In this blog post, we will examine the origins of art from an evolutionary psychology perspective and explore whether art is instinctive or strategic.
What is the origin of art? Why do humans paint, sing, and adorn themselves? Evolutionary psychologists explain that art began because it provides selective advantages for reproduction and survival. In other words, art is not simply an emotional expression, but a strategy derived from human biological instincts.
The first thing they noticed was the phenomenon of sexual selection.
In the animal world, creatures often adorn themselves conspicuously to attract mates, even if this puts them at a disadvantage in terms of survival. Like the tail of a peacock, animals sometimes pursue outward splendor at the expense of their chances of survival for the sake of reproduction.
This ecological phenomenon applies similarly to humans. It is also very important for humans to find a suitable mate for reproduction, and accordingly, courtship strategies differ according to gender. Men want healthy women who can bear and raise children, while women want men who have the resources to protect themselves and their children during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and child-rearing. These differences have led to different strategies in the courtship process for each gender.
For example, men strive to appear financially secure, socially high-status, and responsible. On the other hand, women try to appeal to their reproductive potential and health through their youth, beauty, and healthy appearance.
Considering these differences, the first thing that comes to mind in relation to art is women’s courtship strategies. This perspective views makeup, adornment, and other behaviors that women engage in to make themselves look young and attractive as the origin of primitive art.
According to this argument, art is not simply an expression of aesthetic desire, but originated from women’s act of adorning themselves to create favorable conditions for reproduction. For example, theorists such as anthropologist Camilla Power interpret the red body painting commonly used by primitive tribal women as originating from the physiological phenomenon of female reproductive ability. Such physical expressions may have served as biological signals indicating reproductive potential, going beyond mere adornment. However, this perspective has its limitations. It does not explain the fact that historically, the majority of artists have been men, far outnumbering women. Some interpret this as a result of social discrimination, arguing that women were unable to work as artists because they had fewer opportunities for education and creativity. However, this interpretation is insufficient to explain the “emergence and proliferation” of male artists. It may explain the fact that there are fewer female artists, but it does not explain why male artists became so overwhelmingly numerous. In response to this criticism, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller proposes a more comprehensive model.
He believes that “art was part of a courtship strategy that worked for both men and women.” In other words, art evolved as a means for all humans to attract the opposite sex, rather than being limited to a specific gender.
This argument is confirmed by the fact that in many primitive tribes, both men and women adorn themselves colorfully.
Red body painting, decorations made of feathers and leather, rhythmic dances and songs are common practices among both men and women. This suggests that art was an important means of survival in the competition for mates. However, this argument raises one question. According to the logic of evolutionary psychology, women prefer men who have economic power, social status, and a sense of responsibility. If so, could early artistic activities such as body painting and decoration really have been effective in displaying such characteristics? It is somewhat unreasonable to view body painting as an expression of economic power or responsibility. At this point, the evolutionary psychological explanation loses some of its persuasiveness. Reflecting this criticism, recent attempts have been made to view art not merely as a result of sexual selection, but as part of human survival strategy.
For example, cave paintings and geometric patterns from primitive times can be interpreted as attempts to impose order on a dangerous and harsh natural environment. In a complex and unpredictable natural world, humans sought to understand and control the world through symbols, patterns, and structures. In this context, art was not simply a pursuit of beauty, but a way for humans to adapt to an uncertain world and a technique for strengthening their survival.
The same is true of makeup and decoration. Rather than simply pursuing beauty, they may have been part of an effort to achieve harmony with nature. Patterns resembling the colors of the forest and decorations made from animal skins were also cultural techniques for identifying oneself with the surrounding environment. In this sense, art is not a tool for survival, but it is highly likely that it evolved as a means of expression that made survival more advantageous.
