The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution by Denis Dutton

Jul 06, 2010 Lazarus P Badpenny Esq rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: nobody.

Shelves: art, europa, ideas, pre-twentieth-century, beauty, extended-project, pre-history, 2010

Occasionally irate academic becalmed in his own backwater mentality fails to deliver the book this subject deserves.

Thank God it's over. Like this book, life's too short to waste another moment on such a risible act of narrow-minded scholarship [an oxymoron if ever there was one:], suffice to say it was rife with under-argued assumptions and intermittently self-contradictory. Yet, paradoxically, if the experience had been prolonged it may have been less painful. In a longer, better book every la...more

5 likes · like · see review

May 29, 2013 Leon rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Art Instinct combines two of the most fascinating and contentious disciplines, art and evolutionary science, in a provocative new work that will revolutionize the way art itself is perceived. Aesthetic taste, argues Denis Dutton, is an evolutionary trait, and is shaped by natural selection. It's not, as almost all contemporary art criticism and academic theory would have it, "socially constructed." The human appreciation for art is innate, and certain artistic values are universal across cu

...more

The Art Instinct combines two of the most fascinating and contentious disciplines, art and evolutionary science, in a provocative new work that will revolutionize the way art itself is perceived. Aesthetic taste, argues Denis Dutton, is an evolutionary trait, and is shaped by natural selection. It's not, as almost all contemporary art criticism and academic theory would have it, "socially constructed." The human appreciation for art is innate, and certain artistic values are universal across cultures, such as a preference for landscapes that, like the ancient savannah, feature water and distant trees. If people from Africa to Alaska prefer images that would have appealed to our hominid ancestors, what does that mean for the entire discipline of art history? Dutton argues, with forceful logic and hard evidence, that art criticism needs to be premised on an understanding of evolution, not on abstract "theory." Sure to provoke discussion in scientific circles and an uproar in the art world, The Art Instinct offers radical new insights into both the nature of art and the workings of the human mind.

From The New Yorker

Dutton, an aesthetic philosopher best known as the curator of the Web site Arts & Letters Daily, sets out to do for art what Steven Pinker and others have done for psychology, language, and religion: consider it from a Darwinian standpoint. Along the way, he gives an engaging, if opinionated, survey of various currents in aesthetic debate; it is perhaps unavoidable that he seems on more solid foundations here than in the realm of science. When trying to assess whether artistic impulses should be considered adaptive or merely by-products of the evolutionary process, a crucial question raised by his approach, he argues by analogy and tries to have it both ways. But the book is ultimately animated less by its grand thesis than by all the questions tossed up along the way'why did no art form develop to exploit smell, as music does hearing?'and by Dutton's infectious and wide-ranging love of art, a passion that clearly goes beyond anything that could be considered an adaptive trait.
Copyright ©2008 Click here to subscribe to The New Yorker

From Booklist

We talk about the maternal instinct and the mating instinct, why not, asks Dutton, the art instinct? We are a species “obsessed with creating artistic experiences,” so surely there’s a coded-in-our-genes reason for that. Darwinian concepts have been applied with illuminating effect to psychology, history, and politics, why not art? And who better to attempt this mind-expanding analysis than Dutton, a professor of aesthetics and the philosophy of art, and founder and editor of Arts & Letters Daily, named the “best Web site in the world” by the Guardian. Creative, nimble, and entertaining, Dutton discusses landscape art, pottery, Aristotle, forgeries, and ready-mades. Rigorous in his definition of the “signal characteristics” of art and application of evolutionary science, Dutton identifies cross-cultural commonalities in art, explicates our innate feel for images and stories (devoting an entire chapter to the “uses of fiction”), and explores art’s role in individual expression and community cohesiveness. Marshaling intriguing examples and analogies in a cogent, animated argument destined to provoke debate, Dutton formulates the best answer yet to the question, “What’s art good for?” --Donna Seaman

