Introduction: Is it possible to define visual art empirically? 

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. (Tolstoy 1977:61)

                                                  Introduction 

Evolutionary biologists, who know how important definitions are, do not always feel obligated to precisely or objectively define terms they are using, particularly if those terms refer to human behaviors. Richard Alexander (2001: 5), one of the best of the evolutionary scholars, wrote: “I am deliberately vague or imprecise in my usage of a term like ‘culture’ and ‘the arts’ because I wish to err on the side of inclusiveness.” Poets and philosophers are known to claim that the arts "are too intangible and changing to be defined or classified" (Munro 1949"5), 

Making the issue of identifying what art is more complex is the fact that anthropologists are known to claim that indigenous and other non-westernized people have no word for art. “It is almost a cliché (perhaps a little too unexamined),” Murphy (1994) wrote, “to remark that there is no word for art in the language of this or that people” (p. 650-651). Whether or not those people produced objects that closely resemble what we call "art" is apparently irrelevant. 

Making the problem of defining art even more difficult is the fact that the term art is used to refer to so many things -  the art of war, the art of cooking, the art of medicine. These, however, may be mere metaphorical extensions of an implicit definition. 

Three things that we need to try to explain here are (1) is it true that some people don't have a work for art and, if so, do they not produce anything that resembles what we call art? (2) why is it said to be so difficult to define art and (3) Is it possible to propose a definition of art that s more inclusive - that includes both westernized and non-westernized (e.g., indigenous) art and that allows for empirical study.  

The first problem we might not solve to anyone's satisfaction (including mine), but it seems clear that even through people may not have a word for art, they do produce objects that not only resemble what we call art, but that have had an influence on westernized artists. French artists - Matisse, Picasso, were influenced by indigenous art. It only makes sense that indigenous art now is classified by some art historians as a form of contemporary art. 

The second issue is related to the influence that art critics and historians have had. For  decades, they  have written and talked (seemingly endlessly) about the so called aesthetic emotion, an emotion (poorly defined) said to be aroused by viewing and presumably making art.  X is art IFF it arouses a specific emotion (in certain people). If we focus solely on visual art (or the plastic arts), prehistorians have faced a conundrum - there is no way to know if prehistoric art aroused an aesthetic emotion.  The way prehistorians solved this is by saying that art was an inappropriate term to use for objects found in the prehistoric or ethnographic record (see Conkey 1983, 1993; Soffer 1997; Tomásková 1997; White 1992).  We cannot assume, scholars argue, that the primary function of either prehistoric or ethnographic art was or is aesthetic. This is especially true if indigenous people have no term for aesthetic emotion.  So, even though prehistoric "whatever" was referred to for decades as "art," it no longer was art.

In sum, one reason scholars have been unable to define art is that they have focused on an emotion, the so called aesthetic emotion  that indigenous people, if asked about the aesthetic emotion, would just be bewildered. I think the problem is that the term initially was used by art critics and historians to classify art they liked (good or fine art) from art that they dismissed (e.g., non art, bad art, or craft).  Instead of focusing on something like mastery of technique, which most people, regardless of their status, are able to identify, they focused on an elusive emotion said to be aroused only by certain art produced in westernized societies. 

In regard to the third problem, the definition of the term "art", we will not solve that problem here in this blog post. However, to begin, the term art has ancient roots and at the beginning it was an inclusive term. It perhaps came from the Sanskrit word for "making" (Duchamp, cited in Cabanne 1971:16). Later, the Latin word ars meant a craft or specialized form of skill (Munro 1949). Throughout the Middle Ages artists were classified as craftsmen who controlled particular techniques. It was in the 16th century that "artists" came to be distinguished from craftsmen and credited with possessing a particular, individualistic genius that aroused, in the viewer, an aesthetic emotion - an emotion that was not aroused by crafts. It is no accident that it was at this time that the first truly influential art historian, Giorgio Vasari, appeared. His book, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects opened the door to discussions of good art (i.e.., fine art) versus craft. In the 18th century the word aesthetic was coined by Alexander Baumgarten. The root of the word was the Greek word, aisthetikos, which referred to perception of the senses. He used the word that to refer to what he found to be beautiful and what he identified as beauty was perfection. Beauty was something we could perceive and respond to. 

Visual art, in other words, has not always had conceptual attachments to aesthetics, beauty, or emotion. While we can respond to beauty in nature, that does not mean that nature is art or that our emotion is an aesthetic one. That emotion is aroused only by fine art.

