Advertisement

International Journal of Anthropology

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 245–258 | Cite as

Art in global context: An evolutionary/functionalist perspective for the 21st century

  • Dissanayake Ellen
Article

Abstract

Regarding the arts as something peopledo — as behaviors, rather than the residue or artifacts of behavior — makes possible a theoretical grounding about their nature and importance, an endeavor that current anthropology of art has largely abandoned. A reconsideration of the suspect and largely discarded terms “functionalism” and “evolutionism” is presented in light of current evolutionary thinking. It is suggested that a contemporary reformulation of these concepts, illustrated by the author's Darwinian or “adaptationist” perspective on art, supports aims and claims of current anthropology of art, and contributes new focus and direction to its endeavors.

Keywords

arts aesthetics human nature functionalism evolutionism Darwinism adaptationism, ethology adaptive value of art 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aiken N.E., 1998. The Biological Origins of Art. Westport CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson R., 1990. Calliope's Sisters: A Comparative Study of Philosophies of Art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bowlby J., 1969. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1: Attachment, London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
  4. Coe K., 2003. The Ancestress Hypothesis: Visual Art as Adaptation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Damme W. van, 1996. Beauty in Context: Towards and Anthropological Approach to Aesthetics. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin C., 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Diamond J., 1992. The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  8. Dissanayake E., 1988. What is Art For? Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  9. —, 1992. Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  10. —, 2000. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  11. Durkheim E., [1912] 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Karen E. Fields. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kaeppler A., 1971. Aesthetics of Tongan dance. Ethnomusicology, 15: 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcus G.E. and Fischer M. M. J., 1999. Anthropology as Cultural Critique. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Miall D. and Dissanayake E., 2003. The poetics of babytalk. Human Nature (Special Issue on the Arts), 14,4:337–364.Google Scholar
  15. Miller G.F., 2000, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  16. Miller G.F., 2001. Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. In G.J. Feist (Ed.), Evolution, Creativity, and Aesthetics (pp. 20–25). Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2, 1, American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  17. Pinker S., 1997. How The Mind Works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. —, 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  19. Power C., 1999. “Beauty” magic: The origins of art. In R. Dunbar, C. Knight and C. Power (Eds), The Evolution of Culture: An Interdisciplinary View (pp. 92–112). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wilson D.S., 1975. A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 72: 143–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —, 2002. Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson D.S. and Sober E., 1994. Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson E.O., 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for the Study of Man 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Walter Chapin Simpson Center for the HumanitiesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations