5 comments about Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes from and Why.

1. If you're reading this, you're interested in art, either in making it or in experiencing it or both. How about animal behavior? Better still, biological anthropology? This the book for you, as it was for me. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it was life-changing, in that so many things are now clear that didn't quite make sense or made no sense at all before I read it. This is definitely a book for those committed to Darwin. If you think the world, complete with cave paintings, was created 9000 years ago more or less as it stands now, this won't help you. But, if you would like to know about the profound survival value in "making special", this is fascinating. If you have been uncomfortable with some of the current rather rarified explanations for what "art" is, you will be relieved. It's a wonderful book on its own or in preparation for her most recent book, ART AND INTIMACY.



2. Dissanayake marshals an eclectic hodgepodge of research, ideas, data, theories, and counter-theories to advance the simple claim that the aesthetic experience is fundamentally and innately a biological act born out of human adaptationism along the Darwinian struggle for survival. She grants that the adaptationist mechanisms may have subsided in more recent times, but the imprinting over eons of evolution still motivate us, and are still at the core of our aesthetic esperience. While entirely sympathetic to her objectives, I believe her excesses defeat her purposes.
   
   Her core problem is wishing to remain with the 19th C. Tradition of "aesthetics" as the legacy of European Idealism while also appealing to more primitive understandings of "art." To straddle these disparate, indeed contradictory, traditions, one senses a desperation in throwing everything "including the kitchen sink" to defend her thesis. And yet, two primary resources she either does not know, or she choose to ignore, could have simplified her project immensely. But before adopting Aristotle and empirical empathy to her project, she would have to exclude the entire "aesthetic" tradition, which stands in opposition to it. She's unprepared to make that final leap, and that lack of daring in the end sabotages her project.
   
   "Aesthetics" is a recent concept born of late-18th C. German Idealism that has made artistic behavior elitist, metaphysical, and quasi-supernatural, which as long as she accepts that model, she'll never reconcile her thesis to a more primitive biological model that has firmer and much older roots in classical Greek thought. Prior to modern aesthetics, art was simply art, which was "making" and/or "crafting" that stood in contrast to "doing," a very elementary notion prevalent in the works of Aristotle and his lineage of intellectual thought, of which Dissanayake shows no cognizance (yet, she cites Platonic Forms of beauty with relish and frequency, which is precisely the heritage of the German Aesthetic Movement).
   
   When she thus appropriates "empathy" as a late-19th C. German Idealist heuristic device, again she ignores a richer, older, and empirical tradition prevalent in the 18th C. Scottish Enlightenment (i.e., Hutcheson, Hume, Smith, and Reid), which, unlike the German metaphysical version remains a viable, indeed prominent, biological model. Had she been aware/used either older tradition, she could have obviated much confusion and obfuscation, not to mention endlessly marginal studies to tinker with the Aesthetic Paradigm. She would not have needed to appeal to any and every alternative hypothesis, evidence, study, research, etc. to modify, refine, and thus, reform the Aesthetic Model in an unwieldy, untenable, and ultimately unsuccessful effort.
   
   In the end, the irreconcilable tension between opposing traditions remains unresolved, and instead of resolution, she simply adds nuance after nuance of qualification and refinement to tweak the Aesthetic Tradition towards a more Darwinian inclination. Then, in a odd move, she tries to deal with postmodernism, but on its terms, which already puts her behind the proverbial 8-ball. Yet, in her defense, she was a pioneer in her own field of aesthetics, and was stabbing at everything to get a foothold on a better conception of why humans make things. But as long as "aesthetics" figures into her overall conception, she straddles two opposing worlds that cannot be reconciled. She even appeals to the "ontological" in another context, but then fails to see her own problem as itself a deeply ontological one, as the biological and metaphysical ontologies are simply unbridgeable. And demonstrating this difficulty, even if unintentional, is its own rewarding reason to peruse this book.



3. Tracing evolutionary roots to human creativity is a risky endeavour. The Romantic Era dismissal of "nature red in tooth and claw" misapplied to humans has its adherents even today. In more modern terms, the "postmodernist school" attributes human creativity solely to cultural environment. Dissanayake takes up the challenge and responds to these allegations from widely spread scholarship sources. She makes a solid case for human universals in many areas of expression, from graphic art through music and dance to poetry and prose. Even spoken language is addressed with an eye to derivations and commonalties.
   
   She presents her support for a Darwinian basis for art and expression with flair and enthusiasm. There's no hesitation in offering new terms or definitions as means of breaking the bonds of tradition or rigid thinking. Acknowledging that some of her ideas are ironic, or even heretical, she intends to builds a new framework for where art truly sits in our lives. Among other "heresies", the author roundly denounces the notion that "art" is a separate or fleeting aspect of human existence. Instead, she contends, art is integrated with religion and other human social conditions. Some aspect of art is as necessary as eating or sleeping to our species. Dissanayake contends that art must be raised in importance when considering what is valuable to us.
   
