Trust me, I've ready plenty of Goodall, I just am emphasizing how unique humans out in many of our cognitive abilities. Science absolutely is expression, and the art of humans is quite obviously very different from the "art" of elephants.

No it is not, science is the study of knowledge, no personal touches of any kind allowed. (at least empirical science, not sure if you are maybe talking about something that is not science),i obviously expected you to not value the artistic expression of other species, but could you perhaps explain why your art is better? (my art teacher says no art is "better", but perhaps you have some empirical dynamic from which to judge art)

Elephant "art" is not deliberate and is not constructed as a creative endeavor.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp

"However, although these animals may be creating artworks in a purely physical sense, critics contend that the elephants participating in this activity are not actually "painting" in any meaningful sense of the word: They aren't engaging in any form of creativity, much less abstractly making free-form portraits of whatever tickles their pachydermic fancies at the moment; rather, they're simply actors performing in tourist trap attractions in Thailand, where they do nothing more than outline and color specific drawings they've been painstakingly trained to replicate — and they manage that much only while receiving a good deal of prompting and guidance throughout the process from their mahout (trainers). "

I think it's clear that there is a very clear and massive difference between Klimt and Dali on one hand and Dumbo on the other.

What I mean when I say science is expression is that it is an expression of the human drive for truth and a perfect example of our unique cognitive abilities (can chimps develop a coherent empirical framework in symbolic language?)

are you kidding? a drunk naked dude taking a shit on a stone is art, but an elephant painting itself doesnt count? give me a break

ok it is expression in an abstract way but it is not an outlet to express ourselves in any real usable way, and yes, they can

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 9 2014 08:45pm

An elephant painting itself with human guidance after human teaching is not what I count as human-level cognitive artistic abilities, no. Not even close, and I'm kind of appalled you think it is.

if the elephant threw a pile of mud at a canvas it would be art if it was the elephants expression, are you really saying "humans are better than chimps because art"? fine chimps cannot express themselves the way you can they cannot do math the way you can i readily admit these things, what i am saying is you are judging things which cannot really be judged in a "this is better than that" kind of way

Yes I am saying humans are better than chimps at art, because chimps don't make art. They make stuff that resembles art.

What we call art is exclusively human and refers to a specific kind of creative process. I'm not judging the works objectively but rather the process. Chimps could certainly make something that many might consider an artistic masterpiece, but the chimp didn't mean to. They wouldn't have made it purposely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_%28chimpanzee%29 sure about that?

Huh, that's pretty cool. Of course higher primates have SOME human abilities because some of them are our direct descendants, but again, I'm not about to say that this "art" is anywhere near the level of humans, and I'm also skeptical of the intentionality. When a chimp or elephant can paint this, let me know and I'll gladly concede the point:



But yea, that is actually pretty impressive from Congo, exceeded my expectations at least.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Dec 9 2014 09:05pm

a chimp or elephant may not even see that painting the same way, as i said, apples and oranges