Art impresses mates, no doubt. But humans do a great many kinds of things, which impress many people, including mates. Can we usefully distinguish among the many ways we impress. Are different types designed to show different traits? Are they targeted to different audiences?
My pet theory about the evolutionary origins and functions of the visual arts, from costly signaling theory to Darwinian aesthetics: https://www.primalpoly.com/s/2016-mona-art-essay-7y57.pdf …pic.twitter.com/zHTNyVb7fd
-
-
-
Yes dance = Proprioception, athletism, group coordinationn, motivation, non-verbal enhanced communication. painting = sense of details, patience, introspection or extrospection. photo = being still or in the move skill, Chronoception, re-framing realities or imagining one etc
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks! Will read. BTW, is there one particular part of your talk with Sam Harris that stands out to? I'm really wanting to hear that one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very interesting, a viable explanation to my need to create bowers. I hope your final paragraph proves correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If your aim is to impress, you're not an artist. The evolutionary function of art is to transcend the 'material'. Art completes what nature
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this is total nuts!
-
Yes it is, it’s the worst of evolutionary theory. Totally devoid of history, art history.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.