Elephants painting

[pendell]

Now here I was thinking that the ability to create art was one of the things that distinguished humans from animals.

Turns out elephants can do it too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNogdpHeuiE&feature=related).

Discuss. Even though it's certainly a showman's trick on the order of teaching a horse to count with its foot, the feat still demonstrates a high level of intelligence.

I feel kinda bad that the elephant is a better artist than I am :smallredface:

ETA: Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp) examines the topic. Evidently the animal is painting by rote, exactly as the trainer showed him/her. So we're not dealing with a four-legged Raphael here. But even by rote, it's still very impressive.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I was in Thailand and saw it. The elephant painted a picture, and they had the exactly same one already in the shop.

I'm pretty sure there's genuinely painting apes, though.

[Xefas]

I'm pretty sure there's genuinely painting apes, though.

Cracked to the rescue. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18930_6-amazingly-intelligent-animals-that-will-creep-you-out_p2.html) That particular ape story is rather sad. Painting to mourn the loss of his dead dog. :smallfrown:

[pendell]

Further data from
hoax-slayer (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/elephant-painting.shtml)



Although she is certainly talented, Hong is not the only elephant painter. The phenomenon of elephant artists is well documented although, more commonly, their works can be considered abstract art rather than more realistic portraits like the example shown in the video. With these more abstract creations, the art is truly the work of the elephant and is not usually guided by humans or the result of a defined set of previously learned brushstrokes. A human helper must hand the paint-laden brushes to the elephant artist, but, with genuine abstract elephant art, the application of the paint is done by the elephant alone. An article on The Elephant Art Gallery, another site dedicated to elephant art, explains:
They are completely unaided during the creation of each painting, except for the handing over of the brushes. As soon as the paint loaded on the brushes has been used up, the elephants hand the empty brushes back to me (often banging my chest impatiently with their trunks) and wait to have the brushes reloaded.

While the elephants are painting they don't just wave their trunks around in the air, splashing paint onto the paper in a "hit and miss" fashion. On the contrary they obviously have spatial awareness and they carefully apply the strokes within the confines of the paper, rarely going over the edges except, one can assume, as an artistic gesture.


So although this is not an example of it, there IS such a thing as art that elephants create unaided save for the handing over of new brushes -- NOT mere rote repetition, but highly abstract. This, then, IMO would truly constitute art , created by an elephant artist.

So ... are they as intelligent as we are? If not, why not? Because we have thumbs and they don't?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ShadowHunter]

Something I don't think people always fully appreciate is just how smart elephants are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence

If I may steal wholesale from wiki: A wide variety of behaviors, including those associated with grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, art, play, a sense of humor, altruism, use of tools, compassion, self-awareness, memory and possibly language[3] all point to a highly intelligent species that are thought to be equal with cetaceans[4][5] and primates[6][7].

The examples of compassion and altruism are pretty interesting, such as an elephant that accidentally injured a human out in hot Africa, so the elephant picked her up, moved her under the shade of a tree, and guarded her until some other humans came and got her.

[Savannah]

So ... are they as intelligent as we are?

It's really impossible to say at the moment. Without a language to communicate with them, we have no way using our measures of intelligence on them. Elephants (and animals in general) are far smarter than we give them credit for, however.

[AshDesert]

It's hard to say exactly how smart elephants are, since we can't communicate with them (yet), but it's safe to say they're probably in the top 5 smartest animals. Right now I'm pretty sure that most scientists consider humans to be the smartest animals, although the margin by which we are is debated. Dolphins, elephants, great apes, and chimpanzees are generally considered to be about equal intelligence since they all show higher cognitive thought abilities. It's too bad that some elephants are starting to hate humans though.

[Savannah]

Err....chimpanzees are great apes (technically, so are humans). But, yeah, the great apes, elephants, and cetaceans (dolphins, whales, etc) are probably the most intelligent creatures we know of (there's no particular order to my list).

[LOTRfan]

It's too bad that some elephants are starting to hate humans though.

Can you really blame them? We've been murdering them for countless years. If we did it for food, I'd understand. But just for the ivory, leave the rest of the corpse laying there? :smallfrown:

[averagejoe]

So ... are they as intelligent as we are?

Some of us, certainly. Did you know that nearly half of all humans have below-average intelligence? I blame the schools.

These stories always make me freak the heck out. But in a good way.

[Perenelle]

Can you really blame them? We've been murdering them for countless years. If we did it for food, I'd understand. But just for the ivory, leave the rest of the corpse laying there? :smallfrown:

I agree, its so sad. :smallfrown: I get that people want money and all, but is that really necessarily? :smallsigh: I have no idea how often that happens though.


I still find it really impressive that an elephant can learn to do that, even if it's by rote. I have seen elephants do splatter painting before when I was younger. As long as they enjoy it, I think it's pretty neat.

[Winter_Wolf]

Some of us, certainly. Did you know that nearly half of all humans have below-average intelligence? I blame the schools.


Man I'm sorry I just had to laugh at this. Isn't the whole point of average intelligence that it's the midpoint? :smallwink:

I think it's cool that other animals have capacity to make art. We humans in general seem to think rather highly of ourselves as a species and could probably stand to be put down a few pegs.

Would I ever buy art painted by an elephant? No, probably not. Because in the first place I dislike abstract art, and in the second place I doubt very much that people will believe me when I tell them who the artist was.

[averagejoe]

Man I'm sorry I just had to laugh at this. Isn't the whole point of average intelligence that it's the midpoint? :smallwink:

Surely you're not suggesting that I said something that I wasn't entirely serious about! :smalltongue:

[AshDesert]

This thread is rapidly derailing into animal intelligence, but one last thing off-topic. Pigs are one of the smartest species out there. Some of them are thought to have roughly the intelligence of an average 3-year-old human.

I would probably buy a painting by an elephant or gorilla. It would be an interesting conversation piece at the very least. I'd especially like to have a painting that actually looks like something real, like some gorillas are capable of painting. I don't know if elephants can on their own (they can by rote though), but it wouldn't surprise me if some individuals could.

[Xefas]

Pigs are one of the smartest species out there. Some of them are thought to have roughly the intelligence of an average 3-year-old human.

Then it is terribly unfortunate that every single part of them is so very delicious.

[Winter_Wolf]

Surely you're not suggesting that I said something that I wasn't entirely serious about! :smalltongue:

>.> <.< No idea what you're talking about. :smallbiggrin:

On elephant art, maybe to them abstract art is the highest form of art and they secretly laugh amongst themselves that most humans can't do anything better than realism.* I'd like to think so anyway. Snobby elitist elephant artistes! :smallcool:

*I'm not putting down abstract art as a lesser form of art to realism.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Then it is terribly unfortunate that every single part of them is so very delicious.

I love pigs. I want a pet pig.

But at the same time, I love pork. I want some bacon.

[RebelRogue]

Man I'm sorry I just had to laugh at this. Isn't the whole point of average intelligence that it's the midpoint? :smallwink
Technically, the midpoint is the median, not the average. But since IQ is presumably normal distributed, these should be identical.

In any case, I found that original video adorable, I must say.

[Amiel]

So ... are they as intelligent as we are? If not, why not? Because we have thumbs and they don't?
I believe animals are more intelligent than we give them credit for, even insects; but our understanding is limited both by our lack of knowledge and our prejudices towards them :(.


I love pigs. I want a pet pig.

But at the same time, I love pork. I want some bacon.

Get two pet pigs, combine your activities :smalltongue:

[pendell]

I agree, its so sad. :smallfrown: I get that people want money and all, but is that really necessarily? :smallsigh: I have no idea how often that happens though.



Pirates. Bandits. Outlaws. Captain Jack Sparrow. Robin Hood.

No matter how pretty a face you put on it, and no matter how you justify it, the fact remains that there are plenty of humans out there who have no problem WHATEVER preying on other humans. And the rest of the world applauds them and holds them up as someone or something worthy of emulation.

Given that this is what humans do to fellow humans, we shouldn't wonder that we do even worse to animals. The wonder is that in this darkness there are still bright sparks who can be kind both to animals and to each other.

Funny thing about darkness. It can be held at bay by a single candle.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[leakingpen]

Ruby painted for years here at the Phoenix zoo. She was known to paint things that she had recently seen, for example, fire trucks, actual fire, and after a trainer died, she did 20 almost identical paintings in a row that someone finally realized were pictures of that trainer, in the outfit she most often wore.

I got to watch her a couple times as a kid, and it was really like watching the joy of painting. She would take time to consider a brush and a color, make a mark, step back, look at it from a couple angles, step back in and make another mark.

[Eldan]

Err....chimpanzees are great apes (technically, so are humans). But, yeah, the great apes, elephants, and cetaceans (dolphins, whales, etc) are probably the most intelligent creatures we know of (there's no particular order to my list).

Birds. You really forgot birds. Someone linked a cracked article earlier, where on the first page, they discuss Alex the grey parrot.

They link a video of Alex, where he does this:

His handler shows him a plate with green and blue plastic cars, and green and blue plastic blocks. She asks him: "How many green block?", he replies: "Two green block." Correctly. And she says she never showed him that arrangement of blocks before.
She goes on handing him a square of wool. "What fabric, alex?" "Wool fabric." "What shape?" "Four corners".


And then there's crows. They are frighteningly smart sometimes.

[KenderWizard]

I saw those elephants when I was in Thailand! They were very impressive, seeing them paint.

One of them then beat me in a game of darts, but it was totally unfair because his darts were heavier and sharper than mine. We were competing to pop balloons, and one of my darts was so useless it actually bounced off a balloon. So the elephant won, but I got the prize anyway because it was a keyring and the elephant didn't need it. :smallwink:

[Ashen Lilies]

Where in Thailand was this? Because now I need to go play darts with an elephant, just to say that I have. O.O

[Frozen_Feet]

Birds. You really forgot birds. Someone linked a cracked article earlier, where on the first page, they discuss Alex the grey parrot.

They link a video of Alex, where he does this:

His handler shows him a plate with green and blue plastic cars, and green and blue plastic blocks. She asks him: "How many green block?", he replies: "Two green block." Correctly. And she says she never showed him that arrangement of blocks before.
She goes on handing him a square of wool. "What fabric, alex?" "Wool fabric." "What shape?" "Four corners".


And then there's crows. They are frighteningly smart sometimes.

One video I saw of Alex had him routinely asking "Go back?" - it seemed he was annoyed with the questioning. Once, between questions, he asked "Can I have water?", and when the questioner offered him some and he didn't drink, she called him out for trying to weasel off.