Classificatory Definitions

A classificatory definition merely asks whether or not something is or is not a work of art. According to Dickie (1971:41) a classificatory definition attempts 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 why any object must have in order to  be an X. A sufficient condition of an X is a characteristic which, if that object has that characteristic, it is an X.  Similarly, Socrates argued that if we examine a word's various usage, we will find some element that the common to all of those usages, but not to other things. We then will be able to isolate the element that is the essence of things (McEvilley 1992: 166). To ensure that our classificatory definition is also a scientific one we need to add the requirement that the necessary and/or sufficient qualities must be empirically verifiable. We next will continue that search for a classificatory definition. 

It may seem irrelevant to define art (or any term for that matter); however, unless we have a definition of visual art how can we study it scientifically? How can we know if it is a behavior found solely in certain elite groups of people in westernized societies. How might be identify any possible function? How can we answer the question posed by Plato and Socrates over two thousand years ago: what role does art play "in the well ordered state"? 

 

Peopling of the Americas (excuse the font issues - I cannot figure out how to resolve them)

Many years ago, when I was a graduate student, I took a two year long course with Christy Turner on the peopling of the world. Each one of us - or a team in some cases - took a continent. I selected South America. 

It was fascinating to try to figure things out. First I had to try to develop an understanding of the geography and climate as they existed at the time after the ice corridor opened

If the corridor in the ice in Canada did not open until about 10,000 years ago - which is what was estimated at the time - and that was the only way people got to the Americas, which was sort of what they assumed then, that had to be my start date. I assumed they didn't run like 20 year old track stars for the tip of South America - although they seemed to have been present then some 8-9,000 years ago.

Once migrating people arrived in Central America they would have, if they had settled there, created a bottle neck that would have made it difficult for anyone else to get into South America.

However, as people obviously got past the bottle neck, they would have had some problems getting very far into South America.  They would have had problems going down the west coast, as Colombia doesn't have a large or inviting coastal plain. If they had gone to the east, they would soon have run into the Orinoco Drainage. Crossing it would have required some sort of boat. If they had gone down the middle, they had to climb up the side of the Andes. They would have had to climb quite high to reach the intermountain valleys, some of which were blocked by glaciers. If they had somehow made it to Ecuador's coastal plain, which is quite large, they would have had to cross several rivers - the Esmeraldas and the Guayas. If they had tried to continue down the coast, lack of water would have been a problem. Little rain falls around Lima and along the coast of Chile they would have encountered few rivers flowing to the sea. Consequently, finding fresh water would have been problematic. 

I also looked at culture and found that objects like the Jew's Harp was used in the Amazon. There were other similarities with the cultural practices of Australia (assuming the Pacific Islands were not populated until much later).

Further, it was of interest that - if my memory does not fail me - that the coast of Antarctica was land not ice early on - some 6,000 years ago. I began to wonder if some people  had not traveled from Australia, via Antarctica, to the tip of South America and then up into the Amazon Basin.  Early anthropologists did consider that to be a possibility; however for some reason the idea was dropped. I am sure the reasons were good one; however, today I read that indigenous people in South America do share ancestry - genes -with Australians.  The researchers assumed that the ancestors from Australia had traveled via the Bering Strait. I wonder if some didn't come north, via Antarctica. Only time and more evidence can reveal such patterns. Certainly, I ended up feeling that sea  travel had occurred earlier than we thought at the time.

Long ago, perhaps in the 1960s Betty Megger argued that the Japanese visited the coast of South America. She claimed that she  had found similarities in language and anchors that were identical to those used in Japan. Once we had some visitors from Japan and when I showed them a picture of a Valdivia figurine from Ecuador's Sta Elena Province (c. 3000 BC) they immediately said "Jomon". However, her ideas were rejected as "cult anthropology."

Valdivia, Jomon Fishermen, and the Nature of the North Pacific: Some Nautical Problems with Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) Transoceanic Contact Thesis

Gordon F. McEwan and D. Bruce Dickson

American Antiquity

Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 362-371 (10 pages)

Published by: Cambridge University Press

ABSTRACT

Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's (1965) thesis, that storm-tossed Jomon fishermen drifted across the North Pacific to the coast of Ecuador and introduced pottery-making at the Valdivia site, is presented. The thesis is examined from the standpoint of the mechanics of such a voyage. The nature of the surface current patterns in the North Pacific are discussed, together with the weather conditions found along the presumed route, the types of vessels known archaeologically for the early Jomon, and the suitability of such vessels for a trans-Pacific crossing. Finally, the survival problems faced by a crew adrift in an open boat on the North Pacific are presented. It is concluded that contact between Jomon and Valdivian peoples was unlikely to have occurred in the manner suggested by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada. Several possible alternative routes and explanations are advanced.