(less)

like · see review

May 09, 2013 Al Bità rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Arts have been with us a long time, starting, perhaps, with language and story telling, dance, musical sounds, cave paintings, etc. Ditto regarding speculation on them: as early, at least, as Pythagoras and music. In general, each of these disciplines have developed and flourished more or less independently (or so we have been lead to believe) culminating in reaching alleged apexes (within specific cultures and racial groupings) determined more or less in the 19th-century. But it was really...more The Arts have been with us a long time, starting, perhaps, with language and story telling, dance, musical sounds, cave paintings, etc. Ditto regarding speculation on them: as early, at least, as Pythagoras and music. In general, each of these disciplines have developed and flourished more or less independently (or so we have been lead to believe) culminating in reaching alleged apexes (within specific cultures and racial groupings) determined more or less in the 19th-century. But it was really in the 20th-century, when the Arts were all included in academic institutions and subjected to more intense study and theorising, that a veritable flourishing of ideas on aesthetics for each discipline came to fruition. Much of this is highly conceptual, often using highly specific jargon, exploring the many nooks and cavities of each — so much so that often enough they can be almost impenetrable for anyone not within the discipline to grasp readily. At the core of this is the implication that each of the disciplines associated with the Arts generally considers itself as separate and distinct from the others, requiring specialised training and expertise by its acolytes. Anyone trying to come to terms with the Arts in general, therefore, will often find themselves inundated, as it were, by mountainous waves of specific theorising and speculation that can be disorienting, to say the least.

In The Art Instinct Denis Dutton attempts to reorient much of this disorientation by suggesting that in fact, the Arts are not really distinct and separate disciplines, but rather manifestations of basic human evolutionary instincts that are part and parcel of who we are as human beings. In so doing, Dutton does not wish to completely discredit the implicitly separate nature in theoretical considerations, as they often enough have useful things to say, but he does need to go through these ideas if only to give them some credit where it is due. As such, some readers might find Dutton’s discussions a little hard-going, particularly since most of us have never actually participated in, or familiar with all the all the associated jargon of, the relevant discussions, but Dutton does try his best (and in my opinion more or less succeeds) in being as clear as he can be regarding those theories and theorists.

The book is not long — merely some 250 pages — so a lot of information is provided in very condensed form. This can provide its own difficulties for the ordinary reader, but if can be (and is) of real value to the persistent reader. Many of the individual chapters are very insightful all on their own. Put all together, Dutton is arguing that one needs to consider all the Arts, not as separate, individualistic manifestations (as they might appear to us specifically in the 21st-century) but as in fact representing a more holistic aspect of humanity which is better appreciated by taking an evolutionary approach to them. Dutton’e conclusion remains: the Arts are not separate disciplines, but instead form a united and cohesive whole.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Dutton’s approach or not, the book is intellectually stimulating on many levels, and one is, I would venture to suggest, educated into a more encompassing appreciation of humanity as a whole. I will end with Dutton’s own conclusion (at the end of the Afterword he added to the 2010 edition of his work): after referring to the nuances reflected in the numerous theories of aesthetic responses in the Arts, he concludes —

“Knowing about such nuances of aesthetic response — if they are knowable at all — might give us a more subtle understanding of human nature, but it will make little differences to the larger picture of beauty and the arts and their permanent place in human like. Homo sapiens remains a species with insatiable tastes for music, pictures, dance and storytelling. The unity of the arts emerges from the unity of mankind.”(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 28, 2012 Duncan Berry rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: art-history, history, neuro, theory

A modestly competent popularization of the evolutionary psychology of artistic expression.

While there is a fairly decent representation of more recent speculations on the topic — the survival-, fitness- and sexual selection-value of artistic "activity — Dutton completely ignores the notion that the idea of an "art instinct" has a long and glorious pedigree outside the Darwinian intellectual trajectory.

When I was first thinking about these matters as an undergrad in the late-70s, there was only o...more

like · see review

Aug 17, 2009 Nat rated it 3 of 5 stars

Dutton wants to turn attention away from marginal artistic "hard cases" like Duchamp's readymades that dominate contemporary aesthetic debates back to central features of art. He argues that art is a "cluster concept", meaning that it isn't defined by a single set of necessary and sufficient conditions, but that central, canonical art works satisfy twelve different criteria, from the demonstration of skill to the production of "imaginative experience", and less central examples (like the readyma...more

like · see review

Jul 06, 2009 Steven Peterson rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is a well written work, accessible to a general audience, on the linkage between art and evolution. Up front, Dutton contends that (Page 1): "It is time to look at the arts in the light of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution--to talk about instinct and art."