It was amusing.

[AshDesert]

Birds. You really forgot birds. Someone linked a cracked article earlier, where on the first page, they discuss Alex the grey parrot.

They link a video of Alex, where he does this:

His handler shows him a plate with green and blue plastic cars, and green and blue plastic blocks. She asks him: "How many green block?", he replies: "Two green block." Correctly. And she says she never showed him that arrangement of blocks before.
She goes on handing him a square of wool. "What fabric, alex?" "Wool fabric." "What shape?" "Four corners".


And then there's crows. They are frighteningly smart sometimes.

The thing is, Alex was an outlier. He's (as far as we know) the only bird that ever displayed higher cognitive thought processes. Great apes, dolphins, and elephants on the other hand display remarkable intelligence in almost all members of the species. Also, Alex was crazy intelligent. He essentially learned and spoke human language, making him probably the only animal to actually hold a conversation with a human.

[Admiral Squish]

What of octopi? I watched a special on them the other day, and they can show problem-solving, memory, logic, and the capacity to learn. some believe the main reason that octopi don't have what we would consider an intelligent society is that, until recently, every generation started learning from scratch. The octopus mother dies watching the eggs, and the children are left to figure things out on their own. However, recently, octopi have begun gathering in larger numbers in certain areas, and these octopi are the ones shown to have an advanced capability for learning. Since there are more of them close together, even without mothers to raise and nurture them, the young octopi are shown to be learning from other, older octopi that they observe in the wild.

I, for one, think this is TOTALY AWESOME and I can't wait for there to be an octopus tribal society.

[Ytaker]

Their abstract art kinda sucks.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

Mostly just a bunch of wavey lines with no meaning or emotional connotation. All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk.

Animals can do some cool things, but even when they imitate humans they're way below us in intelligence.

[AshDesert]

What of octopi? I watched a special on them the other day, and they can show problem-solving, memory, logic, and the capacity to learn. some believe the main reason that octopi don't have what we would consider an intelligent society is that, until recently, every generation started learning from scratch. The octopus mother dies watching the eggs, and the children are left to figure things out on their own. However, recently, octopi have begun gathering in larger numbers in certain areas, and these octopi are the ones shown to have an advanced capability for learning. Since there are more of them close together, even without mothers to raise and nurture them, the young octopi are shown to be learning from other, older octopi that they observe in the wild.

I, for one, think this is TOTALY AWESOME and I can't wait for there to be an octopus tribal society.

Nah, they've always been intelligent, it's all just an act. They're coming together now because they've heard the call of C'Thulhu, and are starting preparations for the return of the Old Ones.

Or we're witnessing the start of new tribal societies emerging. Which would be cool, if it weren't for the fact that new research is going into making the ocean our "Plan B" if we end up screwing up this whole land thing. Just because there's a lot of ocean out there doesn't mean that all of it is conducive to society. Although now that I think of it, land wars for underwater real estate against tribes of intelligent octopi in the far future would make for a pretty awesome RP campaign. Excuse me, I've got a setting to go write...

[averagejoe]

Their abstract art kinda sucks.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/

Mostly just a bunch of wavey lines with no meaning or emotional connotation. All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk.

Animals can do some cool things, but even when they imitate humans they're way below us in intelligence.

It seems strange to judge elephant art by human standards. Especially when one is talking about abstract art, something which pretty much by definition doesn't need to have, for lack of a better word, common linguistic/symbolical associations that others need recognize.

Given that, it also seems strange to draw the conclusion, "All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk," just by judging the paintings by these human standards. I'm not sure we have enough data to make any conclusions about the elephant's intent, nor do we know enough about elephant psychology to know what connotation a bunch of wavy lines might have.

[Eldan]

I can't say whether or not that's really art, but at least to me, those pictures sure all seem similar.

[averagejoe]

I can't say whether or not that's really art, but at least to me, those pictures sure all seem similar.

Maybe to elephants all human paintings look similar. Think about that. :smalltongue:

Seriously, my point is that we can't draw conclusions from that. We don't know what that means.

[Ytaker]

Maybe to elephants all human paintings look similar. Think about that. :smalltongue:

Seriously, my point is that we can't draw conclusions from that. We don't know what that means.

Let me give an example of what I mean.

http://www.abstractartgallery.com/001.html

The first one is lines of black squares next to lines of white squares with a whirlpool effect in the middle.

http://www.abstractartgallery.com/040.html

The last one is large white circles with stalks on a black background.

For elephants.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9138.php

The first one is lines of different colours in a fairly random positioning.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1084.php

The last one is lines of different colours in a fairly random positioning. It's slightly more colourful.

It's quite hard to differentiate the two based on a simple discription. There's a lack of features which make them different. This is in contrast to human art. This is likely because, far from them actually having a vision in their head and drawing it they are randomly placing lines of paint on a piece of paper.

Also, if the elephants did have a psychological reason for drawing, they would likely draw objects they were thinking about. Hunters, humans, food, trees. There would be shapes other than lines.

[averagejoe]

The last one is lines of different colours in a fairly random positioning. It's slightly more colourful.

It's quite hard to differentiate the two based on a simple discription. There's a lack of features which make them different. This is in contrast to human art. This is likely because, far from them actually having a vision in their head and drawing it they are randomly placing lines of paint on a piece of paper.

Also, if the elephants did have a psychological reason for drawing, they would likely draw objects they were thinking about. Hunters, humans, food, trees. There would be shapes other than lines.

Humans have been developing art since time forgotten; in fact, art is the only concrete evidence we really have of humanity past a point. In society we're literally exposed to art and artistic concepts all the time our whole lives. It's very easy to take for granted the concepts and pretensions that come easily to everyone. Not only do elephants have no artistic tradition and, in general, no exposure to artistic concepts, they have a psychology that's at least somewhat alien to us. Perhaps proto-human proto-art started out as just some people who liked to make marks. That doesn't mean we can infer meaning or significance (or lack of) in its simplicity or primitive nature.

[Ytaker]

Humans have been developing art since time forgotten; in fact, art is the only concrete evidence we really have of humanity past a point. In society we're literally exposed to art and artistic concepts all the time our whole lives. It's very easy to take for granted the concepts and pretensions that come easily to everyone. Not only do elephants have no artistic tradition and, in general, no exposure to artistic concepts, they have a psychology that's at least somewhat alien to us. Perhaps proto-human proto-art started out as just some people who liked to make marks. That doesn't mean we can infer meaning or significance (or lack of) in its simplicity or primitive nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20,000_Year_Old_Cave_Paintings_Hyena.gif

We've seen some proto art. They tended to draw things they were thinking of, like prey. The oldest painting is of a horse, I think. That's what art without concepts and pretensions looks like. You draw what's around you.

Besides, it seems unlikely to assume that elephants are so advanced that they are thinking in some super abstract way- abstract art is more complicated than doing normal art since it involves an imagination- but they are unable to have simple thoughts simply based on the much simpler concept of what they see. Why would they skip out the first step and go onto the more complicated step?

[Admiral Squish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20,000_Year_Old_Cave_Paintings_Hyena.gif

We've seen some proto art. They tended to draw things they were thinking of, like prey. The oldest painting is of a horse, I think. That's what art without concepts and pretensions looks like. You draw what's around you.

Besides, it seems unlikely to assume that elephants are so advanced that they are thinking in some super abstract way- abstract art is more complicated than doing normal art since it involves an imagination- but they are unable to have simple thoughts simply based on the much simpler concept of what they see. Why would they skip out the first step and go onto the more complicated step?

Well, according to Leakingpen:

Ruby painted for years here at the Phoenix zoo. She was known to paint things that she had recently seen, for example, fire trucks, actual fire, and after a trainer died, she did 20 almost identical paintings in a row that someone finally realized were pictures of that trainer, in the outfit she most often wore.

I got to watch her a couple times as a kid, and it was really like watching the joy of painting. She would take time to consider a brush and a color, make a mark, step back, look at it from a couple angles, step back in and make another mark.
To me, this indicates the first step isn't really skipped at all, perhaps it has yet to really develop. However, I think that you're holding up human development as a yardstick for animal development, when the truth of the matter is they're not humans. They have a decidedly non-human shape, a decidedly non-human lifestyle, and a decidedly non-human perception of the world. The human mind is conditioned to anthropomorphise others, however, and that's what we see happening. A behavior alien to the elephant experience is introduced, and people expect the elephants to respond exactly like a human would.

[AshDesert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20,000_Year_Old_Cave_Paintings_Hyena.gif

We've seen some proto art. They tended to draw things they were thinking of, like prey. The oldest painting is of a horse, I think. That's what art without concepts and pretensions looks like. You draw what's around you.

The oldest pieces of art we've found are 75,000 years old, and they are drilled snail shells. The oldest paintings we know of are about 40,000 years old. The Homo genus has been around for about 2 million years, and Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. We likely don't have examples of the very first paintings humans made. It's very possible that it looked much like this elephant art.


Besides, it seems unlikely to assume that elephants are so advanced that they are thinking in some super abstract way- abstract art is more complicated than doing normal art since it involves an imagination- but they are unable to have simple thoughts simply based on the much simpler concept of what they see. Why would they skip out the first step and go onto the more complicated step?

Abstract art is more complicated to US. We really don't know how elephants think. It could be that it's easier for them to express themselves in an abstract way.

[Xefas]

What of octopi? I watched a special on them the other day, and they can show problem-solving, memory, logic, and the capacity to learn.
I, for one, think this is TOTALY AWESOME and I can't wait for there to be an octopus tribal society.

Then it is terribly unfortunate that every single part of them is so very delicious.

Although, maybe if they do create a tribal society, we can trade them stuff like powertools and sets of Settlers of Catan in exchange for their tasty, tasty younglings.

[Ytaker]

Well, according to Leakingpen:

Leakingpen's elephant was a trained elephant. That elephant was trained to reproduce movements. Otherwise Ruby would be a completely revolutionary elephant, completely different to all others.


The oldest pieces of art we've found are 75,000 years old, and they are drilled snail shells. The oldest paintings we know of are about 40,000 years old. The Homo genus has been around for about 2 million years, and Homo Sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. We likely don't have examples of the very first paintings humans made. It's very possible that it looked much like this elephant art.

Drilled snail shells, used for jewellry. Whole different game, and very creative.

Well, if you want to talk about artifacts, archeologists classify faces like the Mask of la Roche-Cotard

http://s3.hubimg.com/u/859530_f496.jpg

As evident of artistic talent.