Archaeology | Studies examine clues of transoceanic contact  

Bradley T. Lepper is curator of archaeology at the Ohio Historical Society.

blepper@ohiohistory.org

https://www.dispatch.com/article/20130519/news/305199804 

Pottery offers a bonanza of information for archaeologists. It represents a revolution in container technology, and the clay from which it is made provides a canvas with many possibilities for self-expression. As a result, differences and similarities in pottery decorations can offer clues about cultural relationships over space and through time.

Residues on pots reveal important clues to how people used their pottery. An international team of scientists reported last month in the journal Nature the results of chemical analyses of the charred gunk on the surfaces of pottery shards from Jomon period sites in Japan. They determined it was composed mostly of the oily residue from cooking ocean fish.

The Jomon culture was mentioned in other news this month. The largest ever genetic study of native South Americans identified a sub-population in Ecuador with an unexpected link to eastern Asia. The study, published in PLOS Genetics, concluded that Asian genes had been introduced into South America sometime after 6,000 years ago -- the same time the Jomon culture was flourishing in Japan.

Back in the 1960s, the renowned Smithsonian archaeologist Betty Meggers argued that similarities between the pottery of the contemporaneous Valdivia culture in Ecuador and Japan’s Jomon culture indicated that Japanese fishermen had “discovered” America about 5,000 years ago.

Few archaeologists took this idea seriously. Gordon McEwan and Bruce Dickson, writing in a 1978 issue of American Antiquity, pointed out significant flaws with the hypothesis.

First of all, Pacific Ocean currents did not provide a direct route from Japan to Ecuador. Second, Jomon dugout canoes were unlikely to have been sufficiently seaworthy to allow a crew to survive an extended voyage across the ocean. Finally, food and fresh water would have been difficult to obtain.

Writing in 1980, Meggers expressed frustration that transoceanic contact as an explanation for cultural similarities was dismissed by dogmatic colleagues as “cult archaeology,” and she complained that “no amount of evidence” could convince them.

I can appreciate Meggers’ frustration, but although it’s likely that no amount of the same type of evidence that she marshaled in support of her original argument could make a thoroughly convincing case, I believe that most archaeologists could be convinced if compelling new evidence for transpacific contact were uncovered.

The discovery of an apparent genetic link between eastern Asians and Ecuadoran natives provides intriguing independent support for Meggers’ hypothesis. Moreover, the fact that Jomon pottery was used predominantly for cooking seafood suggests that Jomon fishermen would have had little trouble feeding themselves on a long ocean voyage.

Transoceanic contact long has been a popular explanation for cultural similarities, such as the occurrence of pyramids in both Egypt and Mexico. Archaeologists have demonstrated, however, that such similarities are largely superficial and meaningless. When closely examined, Egyptian and Mayan pyramids turn out to be fundamentally different things.

Meggers might prove to have been right after all about the origins of Valdivia pottery, but she was wrong to attribute the rejection of her ideas to scientific dogmatism. Meggers simply didn’t have the extraordinary evidence to support her extraordinary claim.

 Why I wish we lived in Apache Junction

We don't live in Apache Junction, although we live near there in a place that considers Apache Junction to be, well, a hick town. Can you imagine a more historic and romantic name than Apache Junction?  It actually must be, according to my calculations, located on a prehistoric path, perhaps a Hohokam trade route.  I can imagine the people moving back and forth, the petroglyphs that must mark the path, the events that happened, and the items being traded.  

Many of the streets in Apache Junction have historical names (e.g., Remington, Thunderbird, Wells Fargo, Concho, Tomahawk, Wickiup Rd., Conestoga Road, Wagon Wheel Road, Vaquero, Chaparral, Cortez, Cochise, Pima, De Soto, Raindance, Teepee) or biological name (e.g., Ocotillo, Palo Verde, Saguaro, Grease Wood, Iron Wood, Manzanita, Smoketree, Cactus Wren).  The streets offer history lessons or point out what you should know if you want to  understand this area and its history.  It will help you realize what a fascinating place Apache Junction is.

There used to be a large number of rock and gem stores, which I love to visit, and a bunch of funky antique stores. It was a wonderful place and one of the most wonderful places was Buckhorn Baths. 

\https://www.facebook.com/ApacheTrail/posts/this-1944-image-shows-buckhorn-baths-on-apache-trail-and-recker-road-before-they/1585762284838854 /

If you are interested in prehistoric paths, this is a good article to get you started.

https://www.ajpl.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Arch-20171114.pdf

 

Abuelas, Nanas, Grandmothers

It seems that grandmothers have become popular again, credited with promoting the fitness of their descendants. I don't disagree with that premise. I do disagree with several points.

