phildonnia
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,439
Thousands of Thai Baht, that is; that's how much Mrs. Phildonnia valued a "still-life with flowers" painted before our eyes by a pachyderm with some encouragement and paint-selection from his trainer.
This was during my recent trip to Thailand. The elephant training center produces many paintings, which are used to fund conservation programs. Here is their site:
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
Now, I consider elephants to be remarkably intelligent, as animals go. Certainly comparable to any dog or dolphin that I've ever seen. However, I am skeptical as to whether the product of this particular activity really deserves the label "art". I personally give it the label "neat trick".
There are, no doubt, those who would use these examples of elephant creativity as evidence that this species deserves at least an equal station to mankind as inhabitants of this planet. I find it ironic that such evidence consists of training an animal to mimic a uniquely human behavior, as if that is the measure of worth.
I guess this all goes to the tired question of "what is art?".
To be sure the elephants have much of the appearance that a human painter would have: apparent concentration, engagement, and a confident and developed technique. A giant red beret would have been exceptionally cute, but I guess no one has thought of that.
If elephants were capable of creative expression, would we not see representations of bananas, bamboo, tourists, trainers, fences, forest paths, mating interests, and other things within the elephant's experience? There were no flowers that I could see in the area resembling those painted. Nor do I think the elephant "copied" the picture from an existing work. It seems more likely that the elephant was trained to move the brush this way, and it did so, with no more understanding of "purpose" than when it neatly stacks logs on a truck.
This was during my recent trip to Thailand. The elephant training center produces many paintings, which are used to fund conservation programs. Here is their site:
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
Now, I consider elephants to be remarkably intelligent, as animals go. Certainly comparable to any dog or dolphin that I've ever seen. However, I am skeptical as to whether the product of this particular activity really deserves the label "art". I personally give it the label "neat trick".
There are, no doubt, those who would use these examples of elephant creativity as evidence that this species deserves at least an equal station to mankind as inhabitants of this planet. I find it ironic that such evidence consists of training an animal to mimic a uniquely human behavior, as if that is the measure of worth.
I guess this all goes to the tired question of "what is art?".
To be sure the elephants have much of the appearance that a human painter would have: apparent concentration, engagement, and a confident and developed technique. A giant red beret would have been exceptionally cute, but I guess no one has thought of that.
If elephants were capable of creative expression, would we not see representations of bananas, bamboo, tourists, trainers, fences, forest paths, mating interests, and other things within the elephant's experience? There were no flowers that I could see in the area resembling those painted. Nor do I think the elephant "copied" the picture from an existing work. It seems more likely that the elephant was trained to move the brush this way, and it did so, with no more understanding of "purpose" than when it neatly stacks logs on a truck.
