because they are popular. I would add that people also like romantic movies in which everything works out happily for the couple in question. But calendar landscapes and ‘rom coms’
and elevator music are not our most celebrated
works of art.
‘endangering’ survival, makes life a bit more difficult.
Another aspect of the analogy is that both art
and the peacock’s tail involve putting energy
into something that does not directly promote
survival. This supposedly indicates that the
We also like our angular, asymmetrical, strikpeacock or artist has resources to spare. In the
ing Picassos and Modiglianis. We also like
chapter “Art and Human Self-Domestication,”
tragedy. We are captivated not only by impresDutton elaborates on the idea of art as a potensionistic paintings of wealthy children but also
tial fitness signal. As with the peacock’s tail or
by scenes of war and depression.
the gift of diamonds, the idea is that if an individual can squander resources—on a tail, a loved
Citing Aristotle, Dutton explains our attracone, a work of art—that individual is probably
tion to the artistic representations of unpleaswealthy and, therefore, a good provider. An artantness in part by saying that we admire artists’ work that sends this sort of signal will probably
skills of representation, whether or not we are
have some of the following characteristics, Dutattracted to the thing represented. “Thus a per- ton writes: be made of rare or expensive materison afraid of snakes or spiders can be captivated als, take a long time to make, require advanced
by a marble carving of a snake,” Dutton writes,
skill, be practically useless, require intellectual
“or a gold brooch in the intricate form of a
effort. Many artworks have these characterisspider.” This artistic skill may also have served
tics. I can see the argument that these aspects
as a ‘fitness signal’ throughout human evolution, of art might attract people, or mates, to artists.
Dutton argues, a signal that the person who
could create these works of art probably had
But where I disagree with Dutton is in the
good genes in general and would be a wise mate idea that art-making is a proxy for evolutionary
choice. The genes for the art instinct would
fitness. Anecdotally, I think art-making is astherefore be preserved through sexual selection, sociated with poverty and mental illness—and
the perpetuation of traits that mates find atsuicide—as often as it is connected with wealth
tractive.
and health. Think of William Styron, Van Gogh,
Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath. As for poverty, take
Here, in discussing sexual selection as an
Patti Smith before she made it or any artist who
evolutionary explanation for the art instinct,
hasn’t made it and is trying to live in New York.
Dutton makes an analogy between art and the
colorful, flashy tail of the peacock. Rather than
Dutton follows his discussion of these ‘fitness
aiding the peacock’s survival, the tail takes ensignals’ by an exploration of the ways in which
ergy resources to grow and may make the bird
people can send false signals—buying fake diamo re visible to predators. Evolution preserves
monds, for example. I think that art sometimes
the tail not because it aids survival directly—
serves as a false fitness signal, indicating that
it’s actually a handicap—but because the tail
an artist has time and money to spare when, in
attracts mates and assures that the genes for
fact, they may be putting everything they have,
producing it will be passed on. The tail does aid plus a little more, into their artwork. Yes, artists
survival indirectly, however, as the tail is a signal must have the resources they use to make their
for the peacock’s overall health and genetic fitart; however, whether they have resources to
ness (studies of peacocks have shown this to be spare is doubtful. My experience is that artists
the case).
make art whether or not they can afford it, pay
for ballet classes while skimping on food, and so
Let’s consider a few aspects of the analogy
on. I think of the story of how poet E.E. Cumbetween the peacock’s tail and art: both take
mings, having fallen on hard times, went to a
resources of energy, time, or both to produce.
fancy party all dressed up with no idea how he
Since art-making is notoriously difficult to make would pay for the cab fare home. He pretended
money at (though few do succeed), it is like the everything was fine. Then he did a (charming,
peacock’s tail in that it, while not necessarily
of course) trick involving a hat in exchange for
cash and his problem was solved, temporarily,
34
SciArt in America October 2014