Or the Bilzingsleben bone, ironically from an elephant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Bilzingsleben_bone.jpg

With lines in a semi ordered pattern. Symmetry. Order we can't quite interpret, but can see.

I mean, it's possible that it looked like elephant art, we just have no evidence it did.

[Savannah]

Leakingpen's elephant was a trained elephant. That elephant was trained to reproduce movements. Otherwise Ruby would be a completely revolutionary elephant, completely different to all others.

You got any evidence of that? A quick google search shows several sources saying that she was given painting equipment after zookeepers saw her doodling in the sand with a stick. Doesn't sound trained to me.

Furthermore, according to leakingpen's account, even if she were trained, she was not instructed to paint a series of paintings of a trainer who'd just died. She chose to do that.

[Ytaker]

You got any evidence of that? A quick google search shows several sources saying that she was given painting equipment after zookeepers saw her doodling in the sand with a stick. Doesn't sound trained to me.

Furthermore, according to leakingpen's account, even if she were trained, she was not instructed to paint a series of paintings of a trainer who'd just died. She chose to do that.

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/learn/authentic/are-elephant-paintings-art.php

"Elephants have been known to pick up a tool (like a stick for example) and to doodle in the dirt of their own free will. In its simplest form, this is elephant art. The fact is that they don’t produce something recognizable (to you and I) in their doodling, except occasionally by fluke, but we can’t deny that it came from within them. It might mean something to them...

On other elephant art websites, you are likely to see something completely different, such as endless identical so called 'self portraits' with a few carefully controlled lines that depict an elephant outline often holding a flower in its trunk, or perhaps a painting of a vase of flowers, or a landscape, geometric shapes, or 'pointillist' patterns in neat rows. Do you think any of these paintings were created from within the artist of their own volition? Of course not! "

If that elephant truly did do non abstract art, again, that would be pretty revolutionary. People aren't above faking these things, though.

If she did chose to do that, then someone should get a picture of her, or some similar elephant, who chose to make actual art.

[Admiral Squish]

Also, another thing ocurred to me. Humans have senses extremely focused on sight. However, elephants are known to have relatively weak eyes. In addition, humans are relatively low on the food chain (or, were, in the early years), while healthy adult elephants have no natural predators. And finally, humans are omnivores with a healthy interest in meat, while elephants are herbivores. So, while human art first originated to visually represent threats and prey, creatures that are dangerous or useful to humans, it would make sense that elephant art would not be so representative. Firstly, because the elephant can't perceive as much detail as a human, and their brains are not wired to focus so strongly on the visual. The impressionistic style may be a side effect of this lack of visual detail. Secondly, because elephants have very little to fear and only eat plants, they don't have a cultural need to create representative works to teach others what to fear or what to eat.

[Xyk]

There's an ape species in the Congo that can learn to write. It's not quite the same as painting, but he also tried playing the xylophone and messed with an electric piano.

The Bonobo (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html)

He also made a fire with a lighter! And sort of drove a golf cart!

[Ytaker]

Yeah, apes are pretty smart. You can teach some english too, so they definitely have the potential to learn to draw real objects, do some good art.

[Worira]

Also, another thing ocurred to me. Humans have senses extremely focused on sight. However, elephants are known to have relatively weak eyes. In addition, humans are relatively low on the food chain (or, were, in the early years), while healthy adult elephants have no natural predators. And finally, humans are omnivores with a healthy interest in meat, while elephants are herbivores. So, while human art first originated to visually represent threats and prey, creatures that are dangerous or useful to humans, it would make sense that elephant art would not be so representative. Firstly, because the elephant can't perceive as much detail as a human, and their brains are not wired to focus so strongly on the visual. The impressionistic style may be a side effect of this lack of visual detail. Secondly, because elephants have very little to fear and only eat plants, they don't have a cultural need to create representative works to teach others what to fear or what to eat.


Or maybe they're just dumb.

[AsteriskAmp]

I'm actually more interested in the why of this behaviour over the implications.
My understanding of animal behavior was that they tried to adapt to their medium and survive, they were geared toward adaptation.
But painting is definitely something not related to that, so, Why are these elephants painting? Because I doubt it's based on the human conception of expressing it's feelings, or the human impulse to do it because it can be done.

[Serpentine]

I love pigs. I want a pet pig.It's kinda sad that, from what I understand, the pig breed most physiologically appropriate for a pet is also one of the least suitable personality-wise.
Ruby painted for years here at the Phoenix zoo. She was known to paint things that she had recently seen, for example, fire trucks, actual fire, and after a trainer died, she did 20 almost identical paintings in a row that someone finally realized were pictures of that trainer, in the outfit she most often wore.Elephant?

The thing is, Alex was an outlier. He's (as far as we know) the only bird that ever displayed higher cognitive thought processes. Great apes, dolphins, and elephants on the other hand display remarkable intelligence in almost all members of the species. Also, Alex was crazy intelligent. He essentially learned and spoke human language, making him probably the only animal to actually hold a conversation with a human.Not at all. "Higher cognitive thought" includes self-recognition, imagination, learning, teaching, long-term memory, abstract thought including... can't remember what it's called but it involves knowing that something's still there even though you can't see it, tool use and making, culture, and so on. Few of these have been comprehensively studied in many species, but many - perhaps all - have been found in many that we've actually looked at. So, no, he's definitely not "the only bird that ever displayed higher cognitive thought processes".

Mostly just a bunch of wavey lines with no meaning or emotional connotation. All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk.How do you know? Seriously, the scientific world would love to have the insight into the workings of the animal mind you apparently have. Before you say it, no, we don't know that they do have meaning or emotional connotation, although there has already been listed some evidence that at least some do. But nor do you have any more evidence that they don't, so you insistence that their artworks are bad or meaningless is itself meaningless nonsense.

The best example of animal intelligence I've heard of was a couple of dolphins (dead now, alas). The trainers taught them a whole lot of words, for different tricks and tasks things. One day they told the dolphins: "create trick". They went off, swam around for a bit, then came back and did a fancy flip thing - a trick they'd never done or seen done before, coordinated, brand new.

On elephant art, specifically, I once went to an art gallery with my dad and his then-girlfriend. I can't remember whether it was the girlfriend or someone else, but someone was complaining about this great big piece of abstract art. They insisted that they could've done so much better. We went and looked at the blurb about it... Elephant did it :smallamused:

[Savannah]

can't remember what it's called but it involves knowing that something's still there even though you can't see it

Object permanence.


The best example of animal intelligence I've heard of was a couple of dolphins (dead now, alas). The trainers taught them a whole lot of words, for different tricks and tasks things. One day they told the dolphins: "create trick". They went off, swam around for a bit, then came back and did a fancy flip thing - a trick they'd never done or seen done before, coordinated, brand new.

That is awesome! Do you by any chance have a source for that?

And if we're talking about incredible animal intelligence, (at least some) dogs can plot and they can lie. I've heard many variations on this scenario:
Dog A has a toy dog B wants. So B goes and barks at the door like someone's there. A runs to bark at the door, too, and B immediately stops barking and grabs the toy while A's distracted.

[dgnslyr]

This news of elephants painting, it troubles me. If they're intelligent enough to paint, they may be intelligent enough to wage war. Remember the tragedies of Boatmurdered! Don't allow yourselves to be fooled by the pachydermal menace!

[Serpentine]

That is awesome! Do you by any chance have a source for that?Australian or National Geographic. Or something like that. Can't find the exact copy, unfortunately. I'll do a search and get back to you.
edit: Here's (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text/8) the specific part of the article I was talking about, but the whole thing's relevant.
You know, I think, if I ever did decide to follow up on my original plan and work as a scientist, animal psychology would definitely be my field of choice.
This news of elephants painting, it troubles me. If they're intelligent enough to paint, they may be intelligent enough to wage war. Remember the tragedies of Boatmurdered! Don't allow yourselves to be fooled by the pachydermal menace!
They already are. Just because it's convenient, yet another Cracked article (http://www.cracked.com/article_18912_6-animals-humanity-accidentally-made-way-scarier.html). Basically, we're screwing up their whole social structure. That, combined with elephant memories and the fact they do things like grieve, means there's a lot of angry young bucks with a grudge against humans.

[averagejoe]

Also, another thing ocurred to me. Humans have senses extremely focused on sight. However, elephants are known to have relatively weak eyes. In addition, humans are relatively low on the food chain (or, were, in the early years), while healthy adult elephants have no natural predators. And finally, humans are omnivores with a healthy interest in meat, while elephants are herbivores. So, while human art first originated to visually represent threats and prey, creatures that are dangerous or useful to humans, it would make sense that elephant art would not be so representative. Firstly, because the elephant can't perceive as much detail as a human, and their brains are not wired to focus so strongly on the visual. The impressionistic style may be a side effect of this lack of visual detail. Secondly, because elephants have very little to fear and only eat plants, they don't have a cultural need to create representative works to teach others what to fear or what to eat.

"Cultural need," may be overstating things, but I see what you mean.


I'm actually more interested in the why of this behaviour over the implications.
My understanding of animal behavior was that they tried to adapt to their medium and survive, they were geared toward adaptation.
But painting is definitely something not related to that, so, Why are these elephants painting? Because I doubt it's based on the human conception of expressing it's feelings, or the human impulse to do it because it can be done.

Couple things about that:

Painting can be tied directly to survival in a few ways. Most significantly, it can relate to the transmission and retention of information in a pre-language world, or even in culture that has language but doesn't have efficient means to write and/or store it. It is a huge thing that each generation doesn't have to relearn significantly useful things, and provides the chance to build on that knowledge and learn even more useful things. It can also provide things like morale and community cohesiveness, which are also important to the survival of social animals.

Second, even if it doesn't lead to survival, reproduction is just as important, and, well... try becoming a really good artist and see how easy it is to get laid. :smallamused:

[AshDesert]

They already are. Just because it's convenient, yet another Cracked article (http://www.cracked.com/article_18912_6-animals-humanity-accidentally-made-way-scarier.html). Basically, we're screwing up their whole social structure. That, combined with elephant memories and the fact they do things like grieve, means there's a lot of angry young bucks with a grudge against humans.

Darn, beat me to it. I love Cracked:smallsmile:


Not at all. "Higher cognitive thought" includes self-recognition, imagination, learning, teaching, long-term memory, abstract thought including... can't remember what it's called but it involves knowing that something's still there even though you can't see it, tool use and making, culture, and so on. Few of these have been comprehensively studied in many species, but many - perhaps all - have been found in many that we've actually looked at. So, no, he's definitely not "the only bird that ever displayed higher cognitive thought processes".