The book begins with reference to a study that found that humans across many cultures seemed to prefer a very similar type of painting--a landscape with people, animals, water, with a preference for the color blue being a part of the w...more

like · see review

Aug 23, 2010 Lauren Albert rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: art-history-and-criticism

There are basic logic problems here but I think Dutton's book is worth reading even if you don't agree with his theories. I like books that give me something to think about.

I tend to be a Dantonian (to coin a term)--I mostly agree with Danto's institutional theory of art. To give an example, Dutton uses his 12 criteria of "art" to look at Duchamp's readymades and to "decide" if they are truly art. He writes, "On a numerical calculation of items on the cluster criteria list, not to mention the o...more There are basic logic problems here but I think Dutton's book is worth reading even if you don't agree with his theories. I like books that give me something to think about.

I tend to be a Dantonian (to coin a term)--I mostly agree with Danto's institutional theory of art. To give an example, Dutton uses his 12 criteria of "art" to look at Duchamp's readymades and to "decide" if they are truly art. He writes, "On a numerical calculation of items on the cluster criteria list, not to mention the overwhelming agreement of generations of art theorists and art historians, the answer is a resounding "Yes, [Duchamp's:] Fountain is a work of art." His "numerical calculation" shows that Fountain fits MOST of the 12 criteria. So, I ask, just how many criteria does a work have to fit in order to qualify as art? 9? 10? 11? What happens if one person says that 9 criteria are enough and another refuses to recognize a work as art if it has fulfilled less than 10? And, then, of course, we are back to the "who decides what is art" problem if we ask "And who gets to decide whether a work fits the criteria in question?" Who decides if a work reflects "skill and virtuosity" (#2), "novelty and creativity" (#4) or provides "intellectual challenge" (#10)? All of this brings us back to art's institutional being.

Have we evolved in search a way that we are likely to make and/or enjoy art? It would be silly to say no--whether or not there was "intent" behind evolution, our ears (among other things) enable us to enjoy music, our eyes, the visual arts. But I think it is a not very relevant subject. Will we find high pitched screeching sounds enjoyable? Not in a strictly auditory-aesthetic way. But as Dutton himself points out, art is capable of giving other, more intellectual pleasures. I can certainly imagine a scenario in which someone would enjoy such painful sounds. Anyone who has been to a John Cage concert knows that music can and has been defined in ways that don't consider a traditional feature like harmony. "Contingent facts about human nature," writes Dutton, "ensure not only that some things in the arts will be difficult to appreciate but that appreciation of them may be impossible." That "may" says everything. Since we can't imagine ourselves totally out of our own limited experience, there are some things that we can never imagine enjoying. But how can we ever claim that something will never be enjoyed by anyone? To do so would be to express an extreme ignorance of the amazingly diverse and ever-changing world of human artistic experience.(less)

like · see review

Jan 26, 2013 Ryan rated it 2 of 5 stars

Does Dutton know that art is created during times of affluence? To suggest that since the birth of man, humans have been creating for the sake of creating is confounding. He toes the line: asserting ceramic bowls are somehow more than ceramic bowls. Skill and creative ability is present and necessary in some ancient crafts, and can represent the snapshot of a culture, making it important in its own right, but sometimes a bowl is still a fucking bowl! The idea that there is an over-arching, cross...more

like · see review

Aug 06, 2010 Serena rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: popular-science

This was definitely amazing. :) :)

So easy to read, yet so richly, DELICIOUSLY informative--no, INSIGHTFUL! XD XD Just the PERFECT balance for a popular science/ philosophy book. :) :)

My favorite chapter of all, was of course "Uses of Fiction" :D :D :D :D :D Oh gosh, it's intensifying my hunger to read more literary classics! XD XD

I just love how Denis Dutton gives a UNIVERSAL explanation of our passion for art, rather than sticking to "culturally relativistic" ones--which I simply hate. Also, it...more

like · see review

Jul 08, 2012 Bill Gusky rated it 3 of 5 stars

OK I bagged this about 4/5 through. By that time I felt as though I'd gotten all I was going to get out of it.

