Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NY Times piece on Dissanayake

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Carroll
    Here is an uncorrected copy (next-to-last draft) of a Natalie Angier column that appeared recently in the New York Times Science section--on Ellen
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 26, 2007
      Here is an uncorrected copy (next-to-last draft) of a Natalie Angier column that appeared recently in the New York Times Science section--on Ellen Dissanayake's ideas about the adaptive function of art.

      If you have ever been to a Jewish wedding, you know that sooner or later the ominous notes of “Hava Nagila” will sound, and you will be expected to dance the hora.  And if you don’t really know how to dance the hora, you will nevertheless be compelled to join hands with others, stumble around in a circle, give little kicks and pretend to enjoy yourself, all the while wondering whether there’s a word in Yiddish that means “she who stares pathetically at the feet of others because she is still trying to figure out how to dance the hora.”


      I am pleased and relieved to report that my flailing days are through.  Earlier this month, during an ambitiously freewheeling symposium at the University of Michigan on the evolutionary value of art and why we humans spend so much time at it, a number of the presenters supplemented their standard powerpoint presentations with hands-on activities.  Now, some members of the audience might have liked folding the origami boxes or scrawling messages on the floor, but for me the crowning moment came when a neurobiologist taught us all how to dance the hora.  As we stepped together in klezmeric, well- schooled synchrony, I felt free and exhilarated.  I felt competent and loved.  I felt like calling my mother.  I felt, it seems, exactly as a dancing body should. 


      In the key presentation at the conference, Ellen Dissanayake, an independent scholar and visiting professor at the University of Alberta, offered her sweeping thesis of the evolution of art, nimbly blending familiar themes with the familiar made radically new.  By her reckoning, the artistic impulse is a human birthright, a trait so ancient, universal and persistent that it almost surely is innate. But while some researchers have suggested that our artiness arose accidentally, as a byproduct of large brains that evolved to solve problems and are easily bored, Ms. Dissanayake argued that the creative drive has all the earmarks of being an adaptation on its own.   The making of art consumes ridiculous amounts of time and resources, she observed, an extravagance you wouldn’t expect of an evolutionary afterthought.  Art also gives us pleasure, she said, and activities that feel good, she said, tend to be those evolution deems too important to leave to chance.  


      What might that deep-seated purpose of artmaking be? Geoffrey Miller and other theorists have proposed that art serves as a sexual display, a graphic means of flaunting one’s talented palette of genes.   Again, Ms. Dissanayake has other ideas.  To contemporary Westerners, she said, art may seem detached from the real world, an elite stage on which proud peacocks and designated visionaries may well compete for high stakes.   But among traditional cultures and throughout most  of human history, she said, art has been a profoundly communal affair, of harvest dances, religious pageants, quilting bees, the passionate townwide rivalries that gave us the spires of Chartres, Rheim and Amiens.   Art, she proposes, did not arise to spotlight the few, but rather summon the many to come join the parade.  Through singing, dancing, painting, telling fables about neurotic mobsters who visit psychiatrists, and otherwise engaging in what Ms. Dissayanake calls “artifying,” people can be quickly and ebulliently drawn together, and even strangers persuaded to treat each other as kin.  Through the harmonic magic of art, the relative weakness of the individual can be traded up for the strength of the hive, cohered into a social unit ready to take on the world. 


      As David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary theorist at Binghamton University said, the only social elixir of comparable strength is religion, another impulse that spans across cultures and time.


      A slender, soft-spoken woman with a bouncy gray pageboy, 00 grandchildren and an eclectic background, Ms. Dissayanake was trained as a classical pianist but became immersed in biology and anthropology when she and her husband moved to Sri Lanka to study elephants.  She never earned a phd, but she has published widely, and her books –the most recent one being Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began – are considered classics among Darwinian theorists and art historians alike. 


      Perhaps the most radical element of Ms. Dissanayake’s evolutionary framework is her idea about how art got its start.  She suggests that many of the basic phonemes of art, the stylistic conventions and tonal patterns, the mental clay, staples and pauses with which even the loftiest creative works are constructed, can be traced back to the most primal of collusions – the intimate interplay between mother and child.  After studying hundreds of hours of interactions between infants and mothers, from many different cultures, Ms. Dissanayake and her collaborators have identified a series of universal operations that characterize the mother-infant bond.  They are visual and vocal cues that arise spontaneously and unconsciously between mothers and infants, but that nevertheless abide by a formalized code:   the calls and responses, the swooping bell tones of motherese, the widening of the eyes, the exaggerated smile, the repetition and variation, the laughter of the baby met by the mother’s joyfully emphatic refrain. The rules of engagement have their own pace and set of expected responses, and should the rules be violated, the pitch prove too jarring, the delays between coos and head waggles too long or too short, mother or baby may grow fretful or bored.


      To Ms. Dissanayake, the tightly choreographed rituals that help bond mother and child look a lot like the techniques and constructs at the heart of much of our art. “These operations of ritualization, these affiliative signals between mother and infant, are aesthetic operations, too,” she said in an interview.  “And  aesthetic operations are what artists do.  Knowingly or not, when you are choreographing a dance or composing a piece of music, you are formalizing, exaggerating, repeating, manipulating expectation and dynamically varying your theme.”  You are using the tools that mothers everywhere use.  

      In art, as in love, as in dancing the hora, if you don’t know the moves, you really can’t fake them.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.