Looking it up, yeah, (some) birds are smarter than I gave them credit for. However, I think Alex is still the only bird that ever actually understood our language (as far as I know anyway). I don't think that birds are intelligent as great apes, whales, or elephants, but they are one of the smarter groups out there.

[averagejoe]

Looking it up, yeah, (some) birds are smarter than I gave them credit for. However, I think Alex is still the only bird that ever actually understood our language (as far as I know anyway). I don't think that birds are intelligent as great apes, whales, or elephants, but they are one of the smarter groups out there.

Even if that's true, crows at times completely blow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVhrrDvwPM) my (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofjo26O0z_o) mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

There's another one I couldn't find, where a crow takes a straight piece of wire and bends it into a hook to get food. So crazy!

[Ytaker]

How do you know? Seriously, the scientific world would love to have the insight into the workings of the animal mind you apparently have. Before you say it, no, we don't know that they do have meaning or emotional connotation, although there has already been listed some evidence that at least some do. But nor do you have any more evidence that they don't, so you insistence that their artworks are bad or meaningless is itself meaningless nonsense.

The evidence for their emotional skill has been from elephants who were also taught to paint by trainers who could have faked it, and contradicts other sources that says elephants only do abstract paintings. It also lacks any documentary evidence.

The reason I doubt in it's meaninfulness is it lacks symmetry or any sort of order that is generally a characteristic of intelligent thinking. The fact that it is indistinguishable from a meaningless painting is evidence it's meaningless.

Elephants are smart, just not smart enough to do good paintings.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Even if that's true, crows at times completely blow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVhrrDvwPM) my (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofjo26O0z_o) mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

There's another one I couldn't find, where a crow takes a straight piece of wire and bends it into a hook to get food. So crazy!

That is amazing and scary. Equal parts.

[AsteriskAmp]

Even if that's true, crows at times completely blow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVhrrDvwPM) my (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofjo26O0z_o) mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

There's another one I couldn't find, where a crow takes a straight piece of wire and bends it into a hook to get food. So crazy!

I now feel the need of having a crow pet.

[Serpentine]

The reason I doubt in it's meaninfulness is it lacks symmetry or any sort of order that is generally a characteristic of intelligent thinking. The fact that it is indistinguishable from a meaningless painting is evidence it's meaningless.You said that there was "no emotional connotation" in the elephant pieces - in any elephant piece - as a statement of simple fact. From whence did you get this profound insight into the inner workings of the emotional states of elephant minds? Please let all those behavioural scientists know, because such an insight would be invaluable to our understanding of animal minds.

[AsteriskAmp]

You said that there was "no emotional connotation" in the elephant pieces - in any elephant piece - as a statement of simple fact. From whence did you get this profound insight into the inner workings of the emotional states of elephant minds? Please let all those behavioural scientists know, because such an insight would be invaluable to our understanding of animal minds.

Absolutes, the foremost fallacy of logic.
In his defence he was using singulars in the middle paragraph, so it could mean some individual cases he had seen.

Still


The evidence for their emotional skill has been from elephants who were also taught to paint by trainers who could have faked it, and contradicts other sources that says elephants only do abstract paintings. It also lacks any documentary evidence.

The reason I doubt in it's meaninfulness is it lacks symmetry or any sort of order that is generally a characteristic of intelligent thinking. The fact that it is indistinguishable from a meaningless painting is evidence it's meaningless.

Elephants are smart, just not smart enough to do good paintings.


You got any evidence of that? A quick google search shows several sources saying that she was given painting equipment after zookeepers saw her doodling in the sand with a stick. Doesn't sound trained to me.

Furthermore, according to leakingpen's account, even if she were trained, she was not instructed to paint a series of paintings of a trainer who'd just died. She chose to do that.

I think this has been argued before.

[Eldan]

Even if that's true, crows at times completely blow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwVhrrDvwPM) my (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofjo26O0z_o) mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0).

There's another one I couldn't find, where a crow takes a straight piece of wire and bends it into a hook to get food. So crazy!

Crows are indeed impressive. I'm not sure if that video shows it (had to watch it without sound), but in Japan, they not only use cars to crack nuts, they also learned to watch traffic lights to predict when the cars will stand still, making it safe to approach them.
I've seen a video of a crow sitting on the traffic light, wait for it to go red, walk up to the foremost car, place a nut two inches in front of it's front tire, fly back, wait for the light to go green, then red again, and go eat the nut.

And it was clearly looking at the light, not the cars.

[averagejoe]

Crows are indeed impressive. I'm not sure if that video shows it (had to watch it without sound), but in Japan, they not only use cars to crack nuts, they also learned to watch traffic lights to predict when the cars will stand still, making it safe to approach them.
I've seen a video of a crow sitting on the traffic light, wait for it to go red, walk up to the foremost car, place a nut two inches in front of it's front tire, fly back, wait for the light to go green, then red again, and go eat the nut.

And it was clearly looking at the light, not the cars.

Not that exact story, but it did bring up that strategy. So crazy!

[AsteriskAmp]

In my search for a guide of how to domesticate a crow, or where to purchaseone, I came across this :http://www.ascaronline.org/crowfaq.htm

Apparently it's illegal to have a crow as a pet in England and the United States.
Also, they happen to be able to talk.
They are really amazing animals from what I'm seeing.

[Eldan]

Let's just say there's a lot of reasons they are associated with witches. :smallwink:

[AsteriskAmp]

Let's just say there's a lot of reasons they are associated with witches. :smallwink:

Weren't those ravens?

[Eldan]

Crows too, I think. Corvids, anyway. And ravens are just as smart, really.

[AsteriskAmp]

Crows too, I think. Corvids, anyway. And ravens are just as smart, really.

The fact that a pack of crows is called a murder strangely interests me, and I'm now considering getting a Raven, seeing as those are legal in my country.

[Ytaker]

You said that there was "no emotional connotation" in the elephant pieces - in any elephant piece - as a statement of simple fact. From whence did you get this profound insight into the inner workings of the emotional states of elephant minds? Please let all those behavioural scientists know, because such an insight would be invaluable to our understanding of animal minds.

I was talking about it in the context of art. Art is where symbolic components are arranged in such a way that they stimulate your emotions, senses, or mind. The lack of observable meaning, the lack of emotional connotation that is recognizable, regardless of why they paint it, that it's not very arty.

This is in contrast to apes, for whom we have photographic evidence that the actually do paint emotions, and objects in the world.

http://www.artistsezine.com/WhyGorilla.htm

Such as the heart, or the flowers. Apes do paintings which are distinctively different, show symmetry and order, and obviously represent emotions. Hence, art.

[Eldan]

I love the last photo on that page. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

The fact that a pack of crows is called a murder strangely interests me, and I'm now considering getting a Raven, seeing as those are legal in my country.

There's a strong stress in the above link on "don't cage corvids."
The law might possibly permit an injured, young crow to be cared for- but not caged, or the wing feathers clipped. So, once it recovers, it's free to go if it chooses.

[Serpentine]

I was talking about it in the context of art. Art is where symbolic components are arranged in such a way that they stimulate your emotions, senses, or mind. The lack of observable meaning, the lack of emotional connotation that is recognizable, regardless of why they paint it, that it's not very arty.

This is in contrast to apes, for whom we have photographic evidence that the actually do paint emotions, and objects in the world.

http://www.artistsezine.com/WhyGorilla.htm

Such as the heart, or the flowers. Apes do paintings which are distinctively different, show symmetry and order, and obviously represent emotions. Hence, art.The art is painted by elephants. If it does "stumulate (the) emotions, senses, or mind" or have any "emotional connotation", it is those of an elephant that it stimulates, it is for elephants that it has emotional connotations. Not you. We MIGHT be lacking in evidence that they have emotional meaning to elephants - although we have at least one piece of anectodal evidence - but you have even less evidence that they have no emotional meaning. All you can say is that it doesn't have any emotional meaning to you. As you are not an elephant, this isn't really all that surprising.

[AsteriskAmp]

There's a strong stress in the above link on "don't cage corvids."
The law might possibly permit an injured, young crow to be cared for- but not caged, or the wing feathers clipped. So, once it recovers, it's free to go if it chooses.

I don't intend on getting it caged, my intent is to release it after it has become attached to me and a bit after it has learnt to fly, therefore it will roam near my house. My plan has flaws that I intend to oversee with a corvids expert that is near my locality .

[Coidzor]

If it does "stumulate (the) emotions, senses, or mind" or have any "emotional connotation", it is those of an elephant that it stimulates, it is for elephants that it has emotional connotations.

And whether any given piece has emotional connotations to elephants as opposed to a singular elephant, that would be the next thing to look at.

[Ytaker]

The art is painted by elephants. If it does "stumulate (the) emotions, senses, or mind" or have any "emotional connotation", it is those of an elephant that it stimulates, it is for elephants that it has emotional connotations. Not you. We MIGHT be lacking in evidence that they have emotional meaning to elephants - although we have at least one piece of anectodal evidence - but you have even less evidence that they have no emotional meaning. All you can say is that it doesn't have any emotional meaning to you. As you are not an elephant, this isn't really all that surprising.

We have no evidence that the art stimulates emotion in other elephants. I suppose we could assume it does.

So, at best, we have one very suspect account? And, the ape art stimulated lots of emotion in me, even though I'm not an ape.

I generally avoid assuming things are true until I have some evidence for it. Since my theory, that they like stroking paper with painted brushes, can explain everything they do adequately, I see no particular reason to care about their art.

In contrast to ape art.

[AsteriskAmp]

We have no evidence that the art stimulates emotion in other elephants. I suppose we could assume it does.

So, at best, we have one very suspect account? And, the ape art stimulated lots of emotion in me, even though I'm not an ape.

I generally avoid assuming things are true until I have some evidence for it. Since my theory, that they like stroking paper with painted brushes, can explain everything they do adequately, I see no particular reason to care about their art.

In contrast to ape art.
I would like to point out that it's importance is not related to human perception of it, as to them, communicating with us would be pretty useless talking from a creative and pragmatical point of view. As aveagejoe pointed out before, I think this is in fact a tool made by the elephants in a process of adaptation, therefore, its importance and impact, lay on other elephants recognition of it, not ours.

