Why do we have art at all? There must be some evolutionary explanation. In this episode of the Aesthetics Bites podcast series, Stephen Davies discusses some of the evolutionary theories about where art came from in conversation with Nigel Warburton. Aesthetics Bites is a podcast series of interviews with top thinkers in the philosophy of art. It is a collaboration between the London Aesthetics Forum and Philosophy Bites and is made possible by a grant from the British Society of Aesthetics .
This is aesthetics bytes, a series for philosophy bites.
With me, Nigel Warburton and me, David Edmonds.
Aesthetics Bites is made in association with the London Aesthetics Forum and made possible by a grant from the British Society of Aesthetics.
All cultures have forms of artistic expression.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this seems a bit odd.
After all, it's not obvious what evolutionary advantage there is to writing poetry or even just appreciating poetry.
Stephen Davies, welcome to Aesthetics Bites.
Thank you for having me.
The topic we're going to talk about is art and evolution.
So what's the connection?
How are art and evolution related?
Different people have different theories about this, but there are three positions that I distinguish.
The first is that art is an adaptation.
That is to say, it's a measure of fitness, and it predicts who will have more children or better children.
Another possibility is that it's a byproduct of an adaptation, but it doesn't contribute anything biologically of its own.
And the third position is that it's a cultural technology.
Of course, like everything, it will depend in the end on evolution, but it'll be sufficiently removed from it that we can think of it as a cultural creation.
So we're talking about why it is from an evolutionary perspective that art evolved and artists started making things.
And so if it's an adaptation, what sort of candidates are there?
What sort of adaptation would painting pictures on a wall or carving stags antlers?