Visual art is made by humans

Virtually all discussions of visual art make the claim that visual art is manmade; it has a "human creator" (Dissanayake 1992:28). While I accept that only humans produce what we refer to as visual art, the question this raises is why humans regularly refer to the marks that animals make when given pigments and why we find natural objects (e.g.., sunsets, driftwood, colored stones) to be attractive, in the sense that they attract and hold our attention. Further, why do we seem to "art" to refer to those things. What is it about animal "art", sunsets and colored stones that lead people if not to refer to those events and objects as art why do they so often say that they attract and hold their attention? 

Ethologists use the metaphor animal “art” to refer to traits, both permanent and seasonal, that characterize a number of species. This “art” includes the brightly colored feathers of birds, the red belly of the stickleback fish, and the red pouch of the frigate bird (Darwin 1871; Diamond 1991). While these traits are highly influenced by genes, it seem clear that the opposite sex responds differentially  to animals with these characteristics.  Further, in regard to behavior, when elephants in the wild use their trunks to make marks in the dust or a stick to make scratch marks on the ground, this behavior can be referred to as “art” (Diamond 1991). When apes in the wild and in captivity were observed draping themselves with vines and pieces of cloth, Kohler (1925) referred to this behavior as “art.” Bowerbird nests, wove using hundreds of sticks and, at times, colored objects, such as crushed leaves or other objects, are referred to as “art” (Diamond 1991; Joyce 1975). Satin bower birds, who  make a “paintbrush” by nibbling a piece of bark into an appropriate shape,  hold this tool in their beak to control the flow of a paint solution used to decorate the bower (van Lawick-Goodall 1970). Gorillas, orangutan, chimpanzees, and monkeys living in captivity can master painting with a brush or fingers and can work with chalk, crayons, or pencils (Morris 1962). Even can experts find this “art” to be indistinguishable, from products accepted as constituting human visual art.

While the frigate bird’s pouch does not involve learning (unless the learning consists of how to use the pouch to maximum benefit), making and decorating a bowerbird nest involves significant learning. By watching other conspecific males, bowerbirds learn to build bowers that can be as much as nine feet high and weigh several hundred times the weight of the bird. Learning how to build the bower involves identifying the decoration that apparently makes the nest more attractive to a female. This can involve dragging decorations (brightly color objects, for example) dozens of yards (Diamond 1991).

The implicit definition of animal “art” seems to specify neither innateness, nor learning. Nor do all these example necessarily involve the expression of a particular emotion, with in the creation or the response. The necessary element of animal “art” often seems to be the modification of a body or object through the use of form, line, pattern, or color.  This decoration can, but does not necessarily attract attention to a message, including the message: “look at me or look at me and select me as a mate!” Elephants drawing in the sand and primates draping themselves with vines and cloth do not seem to be performing these activities for an audience. As the behaviors do not seem to be noticed, they presumably have no social effect; that is, they do not attract attention nor do the influence the behavior of an observer. They are neither patterned nor predictable.

So, we might draw several points out of this discussion. One is that we regularly use the term art to refer to other things - things in nature - that involve the modification of  a body or object (e.g., the bower). In many cases that modification attracts attention; the "art" is done to attract attention. Presumably, the "art" provokes a response - it attracts and holds our attention. This response can help explain why the "art" might be attractive to - attract the attention of - a female. 

The decoration need not attract attention. For example, some males in their finery are ignored. Perhaps the male's color is not vibrant enough or the pattern of the feathers is off in some way. For some reason that particular male is not successful in attractive females and presumably is less likely to become an ancestor and his genes will, over time, die out.  

Further, it is not clear why primates drape themselves with vines. No one appears to notice the "art." It has no social effect and it might be predicted that this behavior may not persist. It appears to have no regular effect and perhaps has some costs - attracting the attention of a competitor or another, dangerous species. While you may argue that the draping gives the primate some happiness, thus far it has not been able to identify primate emotions with great accuracy.  The emotion is merely assumed to underlie the behavior and then  used to explain the behavior. A final point, is that in nature we can observe things that closely resemble what we refer to as art. If we did not focus on an aesthetic emotion then perhaps we would include these as examples of art.