[Serpentine]

We have no evidence that the art stimulates emotion in other elephants.Where did I say we do? In fact, I believe I acknowledged that I know of one piece of anectdotale evidence (but I haven't really gone looking for anything more than that). But there is a very big and very important difference between "we do not know whether or not these markings have an emotional significance to the elephants making them" and "there is no emotional significance in those marks".

even though I'm not an ape.Yes you are. A great ape, in fact.

I generally avoid assuming things are true until I have some evidence for it. Since my theory, that they like stroking paper with painted brushes, can explain everything they do adequately, I see no particular reason to care about their art.Those are both fine. But, again, there is a very big difference between "there is not enough evidence to convince me" and "the lack of evidence convinces me".
You said, as a matter of fact, "there is no emotional connotation in those pieces". You have absolutely no evidence that that is the case. None. You are exactly as wrong to say that as someone else is to say that they are astoundingly meaningful works of art with profound emotional connotations for all elephants based on the same information we've had available here.

[Coidzor]

Dangit, now I'm wondering whether elephants are tasty. :/ I feel so terribly conflicted about this sensation.

[Asta Kask]

The art is painted by elephants. If it does "stumulate (the) emotions, senses, or mind" or have any "emotional connotation", it is those of an elephant that it stimulates, it is for elephants that it has emotional connotations. Not you. We MIGHT be lacking in evidence that they have emotional meaning to elephants - although we have at least one piece of anectodal evidence - but you have even less evidence that they have no emotional meaning. All you can say is that it doesn't have any emotional meaning to you. As you are not an elephant, this isn't really all that surprising.

This is the Internet, baby. You don't know anything about the person behind the keyboard...

:smallbiggrin:

[AsteriskAmp]

This is the Internet, baby. You don't know anything about the person behind the keyboard...

:smallbiggrin:

A crow I could understand, but an elephant would just write a Modernist novel.

[Serpentine]

If he is an elephant, then he is more qualified as an elephant art critic. Of course, he is also disproving his own overarching cynicism of elephant intelligence by virtue of being an elephant capable of typing (fairly :smallwink:) coherently.

[Ytaker]

Where did I say we do? In fact, I believe I acknowledged that I know of one piece of anectdotale evidence (but I haven't really gone looking for anything more than that). But there is a very big and very important difference between "we do not know whether or not these markings have an emotional significance to the elephants making them" and "there is no emotional significance in those marks".

The lack of any evidence is evidence against it. If elephants could paint emotions someone would probably have some examples of it, as they do with apes. It also lacks symmetry and order, as I've mentioned, which is evidence against there being emotional content.

"There is no evidence that the markings have any emotional signifigance" is evidence for "there is no emotional signifigance to those mark"



Yes you are. A great ape, in fact.

Ah. I checked up on it. I was using the older Linnaean system, where we are classified differently. Thanks for the facts.


Those are both fine. But, again, there is a very big difference between "there is not enough evidence to convince me" and "the lack of evidence convinces me".

Maybe in a strict scientific setting there is. When I'm casually commenting on a webcomic forum I have less stringent scientific demands.


You said, as a matter of fact, "there is no emotional connotation in those pieces". You have absolutely no evidence that that is the case. None. You are exactly as wrong to say that as someone else is to say that they are astoundingly meaningful works of art with profound emotional connotations for all elephants based on the same information we've had available here.

In terms of artwork, it should be deliberately designed in some way that stimulates emotions in others. If it fails to have features that stimulate emotion in others that is evidence that it's not emotional artwork. There's a higher standard of evidence for artwork than for pieces in general. It's not absolute evidence, but it's evidence of a kind.

I.e. it's not sufficient evidence to preclude more testing- more testing should be done. It is sufficient evidence that I feel no need to modify my behaviour towards elephants

[hamishspence]

Evidence_of_absence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence)

Sometimes lack of evidence- when there should be evidence- can be taken as suggesting a theory is wrong.

However- there may not be enough information about elephant painting- to say there is "evidence of absence"- of emotional connotation.

[Serpentine]

The lack of any evidence is evidence against it.No. No no no no no nix negatory absolutely not. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for anything.
edit: Except in the above case, to which this does not apply.

If elephants could paint emotions someone would probably have some examples of it, as they do with apes. It also lacks symmetry and order, as I've mentioned, which is evidence against there being emotional content.By that logic, 400 years ago people were right to consider animals automatrons because they had no evidence, by their standards, that animals are capable of thought or emotion. By that logic, 50 years ago there were no homosexual behaviours in animals other than humans because noone had thought to look for them.
Science is limited in what it has and can study. We know about the mere existance of only a portion of all species on the planet. We just plain haven't gotten around to studying every single little possible feature of every single species. The fact that noone has investigated elephant art in detail (as far as we know) means nothing more than that noone has gotten around to investigating elephant art. Until someone does do so, all we can say is that some elephants paint, apparently some of their own accord, and possibly at least one painted something in particular that might - MIGHT - have had emotional meaning to that elephant. We CAN NOT say that because noone has studied it, it is not so.

"There is no evidence that the markings have any emotional signifigance" is evidence for "there is no emotional signifigance to those mark"Unless you are a certified expert in animal psychology and/or art, and have gone over the cases in detail, I have no reason to give you any credence whatsoever over this statement.

Maybe in a strict scientific setting there is. When I'm casually commenting on a webcomic forum I have less stringent scientific demands.The context doesn't change the facts. If you make a statement of fact that something is absolutely, objectively true because there is a lack of evidence against it, then you're just plain wrong to do so.

In terms of artwork, it should be deliberately designed in some way that stimulates emotions in others. If it fails to have features that stimulate emotion in others that is evidence that it's not emotional artwork. There's a higher standard of evidence for artwork than for pieces in general. It's not absolute evidence, but it's evidence of a kind.Correction: "In terms of human artwork, it should be deliberately designed in some way that stimulates emotions in other humans. If it fails to have features that stimulate emotion in other humans that is evidence that it's not emotional artwork. There's a higher standard of evidence for artwork than for pieces in general. It's not absolute evidence, but it's evidence of a kind.
This is not human art. If it does have emotional content - and I am not saying one way or another, because I don't have enough evidence to be convinced either way - it is ELEPHANT emotional content. It would be very, very hard to identify it convincingly under the most ideal of conditions. A few contextless pictures on the internet is not the most ideal of conditions.
I am not trained in art theory, so I can't comment on the rest.

I.e. it's not sufficient evidence to preclude more testing- more testing should be done. It is sufficient evidence that I feel no need to modify my behaviour towards elephantsAgain: That's fine, but nor is there sufficient evidence to make ANY statement and expect it to be considered fact or in any way otherwise valid except as a needlessly inflexible opinion.

[AsteriskAmp]

The lack of any evidence is evidence against it. If elephants could paint emotions someone would probably have some examples of it, as they do with apes. It also lacks symmetry and order, as I've mentioned, which is evidence against there being emotional content.

"There is no evidence that the markings have any emotional signifigance" is evidence for "there is no emotional signifigance to those mark"

First of all, the paintings you handily provided that were made by apes were not symmetrical, at least not all of them.

Also, emotional significance is relative term, it can bear no significance to you, but it could mean a lot to another elephant. I will agree however that the overall usage of that concept should be stopped as neither side can in fact be proven right unless one was to analyse the reactions in the brain of an elephant or a human when watching a series of elephant paintings , which can be done, but hasn't been done. As it stands, there is no evidence for either side, so we really don't know, it hasn't been proven right or wrong, absence of supporting facts doesn't necessarily mean something is false, it CAN just mean there hasn't been enough studies. There are cases where absence of evidence can disprove a fact, normally when there are studies that have been made. In this case, there are no studies to prove your thesis.


Maybe in a strict scientific setting there is. When I'm casually commenting on a webcomic forum I have less stringent scientific demands.

Of course we are not demanding strict scientific formulations and regards, we have presented cracked as a reliable source of information, and IRC only one scientific publication has appeared as evidence in this thread. However, we are curious about your positions and opinions, and as such, we want, or rather, would like you to present solid arguments with a stronger basis to counter our arguments. If your arguments are substantially based on the way YOU think something works, you cannot be surprised to see that we will disagree with your arguments. This is no scientific setting, but the difference which I have handily provided above, is remarkable enough to be of importance on casual discussion


I.e. it's not sufficient evidence to preclude more testing- more testing should be done. It is sufficient evidence that I feel no need to modify my behaviour towards elephants

Ok, I agree with you, more testing should be done, and you can feel no need to modify your behaviour towards elephants, but we would like you to consider our arguments and at least change the way you manifest your opinion about elephants in such a way that it reflects the fact that your point of view is not the absolute right, as neither is ours, as you have said, there is not enough evidence to draw a supportable conclussion.

Ninja'd in several points by hamishspence and Serpentine

[Ytaker]

No. No no no no no nix negatory absolutely not. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for anything.
edit: Except in the above case, to which this does not apply.

If a phenomenom keeps repeating and some occurance doesn't occur then that is evidence that it either doesn't or never occurs.


By that logic, 400 years ago people were right to consider animals automatrons because they had no evidence, by their standards, that animals are capable of thought or emotion. By that logic, 50 years ago there were no homosexual behaviours in animals other than humans because noone had thought to look for them.

Animals displayed emotional behaviour towards humans. Animals displayed homosexual behaviour towards others. By your logic, if animals had never displayed any emotion throughout recorded history it would be reasonable to assume that the case for animals having emotions was still open.

We also have no examples of animals using art in the wild. We do know of animals using emotion and being homosexual in the wild.


Science is limited in what it has and can study. We know about the mere existance of only a portion of all species on the planet. We just plain haven't gotten around to studying every single little possible feature of every single species. The fact that noone has investigated elephant art in detail (as far as we know) means nothing more than that noone has gotten around to investigating elephant art. Until someone does do so, all we can say is that some elephants paint, apparently some of their own accord, and possibly at least one painted something in particular that might - MIGHT - have had emotional meaning to that elephant. We CAN NOT say that because noone has studied it, it is not so.

Art has to have emotional meaning to others as well. It's a thing you display. It doesn't matter if it has emotional meaning to one elephant. It matters if it has emotional meaning in general. But sure, it may mean more to other elephants.


The context doesn't change the facts. If you make a statement of fact that something is absolutely, objectively true because there is a lack of evidence against it, then you're just plain wrong to do so.

