Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why

If you're reading this, you're interested in art, either in making it or in experiencing it or both. How about animal behavior? Better still, biological anthropology? This the book for you, as it was for me. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it was life-changing, in that so many things are now clear that didn't quite make sense or made no sense at all before I read it. This is definitely a book for those committed to Darwin. If you think the world, complete with cave paintings, was created 9000 years ago more or less as it stands now, this won't help you. But, if you would like to know about the profound survival value in "making special", this is fascinating. If you have been uncomfortable with some of the current rather rarified explanations for what "art" is, you will be relieved. It's a wonderful book on its own or in preparation for her most recent book, ART AND INTIMACY.

Tracing evolutionary roots to human creativity is a risky endeavour. The Romantic Era dismissal of "nature red in tooth and claw" misapplied to humans has its adherents even today. In more modern terms, the "postmodernist school" attributes human creativity solely to cultural environment. Dissanayake takes up the challenge and responds to these allegations from widely spread scholarship sources. She makes a solid case for human universals in many areas of expression, from graphic art through music and dance to poetry and prose. Even spoken language is addressed with an eye to derivations and commonalties. She presents her support for a Darwinian basis for art and expression with flair and enthusiasm. There's no hesitation in offering new terms or definitions as means of breaking the bonds of tradition or rigid thinking. Acknowledging that some of her ideas are ironic, or even heretical, she intends to builds a new framework for where art truly sits in our lives. Among other "heresies", the author roundly denounces the notion that "art" is a separate or fleeting aspect of human existence. Instead, she contends, art is integrated with religion and other human social conditions. Some aspect of art is as necessary as eating or sleeping to our species. Dissanayake contends that art must be raised in importance when considering what is valuable to us. Perhaps, Dissanayake suggests, in order to break the bonds restricting our view of "art" we need a new term. She coins "making special" for various objects or activities we now call "art". The "special" relates to the common means all organisms have in separating the mundane from the unexpected - the "extra-ordinary". If something extraordinary can promote emotions of delight, we can recreate it as something "special" and pleasurable. It might be removed from the mundane aspects of life, but the mundane may become art. A pot is made for storage or cooking, but if it's decorated in ways that bring a sense of "good" or of "pleasure", elevating it to art isn't a false promotion. Noting that both Nature and artefacts can be beautiful, only the beautiful that is created can be considered art. Much of Nature is beautiful, but only humans can create beauty. Hence, she declares that considerations of art must be "species-centred" or "bioevolutionary". Species-centrism, she warns, must not be misconstrued as detaching us from the rest of Nature. Indeed, as part of our evolutionary heritage, "species-centrism" is essential to understanding who we are. And what we can achieve. In her final analysis, Dissanayake notes that a radical idea arose toward the end of the Enlightenment. Art was placed in a realm where only the few educated in its precepts could comprehend it. The "critic" became a mediator between the artist and the observer. The too-common expression, "I don't know about art, but I know what I like" represents this break. Later, the "French philosophers", known as the post

I just finished this book, and... for the record, there are over 40 pages of footnotes and references in the back of the book. I'm not a expert in the field, but Homo Aestheticus feels like a graduate level text, and is certainly more "scholarly" than most books you'll find in a bookstore.That said, I found Homo Aestheticus to be one of the most unique and insightful books I've read. A few spots were quite detailed and dry, but overall I found myself underlining interesting points like a madman. The concluding chapter was mindblowing. The author somehow cohesively pulled together such topics as human experience, modernism and postmoderism, literacy and writing, oral tradition, language, symbols, and thought, meaning and reality, human and culture evolution, and, of course, aesthetics and art. Certainly, it will have a lasting impact on my thinking about "art." Very much recommended for interdisciplinary thinkers.

In the four years since I first read this book, I have come back to it again and again, to verify points, to re-examine ideas, and to seek inspiration. It is impossible to review this book adequately in 1000 words. Homo Aestheticus calls for a full-fledged course, to examine its ideas and implications, and to compare similar trends in cultures throughout the world.Over and over as I read this book, I was amazed (and amused) to see how closely Dissanayake -- quite unknowingly -- mirrored Confucian concepts and reasoning. If I were a librarian, I would file this book under Confucianism. Anybody interested in art, art history, culture, anthropology, psychology, or sociology will benefit deeply by devoting time and attention to this masterpiece.