The author spends an inordinate amount of time correcting what he views as the mistakes of other anthropologists, mistakes that are not in the forefront of consideration for anyone who isn't also an anthropologist.

Meanwhile the author's intense focus on Darwin for pretty much every reference to adaptation is exhausting, considering that biologists have advanced so far beyond the basic i...more

like · see review

Mar 16, 2011 Avery rated it 1 of 5 stars

I started reading this book because of a blurb on the Arts and Letters Daily site. It looked intriguing, and I was very interested in the subject.

I finished the intro and that was enough for me. I agree with the premise (that art is an innate evolutionary trait) but disagree with the approach he took. Perhaps it is because I am an anthropology student, but I do not think you can take a cross-cultural approach to anything. While it is true that there are similarities and comparisons between cultu...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 23, 2009 Kathryn rated it 1 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

I began this book with unbounded optimism, excited to hear a Darwinian take on the human drive for creativity. I liked some of the information, like Dutton's ideas on how storytelling helped our Pleistocene ancestors survive their hunter/gatherer lifestyle or the ways our ancestors may have come to enjoy certain types of landscapes over others. I was slightly less excited about Dutton's take on postmodern ethnography and his weird repetition of the physical characteristics of women as they apply...more I began this book with unbounded optimism, excited to hear a Darwinian take on the human drive for creativity. I liked some of the information, like Dutton's ideas on how storytelling helped our Pleistocene ancestors survive their hunter/gatherer lifestyle or the ways our ancestors may have come to enjoy certain types of landscapes over others. I was slightly less excited about Dutton's take on postmodern ethnography and his weird repetition of the physical characteristics of women as they apply to the notion of evolutionary beauty.

As I approached the middle of the book, I couldn't help but notice that, while Dutton pays lip service to art from other cultures in his discussion of ethnography, his examples of great art and literature are overwhelmingly old, white, European, and (above all) linear, whether he's discussing music, visual arts, or literature. I love Middlemarch and Hard Times, but I wish Dutton could also cite great works of literature in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Finally, my enamor with the book completely dissipated as the discussion shifted from Darwin toward criticism -- with a decidedly anti-postmodern flavor. Throughout the book, for example, Dutton states that pleasure and representation are two of the chief aims of art. He goes so far as to say that these are two of twelve qualities that define art (Dutton 51-55). This seems a narrow classification, leaving out the sense of wonder we can get from tragedy, ugliness, the non-linear, and the abstract. At the end of the book, Dutton also asserts that the greatest arts are created with "a belief that real beauty exists, there is objective truth, and the good is a genuine value independent of human cultures and choices" (239). Objective truth? Oh Dutton, that's so 19th Century!

Maybe I'm a product of my own postmodern education, but in the end, despite my optimism for his subject, I just don't like Dutton's take on art. I can't help but wonder if he would like to rewind to the early 1900s and freeze our views of art and beauty in a pre-Modern, perhaps Pleistocene era.(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 17, 2011 Simone rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: art, art-analysis, biology, evolution

While Dutton's theories are interesting, I find he relies to often on singular sources of knowledge, specifically Steven Pinker. While I understand Dutton is modelling his theory loosely on Pinker's developments in linguistics as an evolutionary adaptation/instinct, I think the subject matter of art as a human instinct and not a culturally infused by-product of evolution demands a wider array of sources and scientific research. Dutton also takes a significantly long-winded approach to his explan...more While Dutton's theories are interesting, I find he relies to often on singular sources of knowledge, specifically Steven Pinker. While I understand Dutton is modelling his theory loosely on Pinker's developments in linguistics as an evolutionary adaptation/instinct, I think the subject matter of art as a human instinct and not a culturally infused by-product of evolution demands a wider array of sources and scientific research. Dutton also takes a significantly long-winded approach to his explanations. I did not always find his explanations or examples on target, and they were often unnecessarily repetitive, rather than adding new information. Therefore, once Dutton had come back to his point I was left wanting more sources and examples to back up the theory.