If I had meant that it was absolutely, objectively true, I would have said so. I was refering to the fact that from what we could see, the paintings are indistinguishable from "a bunch of wavey lines with no meaning or emotional connotation. All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk." It could also mean more than that. But simply by looking at them, that is the maximum you can logically deduce. I then presented evidence based on prehistoric art and ape art that you can deduce more from other pieces of art.

I was inviting others to present me with evidence that you could deduce more, or give examples that exceeded those paintings. That was why I later said

"This is likely because, far from them actually having a vision in their head and drawing it they are randomly placing lines of paint on a piece of paper." (on why they should be drawing objects they see)

I certainly don't absolutely know it.


Correction: "In terms of human artwork, it should be deliberately designed in some way that stimulates emotions in other humans. If it fails to have features that stimulate emotion in other humans that is evidence that it's not emotional artwork. There's a higher standard of evidence for artwork than for pieces in general. It's not absolute evidence, but it's evidence of a kind.

Well, ok. Let me rephrase my earlier statement. This is not art that has any emotional meaning to humans, and we have no evidence it has any emotional meaning to any elephants.


This is not human art. If it does have emotional content - and I am not saying one way or another, because I don't have enough evidence to be convinced either way - it is ELEPHANT emotional content. It would be very, very hard to identify it convincingly under the most ideal of conditions. A few contextless pictures on the internet is not the most ideal of conditions.

It's enough for apes. And the pictures are just lines. If the elephants had the ability to draw a wider range of shapes then they could do more. The sameness in so many of their pieces of art is also telling. Art is different.



First of all, the paintings you handily provided that were made by apes were not symmetrical, at least not all of them.

http://www.artistsezine.com/Animals%20as%20Artists/k_love.jpg

Symmetry. The ability to repeat something is evidence of a lack of randomness. Randomness rarely repeats.



Ok, I agree with you, more testing should be done, and you can feel no need to modify your behaviour towards elephants, but we would like you to consider our arguments and at least change the way you manifest your opinion about elephants in such a way that it reflects the fact that your point of view is not the absolute right

I never said I was absolutely right. And I am considering your arguments.

[AsteriskAmp]

If a phenomenom keeps repeating and some occurance doesn't occur then that is evidence that it either doesn't or never occurs.

Please, name this phenomenon of which you are talking, if you say emotional significance refer to my previous post.


Animals displayed emotional behaviour towards humans. Animals displayed homosexual behaviour towards others. By your logic, if animals had never displayed any emotion throughout recorded history it would be reasonable to assume that the case for animals having emotions was still open.

It would still be open since absolutes are a fallacy, only on mathematics, theoretical physics and theoretical chemistry can you talk about absolutes without eventually being proven wrong, this may take a few minutes or a few centuries.


We also have no examples of animals using art in the wild. We do know of animals using emotion and being homosexual in the wild.

The elephants began drawing on the sand, I think that is a starting point for their ability to do so in the wild.


Art has to have emotional meaning to others as well. It's a thing you display. It doesn't matter if it has emotional meaning to one elephant. It matters if it has emotional meaning in general. But sure, it may mean more to other elephants.

If I had meant that it was absolutely, objectively true, I would have said so. I was refering to the fact that from what we could see, the paintings are indistinguishable from "a bunch of wavey lines with no meaning or emotional connotation. All it means is the elephant likes stroking the paper with his trunk." It could also mean more than that. But simply by looking at them, that is the maximum you can logically deduce. I then presented evidence based on prehistoric art and ape art that you can deduce more from other pieces of art.

Not all organisms behave the same and work in the same ways, apes are more closely related to humans than elephants, ergo their "emotional connotations" are easier to spot for us.


Well, ok. Let me rephrase my earlier statement. This is not art that has any emotional meaning to humans, and we have no evidence it has any emotional meaning to any elephants.

We still don't know about humans, we know about you and those who post their experience with that, but until we plug a lot of random people into a machine that can actually monitor brain activity and flash them with intercalated images of elephant and abstract human art and compare the responses, there is no case to be made for either side.



It's enough for apes. And the pictures are just lines. If the elephants had the ability to draw a wider range of shapes then they could do more. The sameness in so many of their pieces of art is also telling. Art is different.

It could be enough for elephants as those lines could have subliminal messages for other elephants, undetectable by us human, again, studies are needed.

Art is not necessarily different, there is a reason we have movements and eras.


http://www.artistsezine.com/Animals%20as%20Artists/k_love.jpg

Symmetry. The ability to repeat something is evidence of a lack of randomness. Randomness rarely repeats.


From: Wikipedia http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry/)
Symmetry (from the Greek: "συμμετρεῖν" = to measure together), generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.

Please, formulate your thesis on a proper definition, a proper Theoretical Frame if you will. Symmetry is not necessary for art, Randomness is also part of art, you contradict, you say art is different but art has to be the same, in the same post. Also, the ape could just have hit a lucky stroke and made a symmetrical painting, which is not the case here, proving apes do symmetry doesn't disprove elephants do art.


I never said I was absolutely right. And I am considering your arguments.

You made points based on the first assumption. And for the second part, thanks for the attention.

[Ytaker]

Please, name this phenomenon of which you are talking, if you say emotional significance refer to my previous post.

It could be that only elephants can see their emotional signifigance. Or it could be that there are similar emotions for all animals, and the fact that the elephants aren't showing it for humans indicates they lack the ability to show with art emotions. By proving the second case, it's made less likely in general that they show emotional context, if not in the case of only elephants can see it. And the lack of symmetry and order in their paintings is suggestive of a lack of art.


It would still be open since absolutes are a fallacy, only on mathematics, theoretical physics and theoretical chemistry can you talk about absolutes without eventually being proven wrong, this may take a few minutes or a few centuries.

If I was talking about absolutes this would definitely refute me. I was putting out a viewpoint for others to consider so that we could share our wisdom on the subject. In doing so, I and others learned stuff.


The elephants began drawing on the sand, I think that is a starting point for their ability to do so in the wild.

I was talking about showing emotional feelings in paintings. Elephants haven't been known to do so in the wild. They have been known to draw lines in the sand. As such, painting is different from homosexuality.


Not all organisms behave the same and work in the same ways, apes are more closely related to humans than elephants, ergo their "emotional connotations" are easier to spot for us.

Yeah, sure.


We still don't know about humans, we know about you and those who post their experience with that, but until we plug a lot of random people into a machine that can actually monitor brain activity and flash them with intercalated images of elephant and abstract human art and compare the responses, there is no case to be made for either side.

As humans, we can look for objective things that stimulate emotions.


It could be enough for elephants as those lines could have subliminal messages for other elephants, undetectable by us human, again, studies are needed.

It could be.


Art is not necessarily different, there is a reason we have movements and eras.

Different paintings have different features, even in the same movement and era. As far as I know there is no art movement based on just one shape, unlike elephants.


Please, formulate your thesis on a proper definition, a proper Theoretical Frame if you will. Symmetry is not necessary for art, Randomness is also part of art, you contradict, you say art is different but art has to be the same, in the same post. Also, the ape could just have hit a lucky stroke and made a symmetrical painting, which is not the case here, proving apes do symmetry doesn't disprove elephants do art.

http://sdodge.web.officelive.com/images/250px-Symmetry.jpg

Symmetry is a type of order. An artist must do things with purpose, thus, their painting will be ordered. Statistically, it's unlikely all of them are by chance. None of the elephant paintings show any obvious order. The artwork of the apes includes objects in the real world indicating they are able to hold an image in their head and put it on paper, a very strong sign of intelligence.

It's not a contradiction. A painting may be the same, in that a head has two sides, but different from another, in that it has a head not a foot.

There are a lot of ape paintings with order and design in them. Obvious design. Like the one of an earthquake which has a sense of earth moving.


You made points based on the first assumption. And for the second part, thanks for the attention.

No I didn't. I made points based on making a point more or less likely based on evidence.

[AsteriskAmp]

It could be that only elephants can see their emotional signifigance. Or it could be that there are similar emotions for all animals, and the fact that the elephants aren't showing it for humans indicates they lack the ability to show with art emotions. By proving the second case, it's made less likely in general that they show emotional context, if not in the case of only elephants can see it.


Also, emotional significance is relative term, it can bear no significance to you, but it could mean a lot to another elephant. I will agree however that the overall usage of that concept should be stopped as neither side can in fact be proven right unless one was to analyse the reactions in the brain of an elephant or a human when watching a series of elephant paintings , which can be done, but hasn't been done. As it stands, there is no evidence for either side, so we really don't know, it hasn't been proven right or wrong

If you are talking about the proper neurological process fuelled by the neurotransmitter dopamine the previous stands. I'm more than willing to plug an elephant onto something that tracks its dopamine emissions and to monitor it through the process of showing it elephant paintings and sand drawings, I'm also more than voluntary to get plugged and be shown elephant art.


And the lack of symmetry and order in their paintings is suggestive of a lack of art.

Not necessarily, the concept of order is a very human one, it even varies inside the human species, were one might see chaos, others may see fractal patterns. And art itself is subjective, specially abstract.

BUT: Elephants don't do art, neither do apes. if we follow the definition provided by Wikipedia.


From:Wikipedia http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art/)
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, and even disciplines such as history and psychoanalysis analyze its relationship with humans and generations.

In no place does it talk about symmetry or anything. The deliberate part is there, the symbolic elements are there. It influences senses and intellect, the only thing on the line is emotions, which from the painting of the dead trainer that was alluded before, can be handily proven.

If I was talking about absolutes this would definitely refute me. I was putting out a viewpoint for others to consider so that we could share our wisdom on the subject. In doing so, I and others learned stuff.



I was talking about showing emotional feelings in paintings. Elephants haven't been known to do so in the wild. They have been known to draw lines in the sand. As such, painting is different from homosexuality.

Also, homosexuality is a variable that can be made operable, one can find external indicators of homosexuality, which in turn can then be confirmed through internal indicators. Emotional Feelings (which is a term itself redundant), are subjective unless we made them operable. This can be related to certain level of hormones and neurotransmitters, ergo unless we begin plugging elephants and humans up, we can't argue whether or not there are emotional feelings, we can guess if there would be a reaction, but currently we are debating a subjective concept as while you could feel nothing towards it (which in fact means you DO feel indifference, which is an "emotional feeling"), I could in fact feel something (which I don't as I lack primary animal empathic skills), but the point is someone could, so unless we start plugging and logging the data, we shouldn't argue about this.


As humans, we can look for objective things that stimulate emotions.

Yes we can, it's called hormones, neurotransmitters and brain usage, all of which require much plugging.


