5 - Art as a human universal: an adaptationist view

Summary

In order to consider art as a human universal, it is of course necessary to decide what is meant both by the term “universal” and by the word “art”. “Universal” may imply that a feature (e.g. art) is untaught and appears spontaneously, is latent in all normal individuals, has been invented by all cultures, or is a product of some people (e.g. artists) that has been important in all societies. These meanings arise from different assumptions and carry incompatible implications.

Similarly, the familiar one-syllable word “art” drags behind it a long, shadowy train or “tail” of theory, definition, qualification and contention — an appendage that has become only more elaborated and unmanageable over the past century. Many unexamined assumptions are tucked into its folds, and one who looks for universals must begin by carefully sorting through these beguiling, yet confusing, embellishments.

For example, the word “art” is often tacitly restricted to the visual arts (e.g. paintings, sculptures, drawings), especially to “fine art” — and thereby denied to craft, to decoration and to the artistic efforts of untrained or untalented persons. A notion of fine art implies that there is a qualitative distinction to be made between art and non-art, or between good and bad art — in other words, that “art” is a kind of essence that inheres in some works and is lacking in others. What comprises that essence? Can it be defined so that one knows art when one encounters it? Does that essence inhere in art's form or content? In its function (or non-functionality)?