Dutton makes a good start, but his examples and follow through is lacking. Take for example chapter 5. He argues that art is not an adaptation, but also it is not a by-product. But he never really clearly defines what it is. It seems he has spent the whole chapter defining the way in which we should approach the chapter, while never really giving an explanation for how art is related to natural selection. Dutton explains that each individual piece of art gives us a unique experience that excites an intrinsic emotional reaction therefore it is not acting as a convenient replacement for going out and experiencing the same thing (ex. climbing a mountain) - meaning it is not a by-product. Well, that's all and good if you're talking about landscapes and still-lifes, but how does this apply to Suprematist, Constructivist, Neo-plastic, or Pop art? While I can theorize as to what he means - obviously the black square being the ideal "universal" form that would allow for a "universal" art means it has intrinsic value to us a human beings, if it is intrinsic it must relate to our evolution from our Pleistocene ancestors, but what Dutton should explain is exactly where this "intrinsic, emotional reaction" comes from. In my opinion, he fails to do so.

I find Dutton's arguments for fiction's evolutionary basis compelling. However, I don't think this was a very innovative take on the subject. Common sense tells us that fictional literature is still a didactic tool used to assess possible situations of conflict that may occur in our own lives, and to "deepen our grasp of human social and emotional experience." This would have been of use to our hunter-gather ancestors in forming societies, relationships, and for surviving threats. I also feel that Dutton tries to tackle too many forms of art in his analysis. In such a short book he is unable to give each topic the detail and attention it deserves.

So, I finally got to the crux of his argument. Art is the result of sexual selection. I think it best if I allow Dutton to speak for himself on this subject. What I think his ideas pare down to is that language, music, eventually the visual arts developed from a need to demonstrate to the opposite sex our fitness levels. When choosing a "mate" females look for someone who possesses the ability to provide for us - first, by being physically strong and able to protect us, and second by having considerable resources for us to live comfortably, which also suggests fitness, since these people will survive over those without resources. Men (again this is only the basic element of Dutton's arguments) look for women who will be able to give birth and carry on strong genes for the survival of the species - ie. women with wide childbearing hips - which explains the number of tiny-waisted, large hipped women in "beautiful" art. Leaving out some of the sexists implications in his arguments for present-day sexual selection, the idea that art forms represent early courtship "calls" seems a bit of a stretch. Dutton's claim that because most art shows a waste of resources leading to the assumptions that this potential mate has resources to waste (money, time, skills and knowledge that could be put to other more practical uses, but instead is applied to the relatively useless form of artistic creation) also seems ... well out-to-lunch. I slightly agree with the argument that art forms (music, literature and visual) give us a glimpse into the imaginative mind of the creator/author a response to the intrinsic desire to intimately know and understand our fellow human beings. I think that Dutton claims this also as a pursuit of fitness - understanding each other leads to strong ability to survive. But I felt he did not explain or pursue it well enough. His comparison of art to a peacock's tail feathers - an attractive feature, but unnecessary except for indicating fitness for sexual selection - also seems slightly absurd.

There was plenty of interesting facts in the book. And I feel I did learn a few things. But I don't really agree with Dutton's conclusions. It's not hard to believe we have an art instinct. Explaining it well and convincingly is the challenge. I would like someone with a strong knowledge of Darwin, evolution, and human biology to take a crack at it. (less)

like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 Alan added it

I liked it a lot. It provides an evolutionary explanation of art that's more satisfying than cheescake for other senses and goes beyond Steven Pinker's and other efforts that I'm aware off. But the latter part was not as satisfying as the beginning as Dutton seemed to shift from evolutionary and scientific evidence toward what I guess is more traditional philosophy of art. The book explains more than any other that I know, but I hope some empiricist keeps working on this and writes one that goes...more

like · see review

Nov 09, 2010 Kyle rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: art, nonfiction, science

The thesis of Dutton's The Art Instinct is that aesthetics can be understood in very rational terms as a product of human evolution. He uses the muscular prose of a good, strong-minded, confident scientific/intellectual argument, while also remaining crystal clear and (somehow) delicate. Still, the book never completely coalesces into an effective work.

