reproducers, we must make a huge investment of resources, including vast amounts of our time, into such things as teaching, nurturing, and protecting. Further, our offspring, particularly when they are young, are fragile or vulnerable. They have no teeth or claws. Their very survival depends on parents, and grandparents, either being there to protect them, or having invested enough in them to try to ensure that they have the wits (mental skills, but also physical skills to) to survive when facing a large predator looking for a meal. Another one of the important skills parents need to impart to their children is in the realm of social skills We are a highly social species, but strangers throughout  human history, have presented clear and present danger. Today, with systems of law, we have attempted to minimize the danger, but have not been totally successful. 

So, to cut to the chase, as I have other things that I need to be working on, it would seem that Aristotle has an important point, although only a partial answer. The aim of life is to reproduce and towards that end, we must be good kin. We are a link in a chain, a link that connects our ancestors to their future descendants. If we successfully reproduce, that line of ancestors who successfully managed to raise costly human offspring, does not end with us. Happiness lies in loving unselfishly and being loved. That love is the result of sacrifice, the hugh investment we must make. 

In sum, biologically speaking, Camus was not only full of hot air but he was wrong.