ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 2, Spring 2015
nurtured early aesthetic acquisition is likely still strong today. It is this psychological disposition that Dutton uses to provide a new interpretation for why forgeries
are jettisoned after being discovered to be forgeries.
Ellen Dissanayake’s path-breaking work over many decades (in, among many others, (1974), (1988), (1995), (2001), (2009), (2011), particularly well summarized
in (2013)) has been not only to legitimize evolutionary thought about aesthetics,
but to provide terminology in which to better describe the phenomenon of artmaking. Her main argument is that the universal phenomenon of making art has
emerged from a tendency to artify, to “make special”, which she also calls artification. She contends aesthetic preferences for what ethologists call rhythms and
modes stem from proto-aesthetic sensibilities that are taught in parent-baby interaction in earlier hominids. These aesthetic sensibilities for sequencing and rhythms
were then used in original adaptations to artify later in hominid evolution (2001)
(2009). Artification helped intensify group experiences and rituals that arose with
the advent of religious ideas and practice. The primary benefit of artification appears to have been that it lowers stress, making daily life easier, for example, reducing anxiety over food procurement or dangers in the immediate environment, as
is seen in controlled release of the stress-inducing chemical cortisol during artification and performance, and solidifying group solidarity, making bands stronger and
more likely to reap the benefits of living in a group (1988) (1995) (2009). Artification helped bond early Homo sapiens together when preparing for hunts, travels,
religious ceremonies and general social cohesion, with artification signalling these
bonding moments and enhancing the experience by producing more chemicals like
oxytocin, which helps people bond while relieving stress. As she writes in Dissanayake (2014a), “in this sense, ceremonial/arts behaviour – compared to doing
nothing – is adaptive (Kaptchuk, Kerr and Zanger 2009)” (53). Secondly, artification of ceremonies, like chanting and collective singing when feasting and celebrating, or dressing in ritualistic paints or symbolic attire when performing an activity important to a group’s spiritual worldview, additionally aids in supporting
group cohesion and creating elevated feelings of unity. “Not only are brain chemicals like cortisol suppressed by participating with others in formalized and rhythmically repeated activities, oxytocin and other endorphinic substances are secreted,
creating pleasurable feelings of unity with others, strengthening their commitment
to each other” (54). I wish to stress that Dissanayake sees the evolution of protoaesthetic sensibilities through mother-infant bonding as producing aesthetic tastes
for rhythms and modes found in artification worldwide, but not an evolved relationship between a maker of aesthetics and a viewer. I propose that the evolution
of aesthetic sensibilities through a relationship between two individuals suggests a
historical example of aesthetic experience between people in an interrelationship
between a performer and viewer that has probably contributed to an underlying
psychological interaction with an artist whenever people look at art. Such a relationship is not always important to either artist or viewer, but in cases of forgery
and influential artwork, this relationship comes to the fore. As art is created by
people, the relationship between artist and viewer is always present to some extent.
The more examples of development of aesthetic tastes through relationships between a performer and viewer, the likelier the disposition to a performer / viewer
relationship when beholding artworks.
6