I admire the audacity and provocation at the core of an argument like his -- marrying the seemingly cloudy and subjective (what is beautiful, int...more

like · see review

Jun 12, 2012 Liviania rated it 3 of 5 stars

If you can't tell, I don't read much non-fiction for pleasure. I love learning about things, but I usually save that for school and use my reading time for other pursuits. However, THE ART INSTINCT appeared to combine two of my favorite things, genetics and the arts. Unfortunately it is not friendly to casual reading. Denis Dutton's authorial voice is rather dry and unengaging.

Various ideas caught my attention, but I didn't really get into his argument until the 8th chapter (Intention, Forgery,...more If you can't tell, I don't read much non-fiction for pleasure. I love learning about things, but I usually save that for school and use my reading time for other pursuits. However, THE ART INSTINCT appeared to combine two of my favorite things, genetics and the arts. Unfortunately it is not friendly to casual reading. Denis Dutton's authorial voice is rather dry and unengaging.

Various ideas caught my attention, but I didn't really get into his argument until the 8th chapter (Intention, Forgery, Dada: Three Aesthetic Problems). Of course, this may be my personal interests talking. I often work at reconciling modern interpretation of text with its contemporary interpretation and possible authoritorial intent. And who doesn't find Dada fun?

But there were many points before that where I thought the text should hit its stride, particularly Chapter 5: Art and Natural Selection. Instead it felt like the argument just wasn't coming together. Dutton sets out to prove a rather large thesis, but at the end I feel like I'm still not sure what he's saying the connection between art and evolution is. He sometimes contradicts himself (especially in one terrible argument about a pill vs. a Salvador Rosa landscape) and he's far more familiar with art than the science aspects.

The book's best parts are the smaller arguments. He combats the extreme lengths academics go to to avoid ethnocentricism which only exoticize other cultures in the end through interesting thought experiments and examples of genres that may compare though they're done with different mediums. It's when he tries to connect the science and art that I often feel a disconnect.

For instance, Dutton explores why smell is not used more often as an artistic medium. He settles on memory being a large part of the problem, as building on a basic theme (as in music or fiction) cannot be done with smells as it would be hard to remember a specific sequence. Another problem would be lack of emotional impact. Yet smell is the best sense for bringing about instaneous memory. Smells triggering memory is an important survival instinct and an important part of human evolution. Research being done now with the human sense of smell is both incredibly weird and fascinating. Why write an entire passage about smell and art that seems to ignore this work?

I don't want to sound like I hated the work. (Although I did hate that his go-to example was Andy Warhol's Brillo boxes. He just kept mentioning them and it was driving me insane.) THE ART INSTINCT contains many interesting passages, but they're put together towards a shaky whole. I think a less provocative thesis might have served Dutton better. People interested in the philosophy of art will probably enjoy THE ART INSTINCT quite well.
(less)

like · see review

Jul 17, 2010 Ben Babcock rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: via-colbert, history, from-library, 2010-read, culture, non-fiction, philosophy, science

I am at war with myself. The feminist in me, who has been taking philosophy courses and reading books that challenge contemporary notions about gender, regards much of culture as a construction, something abstract and even arbitrary that we should alter to improve the status of various groups of people. The scientist in me, who reads books about genetics and ponders how amazing it is that we're programmed to learn how to talk but have developed writing as a skill, not an innate ability. These tw...more

like · see review

Jul 14, 2011 David rated it 4 of 5 stars

So why are the best selling calendars in Africa made up from scenes in the foothills of North America? Why are snake statues placed on buildings to frighten away birds in New Zealand when there are no snakes in the country? What makes us like art? Dutton brings several almost unconnected elements together to build his theory. I'm not sure he answers everything he brings up (or I buy it) but he made me stop to ponder quite a few things about art and culture.