Different paintings have different features, even in the same movement and era. As far as I know there is no art movement based on just one shape, unlike elephants.

Elephants do different shapes (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/), its only one type of trace, but you can't really blame them, it's a physical limitation.


Symmetry is a type of order. An artist must do things with purpose, thus, their painting will be ordered. Statistically, it's unlikely all of them are by chance. None of the elephant paintings show any obvious order. The artwork of the apes includes objects in the real world indicating they are able to hold an image in their head and put it on paper, a very strong sign of intelligence.

It's not a contradiction. A painting may be the same, in that a head has two sides, but different from another, in that it has a head not a foot.

There are a lot of ape paintings with order and design in them. Obvious design. Like the one of an earthquake which has a sense of earth moving.

Again, that an ape does symmetry doesn't disprove an elephant does something that if made by a human would be considered art. And order isn't necessary, please provide me a definition of art from a reasonably reliable source that proves me wrong if that is the point you wish to make

Bottom-line: We cannot talk about feelings and emotions as they are subjective and personal until we start plugging humans and elephants and start monitoring them. As for if what an animal does is art, it isn't at least according to the definition I pulled, it is however artistic expression.

[Ytaker]

If you are talking about the proper neurological process fuelled by the neurotransmitter dopamine the previous stands. I'm more than willing to plug an elephant onto something that tracks its dopamine emissions and to monitor it through the process of showing it elephant paintings and sand drawings, I'm also more than voluntary to get plugged and be shown elephant art.

Those would be ways of gathering more evidence.


Not necessarily, the concept of order is a very human one, it even varies inside the human species, were one might see chaos, others may see fractal patterns. And art itself is subjective, specially abstract.

Fractal patterns are repeated features. Thus, order. If the elephant did a fractal pattern that would indicate purpose.

By order I mean things drawn with a purpose that are distinguisable from randomness.


In no place does it talk about symmetry or anything. The deliberate part is there, the symbolic elements are there. It influences senses and intellect, the only thing on the line is emotions, which from the painting of the dead trainer that was alluded before, can be handily proven.

Symmetry is evidence that something is deliberate- it's distinguishable from randomness. The deliberate part is the bit to be proven. Order proves things are drawn with a purpose. The symbolic elements aren't there, there's nothing recognisable.

And the drawing of the trainer, if proven by existing, would be evidence. Anecdotes don't count as reliable evidence.


Also, homosexuality is a variable that can be made operable, one can find external indicators of homosexuality, which in turn can then be confirmed through internal indicators. Emotional Feelings (which is a term itself redundant), are subjective unless we made them operable.

Or you can just see a dog wince in pain, or a cat purr when you stroke it.


but the point is someone could, so unless we start plugging and logging the data, we shouldn't argue about this.

Anyone can feel emotions for anything. That's why you need to find something deliberate. Something that's not random, but which could theoretically be evidence of an emotion.


Yes we can, it's called hormones, neurotransmitters and brain usage, all of which require much plugging.

I meant the above. We can look for, say, hearts, or pictures of things in their paintings. Things that are evidence that they may be trying to stimulate feelings in others.


Elephants do different shapes (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/), its only one type of trace, but you can't really blame them, it's a physical limitation.

They lack any shapes other than lines. That's not a physical limitation. Their trunks are flexible, and we know from trained elephants that they can draw bends. They could also draw lines if they were drawing randomly. That's why we should look for evidence


Again, that an ape does symmetry doesn't disprove an elephant does something that if made by a human would be considered art. And order isn't necessary, please provide me a definition of art from a reasonably reliable source that proves me wrong if that is the point you wish to make

Above one, symmetry is evidence that you are deliberately making something.

[averagejoe]

The fact that a pack of crows is called a murder strangely interests me, and I'm now considering getting a Raven, seeing as those are legal in my country.

Pretty much all the corvids have funny collective names. Parliament of rooks, unkindness of ravens, a few more I can't remember.

@Ytaker: I don't think anyone is saying you're necessarily wrong, I think the problem people have is the methods you're using to criticize the art, which are not only very humanocentric, but also come from the pretensions of modern abstract art, which is not just human specific but fairly new. We cannot expect elephants, after all, to be familiar with the effects Jackson Pollock had on the art world, or what critics say about such things, as a human abstract painter no doubt would.

However, in the interest of science, let's take a closer look at the paintings in the gallery provided (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/).

Right off the bat I see (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9138.php) three (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1028.php) paintings (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9125.php) that have examples of symmetry, one of your criteria. Heck this one (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/8238.php) has a pretty compelling order to it, and certainly doesn't look random.

Let's go deeper. Look at the five displayed paintings from the elephant Pungmaliny:

one (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9013.php) two (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9014.php) three (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1013.php) four (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1019.php) five (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1028.php)

One sees an emergent theme in that sort of bowl or basin shape the colors in the last three take on. You see that sort of shape in other elephant's works, but the shapes on Pungmaliny's are distinctive enough, and similar enough to each other, that it's easy to pick out the ones painted by other elephants.

That one was chosen basically at random; Jojo, however, was one I particularly noticed while I was looking through the galleries.

one (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1074.php) two (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1026.php) three (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1061.php) four (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1073.php) five (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9007.php) six (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9003.php) seven (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1008.php) eight (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9012.php) nine (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1011.php) ten (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1006.php) eleven (http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/1009.php)

The order was deliberately arranged by me, mostly by color, for no real reason other than because I wanted to.

These were clearly not made by Pungmaliny. They tend to consist of very dense, short lines, usually slanted to the right, in contrast to Pungmaliny long, sparse up and down strokes. Interestingly (at least to me), two and eleven seem to be very similar on a close look, even though many of their superficial details are very different.

This is a very rough, incomplete look, which assumes a lot of things, the biggest one probably being the assumption that either of these are representative samples of their elephant. However, at a casual glance, there are elements of non-randomness in this. It says nothing of the source of that non-randomness, but this is at least compelling enough to interest me in looking closer.

[Ytaker]

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9125.php

Looks pretty good. Could actually be fire. It has a shape like fire and it looks like some of the lines are very ordered.

[Asta Kask]

Two things humans are very good at: 1) finding meaningful shapes in more-or-less random noise (a.k.a. paraidolia). 2) attributing 'agency' and intelligence to inanimate objects or non-intelligent life. The feeling that my cat understands everything I say and answers me is inescapable, yet the data is neutral, at best. Similarly, I feel that my computer is hostile to me when a program refuses to behave the way I want it to, yet for all we know computers are just machines - no reason, no emotions.

With that in mind, I think we should be extremely careful before we say that elephants can paint, based on these sketches.

[Ytaker]

It suggests an easy test, though. There's no chance you could strap an elephant up to a brain scanning machine. There is a good chance you could expose them to some potent stimuli like fire, water, the earth shaking, strangely coloured goo, and see if they remember that stimuli and their paintings have a similar colour or shape.

That's a fairly easy test that someone here could even try.

[pendell]

It suggests an easy test, though. There's no chance you could strap an elephant up to a brain scanning machine. There is a good chance you could expose them to some potent stimuli like fire, water, the earth shaking, strangely coloured goo, and see if they remember that stimuli and their paintings have a similar colour or shape.

That's a fairly easy test that someone here could even try.

Yes, I've got an elephant right in my garage to try it on :smalltongue:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[averagejoe]

http://www.elephantartgallery.com/paintings/9125.php

Looks pretty good. Could actually be fire. It has a shape like fire and it looks like some of the lines are very ordered.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I claimed that painting has symmetries in it, but to call it "fire" is also very humanocentric. You don't think it looks like fire, you think it looks like the symbols humans have come to recognize as, "fire," so closely that it could said to be part of our language rather than proper "art."


Two things humans are very good at: 1) finding meaningful shapes in more-or-less random noise (a.k.a. paraidolia). 2) attributing 'agency' and intelligence to inanimate objects or non-intelligent life. The feeling that my cat understands everything I say and answers me is inescapable, yet the data is neutral, at best. Similarly, I feel that my computer is hostile to me when a program refuses to behave the way I want it to, yet for all we know computers are just machines - no reason, no emotions.

With that in mind, I think we should be extremely careful before we say that elephants can paint, based on these sketches.

Of course, and I never meant to suggest that I was doing otherwise. My conclusion was, "There at least seems to be enough of a suggestion of non-randomness that a closer look might yield interesting results." I honestly don't think I have enough available to me to do a proper study, though. One would be interested in cataloging and dating the paintings, keeping track of every one in their lives, watching for similar behavior when it isn't painting time, and so on.

I also claimed that there was symmetry evident in some paintings, but that says nothing about what the source of that symmetry is.


It suggests an easy test, though. There's no chance you could strap an elephant up to a brain scanning machine. There is a good chance you could expose them to some potent stimuli like fire, water, the earth shaking, strangely coloured goo, and see if they remember that stimuli and their paintings have a similar colour or shape.

That's a fairly easy test that someone here could even try.

That's not a great test, though, since a lack of data proves nothing. Maybe elephants like making marks, and there's a purpose to it, but they don't understand the symbolic representation of real life objects via art. Maybe they just don't feel like painting that thing you showed them. A positive result for that test would prove something, but a negative result is completely inconclusive, and a positive result can be fairly ambiguous.

[Savannah]

Two things humans are very good at: 1) finding meaningful shapes in more-or-less random noise (a.k.a. paraidolia). 2) attributing 'agency' and intelligence to inanimate objects or non-intelligent life. The feeling that my cat understands everything I say and answers me is inescapable, yet the data is neutral, at best. Similarly, I feel that my computer is hostile to me when a program refuses to behave the way I want it to, yet for all we know computers are just machines - no reason, no emotions.

With that in mind, I think we should be extremely careful before we say that elephants can paint, based on these sketches.

Humans are also very good at denying that any creatures (other than humans) are intelligent, emotional creatures. And humans are very good at being ethnocentric (or in this case, humancentric?), and assuming that only things that are done the way we expect are any good.

No, we can't say that this is art. But we also can't say that it is not. And when looking at something like this, we need to consider both our tendencies to attribute more than what's there and our tendencies to deny what's there.

[AsteriskAmp]

Humans are also very good at denying that any creatures (other than humans) are intelligent, emotional creatures. And humans are very good at being ethnocentric (or in this case, humancentric?), and assuming that only things that are done the way we expect are any good.

No, we can't say that this is art. But we also can't say that it is not. And when looking at something like this, we need to consider both our tendencies to attribute more than what's there and our tendencies to deny what's there.

