Abstract
When people look at a piece of art, they usually have the assumption that there is a human creator behind it. The idea of the possibility of a non-human creator, such as animals, almost never comes to their mind. While it is true that animals do not have the same level of complex and abstract thinking as humans do, they have proven to have capabilities beyond our expectations. Animals are capable of comprehending language, differentiating between objects, appreciating forms of beauty, and more. They are free from the influences of society, such as social norms and peer pressure. And they are mostly concerned with biological instincts of survival.
Extract
[...] This proves that animals can participate in a discourse about art, even though our understanding of their expressions is limited. So if animals have these abilities and understanding of visual forms, they should be considered art creators. Therefore, the definition of art needs to be revised; art is a work created on the surface of the earth, regardless whom or what the maker of the artworks may point to. Humans often seek to conceive ideas within the human context. However, in fact, we should not ignore the non-human layers of existence. [...]
[...] We are, of course, not suggesting that sophisticated aesthetic as practiced by humans already exists among animals. But, drawing on this animal resource, human aesthetics might have evolved and, later on, when cultural evolution (so typical of humanity) emerged, reached results very different from animal aesthetics. Although our aesthetics might be more evolved, we should admit that the aesthetics in animals still exist. For example, the male peacock has distinctive tail feathers. The fanning out of their unique colorful train is used in mating rituals and courtship display. [...]
[...] · I understand Pablo Picasso is really important but what on earth is he trying to achieve in Les Demoiselles D'Avignon? And what is the horse-like human figure with square bosom doing in there and WHAT DOES IT MEAN? · My son could do what Jackson Pollock did. · Duchamp actually exhibited an urinal? · Even I could put a Brillo Box, a can of Campbell's soup and a portrait of Marilyn Monroe together, take a photo and print them in neon colors. · Balloon dog? Seriously? [...]
[...] Their authenticity is what now human beings lack of. In modern art, people always attribute the art to a form of human-centered activities, for artists tend to consider various kinds of art perform methods among nations and cultures around the globe to be quite attributing, and investigating those kind of arts already consumed their major academic interest. However, some activities from more innovative yet easy-mentioned perspectives are often underestimated. We shall rather focus on some less popular yet more meaningful aspect, the aspect of animal artists towards modern art creation. [...]
[...] Surrealist artists try to tap into the unconscious mind and enter the land of psycho-analysis. In order for them to achieve that, they have to stop thinking spatially, and break themselves free from the established ways of looking at the universe such as linear understanding of time, and single-point perspective. Animals do not have to break free of anything. Their ideas are fresh and raw, and their intention are always pure and unengineered. Creations originate from life and should represent life. [...]
