The Natural History of Art

This article and the prompt have led me to the conclusion that art and evolution will never be fully understood…and maybe that’s the beauty that lies in each topic. And perhaps there is no reason at all to assume from the beginning that they are inherently separate. As a genetics major, I am head over heels in love with our genes and how they influence everything from disease predisposition to mate choice. So for me, this begs the question…why not art?
Aesthetic preferences, at some level, are biologically based. Human babies prefer images that are symmetrical, so is it not possible that other types of basic aesthetics are ingrained into our psyches? Coniff’s article does it’s best to explain and defend this point, but in light of our class discussion I feel he could have been more compelling. Despite a slight lack of literary prowess, there are several issues in the article that stood out to me. I was able to feel a connection to art, my world, the earth, and my ancestors in a very different way than I had previously experienced. I started thinking about my current needs and how vastly they differ from those of my predecessors, which in turn made me wonder if there are any similarities between us at all. Conniff’s article had some great points that helped me decide that maybe this concept of aesthetics is one of the things that ties us together as humans. By no means do I think this article is suggesting that all opinions on art and all artists are influenced solely by inherent, genetic fears and needs. I do however believe Conniff is trying to establish a baseline and perhaps a reason behind certain aesthetic qualities, and feelings associated with those qualities, that permeate the generations.
For example, something I felt was neglected in class was this link to “habitat selection.” Conniff discusses most aesthetic preferences in a link to habitat selection as a deep, unconscious basis for being drawn to certain settings and art, particularly in reference to landscapes. He is not saying that all people are attracted to a, b, and c because of reasons 1, 2 and 3…he is simply laying out the possibilities and saying perhaps there is a connection here. I believe there is. What makes one piece of property more valuable than another even if they are in the same neighborhood with the same square footage? A view? Landscaping? Now who is to say we don’t seek comfort in these things due, in part, to a genetic need for safety and resources?
Art has been a part of human nature since, I would like to think, the dawn of man. It has always been there for us to express ourselves; our ideas, hopes, fears and cultures. Just because there are differences in our artistic tastes due to the time period or culture does not imply that there is absolutely no biological basis for aesthetics.