1.  If the children, when they get old, replicate the cultural/behavioral  strategies of the grandmother, then it becomes an ancestral strategy. I am sure that evolutionary biologists look at it generation by generation, but if  you look at it in terms of everyone the grandmother influences, it seems clear that her influence is copied across generations and at any point in time she is, what the Mongolians would say, the one who founds a lineage, perhaps even a lineage going back as far as Genghis Khan. However, no matter how often I repeat myself, my words fall on deaf ears. We cannot escape from kin selection/inclusive fitness. I have to wonder if it is the sole means of explaining cooperation (other than reciprocal altruism - which has tough requirement and thus is tough to test) even in other species. However, I leave that for future generations to solve.

2.  I also agree that when a mother has more than one child she needs  a strategy to get them to cooperate with her and with one another.  Part of that strategy may involve having the grandmother teach them those skills while the mother tends to breast feeding, foraging, preparing food, keeping her husband happy - all cultural practices that she had been taught by her mother and grandmother. That teaching may have been explicit - "Do this!", or it may have been implicit, perhaps described in a story, or it may have been taught by modeling behavior. The how is less important than the result. 

3. The grandmother did more than teach her daughter (as a child) to find nutritious roots. That was only one thing she might have done, but even that she learned from her mother, who learned it from her mother. To try to make this clear, girls learn certain skills by watching their mothers. They learn other skills - probably social skills - from their grandmothers. 

Education and its discontents

 

Education and its discontents (and contents)

Once upon a time, at least in my imagination, the buildings in which teaching and learning  occurred were designed to be beautiful and to last for centuries. The ideas taught in those buildings centered on logic, education, and the virtues and vices of humanity.

Today, institutions of higher learning are more "institutional" - not designed or built to last forever or inspire the viewer with their beauty. However, although they have lost the beauty element, they continue to teach what we call the humanities. Now it is left to community colleges to teach many of the skills such as plumbing and construction and car repair. 

When I studied drawing long ago in a university, the worst insult you could get from your professor was that your drawing was beautiful. Beautiful meant trite, unimaginative, pattern. If by mistake you did draw something "beautiful" you were asked to take a pencil, pen, knife, or eraser  and slash lines through your mistake.

When I studied literature in a university, our interpretations had to be, if not the interpretation of the professor (which was not always made clear), then a summary of the interpretation of some other scholar with whom the professor agreed. Despite the fact that any narrative can probably have a million possible interpretations, your interpretation if not repetitive was seen a faulty. Has it always been that way, even when the university campus was built to be beautiful and to last generations? Did the students of Socrates have to copy what Socrates said. Apparently so, as that is why we know about his thinking, just as that is the way we know what Confucius and many others have taught. 

However, what concerns me here is  the loss of beauty, which one might mourn as one mourns the loss of one's belief in the goodness of humankind. My real interest here is copying. We are a species know for copying. A first question is how did we get from beauty to practicality?  Did funding inspire the change?  Further, we may copy the virtues listed above or we may join others in rejecting them. By copying I do not mean plagiarism, although that is rampant, but the fact that many faculty and students seem to be expected to copy the ideas, words, postures...of those they accepted as role and thought models when they were graduate students. Where in this picture are the original thinkers, the ones who having learned the accepted models of thought, begin to forge their own way?  More importantly, where in the humanities are the original thinkers - not just those who change a few words or describe the thoughts using academic terms. 

The Liberal Arts include the sciences, which depend on hypotheses that are testable, not on how they fit with prior thinking (that that is there to some significant extent), but  on the falsifiability and strength of their hypotheses. Evolutionary biology is trying to lure the humanities into its realm. I have to wonder though, as despite the fact that they are  using - or reciting - modern Darwinian theory as a base -  they often propose non-testable hypotheses that are, however worded in complex academic terms -- terms not defined either in the paper or dictionaries. Further, to what extent are mistakes made and, worse yet, copied generation after generation? Do interesting hypotheses, albeit nontestable, ever correct themselves or does "science" continue along a path that takes humanities scholars ever more deeply into convoluted errors of thinking.

Don't get me wrong, copying is not necessarily a negative thing. Copying helps a students get As and helps us be seen as members of any particular community. Shibboleths.  As one example, young women who copy sorority girls are modeling behaviors known to be successful in attracting wealthy husbands. There are many possibly examples, but perhaps I am too skeptical. Can one be too skeptical when one lives in a social group created by humans?