In the forests of eastern Australia, satin bowerbirds create structures known as “bowers.”
The males gather twigs and place them upright, in two bundles, with a gap in the middle, resulting in what looks like a miniature archway. All around the bower the bird scatters small objects – shells, pieces of plastic, flower petals – which all possess the same property: the color blue.
Studies suggest that the purpose of the bowers is to impress and attract females. But their beauty and intricacy has left some researchers wondering whether they shouldn’t be considered art.
Off the coasts of Japan, male white-spotted puffer fish create impressive nests to attract females. The male pufferfish uses his mouth to remove rocks from the sand and his body to wiggle out long, strategically placed grooves. The finished product is a multi-ringed sand mandala about 6 feet in diameter.
Like the bowers, the nests of the pufferfish are beautiful and involve mate attraction. Yet some researchers argue that since these sorts of works all look roughly the same – have the same shape, use the same materials and so on – they’re more likely the result of evolved, inflexible dispositions than more creative processes.
Of course, figuring out whether something is a work of art requires answering some tricky philosophical questions. Are animals even capable of creating art? And how can we tell whether something is a work of art rather than just a coincidentally beautiful object? As a philosopher and artist who’s interested in aesthetics and biology, I recently wrote about the evolution of behaviors in animals that could be seen as art.
Read more on The Conversation.