Sadly he passed away recently. A wise m...more

like · see review

Feb 11, 2009 Kasia rated it 4 of 5 stars

So far, this book is a great introduction to the philosophy and psychology behind why we (as humans) make and can appreciate art. Dutton's prose is scientific- that is to say, truly informative writing that is supported by evidence. He cites many examples from different perspectives on art and the evolution of the human mind and consciousness, and even ventures to draw some conclusions of his own from his investigation. Really thought-provoking and enjoyable to read.

like · see review

May 18, 2010 Mike rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book is no good if you're not interested in learning something cool every paragraph or so.

One thing to recommend it: The dude actually defines art (or at least gives several criteria for distinguishing art from, say, cooking and basketball). Turns out he comes down on the side of common sense and against haughty and high-flung art theories, though he does so from a remarkably original and intersting vantage point.

Which is cool.

like · see review

Jan 15, 2013 Curtis Butturff is currently reading it

Shelves: non-fiction, art-history

Should prove an interesting argument. Basically it's making a case that what we like in art (and other venues presumably) aesthetically isn't a social convention that it is in fact hardwired genetically. I'll confess up front I'm skeptical of this as an end all argument. Certainly we have evolved to see a particular part of the wavelength spectrum of light there is no denying an underlying linkage to taste. I am just not likely to be sold there is nothing to the social construct theory of it. Li...more

like · see review

Dec 28, 2010 Jeff rated it 4 of 5 stars

For the past 50 years or so, most discussions about art and its meanings have been based in either semiotics or phenomenology. Discourse either focused on how art (in whatever medium) functioned as a language, or it focused not on the construction of art but rather the experience of the perceiver. Denis Dutton's book is part of a new trend (particularly popular in the UK, Australia & New Zealand it seems) to examine the notion that artmaking and art enjoying are part of a deeply ingrained an...more

like · see review

Mar 27, 2013 Sawiggins.wordpress.com rated it 4 of 5 stars

For all those who've ever wondered why people are so creative, Dutton provides some possible answers. Our evolution makes us more inventive than we think. Read more at: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World.

like · see review

Mar 16, 2011 Michael rated it 5 of 5 stars

Interesting take on the impulse to make art using a Darwinian model. Somewhat stilted toward a traditional art making approach but nonetheless raises fascinating questions throughout. Not for the descendants of the Duchampian model of art making, though his arguments could be adapted to fit any model.

like · see review

Apr 28, 2013 Judi marked it as did-not-finish · review of another edition

First chapter was interesting... after that it just seemed to be mired in a discussion that could only be appreciated by people who have been having this discussion for a long time, not someone like me who has always regretted not taking a class in art history. I'm back to reading fiction again today.

like · see review

Jul 30, 2011 Jeff Hrusko added it

I'm very disappointed in this book. There's really nothing new here.. I wish there was... well...more. The author rehashed a lot of art theory, then tries to put together a ridiculously long treatise about what is art...leading me, the reader, to believe he was just filling up pages

like · see review

Feb 08, 2010 Caro rated it 3 of 5 stars

Dutton makes a persuasive case that art is not merely a spandrel, but has evolved along with attributes like sociability as part of what makes us human. I read this as someone who's interested in evolution more than art and found it very interesting.

like · see review

Jun 24, 2012 Josh rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: art

This read more like an academic paper than other philosophy books (which must have been pop-sci in nature). I was able to follow and think about many good ideas presented without getting lost on the art history references made by the author.

like · see review

Apr 01, 2009 Orin rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: ideas

Tough topic. I agree but proving the point could be difficult. The chapter on dada and the Duchamp's Fountain is excellent. Worth the price of admission.

Finished today. This is not the last word on the subject, but it's a good start.

like · see review

May 06, 2010 Suzette Gee rated it 2 of 5 stars

I liked being exposed to new ideas, but I didn't feel like I learned anything earth-shattering in this book. He's basically exploring the idea that we are programmed for art and what we prefer in art.

like · see review

title link	preview: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution
avg rating	preview: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution Goodreads rating: 3.61 (511 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5788390-the-art-instinct?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1312062064l/5788390.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5788390-the-art-instinct?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution by Denis Dutton[/url]

The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (6)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Denis Dutton

Books by Denis Dutton

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Art Instinct