You actually can say it is not art, as some definitions of the word specify it has to be a human product, like the one on wikipedia, I prefer the term artistic expressions. But apart from that technicality which may involve a bit of pedantry I fully agree with you.

[Ytaker]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I claimed that painting has symmetries in it, but to call it "fire" is also very humanocentric. You don't think it looks like fire, you think it looks like the symbols humans have come to recognize as, "fire," so closely that it could said to be part of our language rather than proper "art."

It's the same colour as fire, and it expands out from the base, like many camp fires.

http://blog.timesunion.com/holistichealth/files/2009/02/camp_fire2b.jpg


That's not a great test, though, since a lack of data proves nothing. Maybe elephants like making marks, and there's a purpose to it, but they don't understand the symbolic representation of real life objects via art. Maybe they just don't feel like painting that thing you showed them. A positive result for that test would prove something, but a negative result is completely inconclusive, and a positive result can be fairly ambiguous.

Trying to get positive results is one way to test a theory. Others here cited a similar event- a keeper dying or leaving and the elephant painting them. Just, no pictures for that.

If there is some secret meaning to them there's next to no possible way to find it. It is possible to find if they can paint objects.

The idea brings back images of boatmurdered for me. Dwarves there drew many pictures of elephants and lava. Here that could be reversed.

[Coidzor]

There's no chance you could strap an elephant up to a brain scanning machine.

Well, none of us personally, but with enough backing, interest, and time, it's a foregone conclusion that they'd be able to manage that.

Regardless of what's revealed in 30, 40 years, it's not actionable now, no matter how much people want to believe it's actionable information.

[AsteriskAmp]

The idea brings back images of boatmurdered for me. Dwarves there drew many pictures of elephants and lava. Here that could be reversed.

That is something I completely agree with you.



Well, none of us personally, but with enough backing, interest, and time, it's a foregone conclusion that they'd be able to manage that.

Regardless of what's revealed in 30, 40 years, it's not actionable now, no matter how much people want to believe it's actionable information.

A lot less, we humans have a tendency to strap things to machines plug them into it and see what's inside or how it pulses, we have done it to monkeys, kids, adults, monks, nuns, shaolin monks, presidents, dogs, cats, rats, rats, more rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and it keeps going. Our solution to any incognita were data recollection is needed is plugging, and it sure works out great.

[hamishspence]

Painting isn't the only way to do art.

In Little Fuzzy- the prospector, to see what the Fuzzy makes of them, dumps a box full of sunstones (gems of varied colours) in front of the Fuzzy- and the Fuzzy organizes them by color- then starts laying them out in interesting patterns- with consistent color order and clear shapes.

Maybe something like that could be done with elephants?

(That said, if they're color-blind like many mammals, it might have to be different shades of grey instead).

[Ytaker]

Yeah, I'm assuming there's little to no interest in studying elephants. That leaves it up to those who really care. That will probably remain reality for the forseeable future.

Plus, elephants aren't gonna remain still unless you drug them up which defeats the purpose of the experiment. That makes it really hard to to detect sensitive changes which might be over only a milimeter of brain or less, when the elephant is moving metres.

[Asta Kask]

I'm fairly certain that they are colorblind - AFAIK all mammals except primates are color-blind (and a quick Google-search turned up no exceptions). Which means that we're not looking at the pictures correctly. We would have to have a filter that simulated colorblindness before we could even begin to interpret them.

Savannah, I am well aware that humans often have gone the other route and denied emotion and reason to animals and humans who have them. And elephants are among the smartest (non-human) animals in nature. But this...

Remember that we had to wait for Homo Neanderthalensis before there's any sign of art in the fossil record. That's well after we mastered fire and produced fairly complex stone tools, both of which are beyond elephants.

So, yeah, we don't know. That doesn't mean we can't assign probabilities though, and for me the probability of this being 'art' (in the sense of it being consciously made to represent something for the individual doing it or others observing the artwork) is very low.

[AsteriskAmp]

Yeah, I'm assuming there's little to no interest in studying elephants. That leaves it up to those who really care. That will probably remain reality for the forseeable future.

Plus, elephants aren't gonna remain still unless you drug them up which defeats the purpose of the experiment. That makes it really hard to to detect sensitive changes which might be over only a milimeter of brain or less, when the elephant is moving metres.

I would say there is considerable interest, seeing that their social patterns and structures are varying greatly, in no small cause due to humans.

You could just chain it with something really big and heavy and wait for it to calm down.

[Asta Kask]

I would say there is considerable interest, seeing that their social patterns and structures are varying greatly, in no small cause due to humans.

But surely elephants would be immensely interesting even if they didn't paint? We should be interested in them for being elephants, not for learning faux-human skills. I feel the same way about teaching chimpanzees sign languages - chimps have rudimentary tool-making capacities and two vastly different social systems (there are two subspecies). They don't need to be able to sign to be interesting (and rumors of their linguistic prowess have apparently been substantially exaggerated).

Edit: I'm not saying any of you said this, but I feel it is implied in this line of research. "See, we can teach elephants to paint so you shouldn't kill them." If later research then discovers that it wasn't painting, does that mean we can shoot away? Study them in the wild and let them be elephants.

[Ytaker]

I would say there is considerable interest, seeing that their social patterns and structures are varying greatly, in no small cause due to humans.

You could just chain it with something really big and heavy and wait for it to calm down.

Not many people are studying it, from my knowledge of the proportion of scientists studying various things. Dolphins, dogs, parrots, and apes are the big ones studied. Humans screw up many things. That doesn't mean that scientists care enough to do experiments

That would be animal cruelty, and would put emotions in them that would ruin the test. Plus, for NMR and xray people are supposed to remain totally still. In chains they definitely would be agitated and wouldn't remain still.

Edit. And rats, mice. Always a lot of studies on them, what with them being lab animals.

[Savannah]

You can train an elephant to hold still. It's just easier with humans because you can verbally ask them to please hold really still for a bit :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

So, yeah, we don't know. That doesn't mean we can't assign probabilities though, and for me the probability of this being 'art' (in the sense of it being consciously made to represent something for the individual doing it or others observing the artwork) is very low.

Of course, what one considers "art" is a discussion unto itself. It almost certainly is art, for a certain definition of art. Whether that definition is reasonable is another thing.

But yeah, I agree with you. Art or not, elephants are pretty cool.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm fairly certain that they are colorblind - AFAIK all mammals except primates are color-blind (and a quick Google-search turned up no exceptions). Which means that we're not looking at the pictures correctly. We would have to have a filter that simulated colorblindness before we could even begin to interpret them.


I'm not sure what you mean with colorblind - do you mean black-and-white vision only? Because then you'd be wrong. There are fair few mammals that perceive color at least to an extent. Canines do, but they only perceive two base colors, green and yellow, as opposed to red, green and blue of human spectrum. Felines, if I remember right, have vision slanted towards blue.

Granted, I don't know anything definite of other species, but this seems to me more like lack of research. Cetrainly, the statement that "all mammals are colorblind" is a huge exaggeration.

[hamishspence]

Granted, I don't know anything definite of other species, but this seems to me more like lack of research. Cetrainly, the statement that "all mammals are colorblind" is a huge exaggeration.

"Dichromat" or "partially colorblind" rather than "monochromat" or "fully colorblind" is more accurate for most mammals.

(I think trichromat tends to be restricted to primates, and some marsupials).

Monochromat mammals include owl monkeys, pinnipeds, and cetaceans.

[Asta Kask]

I'm not sure what you mean with colorblind - do you mean black-and-white vision only? Because then you'd be wrong. There are fair few mammals that perceive color at least to an extent. Canines do, but they only perceive two base colors, green and yellow, as opposed to red, green and blue of human spectrum. Felines, if I remember right, have vision slanted towards blue.

Granted, I don't know anything definite of other species, but this seems to me more like lack of research. Cetrainly, the statement that "all mammals are colorblind" is a huge exaggeration.

Dichromatic vision is the common type for mammals, and it's what's usually called colorblind in humans. That's what I mean.

Some birds and reptiles have tetrachromatic vision, allowing them to see ultra-violet light. Cichlids (a type of fish) was recently found to have pentachromatic vision, but we don't know what the fifth type is. Cichlids are exceptionally colorful fish, but if this is a consequence (or cause) for them to have pentachromatic vision is still up for discussion.

[Quincunx]

Heck, there's even an argument that a minority of people (women, mostly) have tetrachromic vision--but still within the visible spectrum, so no nifty x-ray vision or mom-vision "eyes in the back of her head" phenomena. At which point I have to ask, where's the fun in that? :smalltongue:

*****

Elephant paintings do not inspire me as a finished product, but I can appreciate that the elephants probably enjoyed the process of painting. Move stick, make mark, make fun.

*****

Read an unsubstantiated anecdote about the intelligence of a kingfisher. Kingfishers eat fish. They do not eat bread. This particular kingfisher, however, stole breadcrumbs, dropped them into the nearest body of water, and then waited for fish to take the bait. . .

*****


Dangit, now I'm wondering whether elephants are tasty. :/ I feel so terribly conflicted about this sensation.

Go to South Africa and see if they're still canning culled elephants.

[pendell]

Heck, there's even an argument that a minority of people (women, mostly) have tetrachromic vision--but still within the visible spectrum, so no nifty x-ray vision or mom-vision "eyes in the back of her head" phenomena. At which point I have to ask, where's the fun in that? :smalltongue:

*****

Elephant paintings do not inspire me as a finished product, but I can appreciate that the elephants probably enjoyed the process of painting. Move stick, make mark, make fun.

*****

Read an unsubstantiated anecdote about the intelligence of a kingfisher. Kingfishers eat fish. They do not eat bread. This particular kingfisher, however, stole breadcrumbs, dropped them into the nearest body of water, and then waited for fish to take the bait. . .

*****



Go to South Africa and see if they're still canning culled elephants.

On a related note, a facebook friend told me the trouble they had pest-controlling a mouse they nicknamed Einstein, because he had the habit of using twigs to trigger snap traps, then robbing the now-disabled trap.

I personally would have named the mouse Darktan (http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Darktan), and I wouldn't mind tolerating him if it weren't for his numerous progeny.

It drives me nuts that we are dealing with creatures that are more intelligent than we thought, but I've still got no better way to keep them out of my house than poisons, traps, and all the panoply of nasty death we humans can devise :(.

Respectfully,

Brian P.