Amazing example of sexual selection: The male pufferfish works 24-hours a day for a week to create this ocean-floor masterpiece. Why does he bother? It's his equivalent of the peacock's tail: an adaptation designed to attract mates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpdlQae5wP8 … HT @41strangepic.twitter.com/L1UaPQ2VFV
-
-
Replying to @SteveStuWill @41Strange
Could this be considered a form of art?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yes- or *at least* beauty. Symmetry, balance, variation, harmony, proportion attractive across species like flowers that appeal to both insects and humans. See
@DavidDeutschOxf Beginning of Infinity book chapter on subject of Objective Beauty.1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo @SteveStuWill and
Great! However, although I'm aware that symmetry is a common feature of existing beings and things, what impressed me was that the fish created this - it wasn't "already done by nature". Creating harmonious products that aren't functional in themselves resembled art to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @araujorenan2 @davidarredondo and
One may perhaps be justified in speculating that the male pufferfish's creation, which requires of him both monomaniacal focus and tremendous physical endurance, and in which any deficit of either trait would produce an instantly obvious flaw, compellingly attests to his fitness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidarredondo and
A key question, I think, is whether the male pufferfish makes any individual choices in the creation of his design. How much do these designs vary, from pufferfish to pufferfish? No two male bowerbirds produce nearly indistinguishable bowers. Perhaps this makes them artists?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidarredondo and
That's a very interesting point, to how extent individuality plays a role. Indeed, even in humans we consider the individual's intention to define what is or isn't art (if something was intended to have artistic value, even if it's a urinol, it'd be considered art).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @araujorenan2 @MathPrinceps and
In that sense, even if it's not aesthetically pleasing, it'd be art. So there'd probably be many more examples in the animal kingdom of "art" making that we don't even notice. Now, extrapolating a little: does making art mean having culture?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
My own reaction is: no. A person who lives the whole of his life on a desert island can create works of art, but not a culture. A culture entails the transmission of knowledge and practice, and so is inevitably and irreducibly social. Art, on the other hand, need not be.
-
-
Replying to @MathPrinceps @davidarredondo and
What about crafting ("art") that is eminently social? As in the fish example, the craft is intended to attract mating partners and is transmitted through generations.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.