I have always thought of representational art as a strictly human enterprise. The only example of the use of art in the non-human animal kingdom I can think of off the top of my head is that of male Bower Birds.
Male Bower Birds build a nest-like structure, except it isn't used as a nest. It is uses to attract females Bower Birds. The nest-like structure (the bower from which the birds get their names) is further enhanced by the male placing strikingly colored objects around it. They seem to have an inordinate fondness for blue.
But what about representational art, art that produces a recognizable picture? That I have always thought was the sole province of humans. At least until I saw this video:
That elephant just drew a picture of an elephant holding a flower!! I didn't believe it. I have been looking on YouTube at several other videos showing these elephants from Thailand doing just that. Of course they were trained to do it. It is possible that the elephant was trained to make those movements with his paintbrush and doesn't recognize what it is drawing, but I cannot believe that the painting would be so recognizable unless the elephant had a sense of form. I saw videos of this elephant making similar drawings. If it had no sense of form, then I cannot see how the imabe wouldn't degrade over time until it was unrecognizable. Also from looking at the painting the elephant seems to have a sense of shading. The lines beneath the elephant are darker. The elephant seemed to me to make special effort to make it that way especially when it drew in the 4th leg. I'm inclined to believe it is real.
In any case, I'm impressed. And I now think I was wrong about representational art being beyond at least elephants.
Cheers,
DB
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
As an artist I find this incredible. Even the way the elephant hesitates before making his first mark--that's something every artist does.
Even if the elephant was taught--this is so precise, the way it makes its movements. WOW.
Do you have the URL for this?
Got the URL--missed it at the end ;-)
*jaw drops*
That elephant just painted a picture of an elephant...and it's much better than anything I could produce...wow...
I agree with you that the elephant has to have at least some artistic sense. When I saw it making the lines around the fourth leg darker, I immediately recognized it as adding the shadow. And that flower is spectacular.
That is just...amazing. I hope it's a happy elephant, I really do.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
That was incredible. And he looped the trunk around the flower stem at the end, because, duh, that's how you hold a flower! Wow.
The American tourists in the background wondering how much the paintings cost was most amusing!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Wow. I feel that I must bow to a greater artist than i... :-(
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I was particularly impressed with the flower. I thought it was just gonna be some scribbled circles and a stick (although that would have been impressive), but that was some good shit. Animals are so underrated. And I also liked how he drew the ground, it looked like an elephant walking around the globe bringing peace via flowers.
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
I think we should regress to the beginning
Well, this was an interesting post. First let me say that I love your use of the term "non-human animal." That is very apt, and a term I have employed for some time, though it still gets a raised eyebrow now and then.
Second, it is sad that all the previous commenters, like the tourists in the video, were so awed by a trained elephant that they apparently took no notice of your actual point. Whether non-human animals are capable of represental art is a fascinating question. Surely they are capable of recognizing form, for the mere act of sensory reception is form recognition, in its most basic sense.
The question is really: are they capable of interpreting that form and expressing their interpretation through a medium? I don't think this video proves this, but that doesn't negate its possibility. The anthropomorphic perspective is so inclined to downgrade the behavior of non-human animals to instinct, genetic disposition, or mating ritual, that it fails to accept the possibility of true creative effort. My opinion is that our understanding of the animal, both human and non, is so miniscule, that we are in no position to pass judgement on the behavior of any species.
In defense of, at least, myself I am aware of the deeper implications of the issue. That doesn't mean I have anything to say about it, though.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Perhaps I should not have assumed.