   Perhaps, Dissanayake suggests, in order to break the bonds restricting our view of "art" we need a new term. She coins "making special" for various objects or activities we now call "art". The "special" relates to the common means all organisms have in separating the mundane from the unexpected - the "extra-ordinary". If something extraordinary can promote emotions of delight, we can recreate it as something "special" and pleasurable. It might be removed from the mundane aspects of life, but the mundane may become art. A pot is made for storage or cooking, but if it's decorated in ways that bring a sense of "good" or of "pleasure", elevating it to art isn't a false promotion. Noting that both Nature and artefacts can be beautiful, only the beautiful that is created can be considered art. Much of Nature is beautiful, but only humans can create beauty. Hence, she declares that considerations of art must be "species-centred" or "bioevolutionary". Species-centrism, she warns, must not be misconstrued as detaching us from the rest of Nature. Indeed, as part of our evolutionary heritage, "species-centrism" is essential to understanding who we are. And what we can achieve.
   
   In her final analysis, Dissanayake notes that a radical idea arose toward the end of the Enlightenment. Art was placed in a realm where only the few educated in its precepts could comprehend it. The "critic" became a mediator between the artist and the observer. The too-common expression, "I don't know about art, but I know what I like" represents this break. Later, the "French philosophers", known as the postmodernists, insisted that everything should be reduced to text. This concept has further widened the Enlightenment detachment of art from the beholder. She scorns this notion, reminding us that for nearly all of Homo sapiens' existence, none could read nor write, but art flourished. In contending with the postmodernists, the author hails the work of linguists who seek evidence of a Primordial Language [PL]. PL is another indication of the unity of expression among early humanity that was disrupted only by time and distance.
   
   Dissanayake's analysis, which has been enhanced but not supplanted, has been strangely overlooked. The attitude of art as "outside" reality or only a distant adjunct to daily life apparently has an even stronger hold on our thinking than she suggests. Although she hasn't updated the book with recent work in cognitive studies, which can provide further insight, others have taken up the challenge [see "The Mind In The Cave" by David Lewis-Williams for an innovative example], this comprehensive work is an excellent starting point for understanding why our view of "art", or "making special" needs reconsideration. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]



4. I just finished this book, and... for the record, there are over 40 pages of footnotes and references in the back of the book. I'm not a expert in the field, but Homo Aestheticus feels like a graduate level text, and is certainly more "scholarly" than most books you'll find in a bookstore.

   That said, I found Homo Aestheticus to be one of the most unique and insightful books I've read. A few spots were quite detailed and dry, but overall I found myself underlining interesting points like a madman. The concluding chapter was mindblowing. The author somehow cohesively pulled together such topics as human experience, modernism and postmoderism, literacy and writing, oral tradition, language, symbols, and thought, meaning and reality, human and culture evolution, and, of course, aesthetics and art. Certainly, it will have a lasting impact on my thinking about "art." Very much recommended for interdisciplinary thinkers.




5. Homo Aestheticus is a great attempt by Ellen Dissanayke to find the biological/physiological connection between humans and art or art making. She begins by discussing Darwin and invites us to accept that she has considered some scientific connection between the evolution of humans and why we included art/art making in our evolution. The devise to use science is intriguing and maybe somewhat convincing, but for those of us who require scholarship in research, Ms. Dissanayake misses all the marks.

   To write an essay of your own observations relieves the writer from the obligation of proving anything. Just write and hope someone cares. But to write about scientific fact, psychological studies, and human behavior, the writer is obligated to avoid such phrases as "Everyone knows," "It follows that," etc. Another problematic phrase when trying to prove a point of fact is "Research findings indicate" (154). If the goal is to convince me, then site the study. Her phrase "Making Special" just isn't scientific enough for me.

   This is the most unscholarly philosophy book I have ever encountered. I wouldn't be complaining about the book if it was billed as an easy-reading-personal-point-of-view thing, but when I must trudge through thick, factual material to get to the point of a thesis, I want my money's worth. I want to come away from the text feeling that I have just earned all those aches and pains from a great cerebral workout. If you want that kind of experience, it's not here in Home Aestheticus. You would more likely come closer to that kind of workout by chatting with someone at the gym than by reading this book.

No comments about Duchamp, Man Ray, Picabia.

5 comments about 20000 Years of Fashion.

1. I'd go so far, in fact, as to say that if you don't have _20,000 Years of Fashion_ in your library, or if you don't have ready access to a library that has this book, your credentials as a serious student of fashion would have to be called somewhat into question. This massive 440-page-plus tome could serve as a college text in costume history; and I make no doubt that, at some schools, it has filled just that role. Do bear in mind that this book covers fashion only up to about 1965 (that, however, may be no great hardship to those who believe that there hasn't really been any great couture since the last time Hubert de Givenchy designed something for Audrey Hepburn :) ). There is a truly staggering amount of illustrations in the book - over 1100, of which some 350 are full-color - and the array includes reproductions of many famous paintings and other artworks showcasing especially notable costumes. Every item of costume and couture is covered in detail, from head (hats) to feet (shoes) and in between. In contrast to some other pictorial works of fashion I've reviewed, there is a very extensive and detailed text, though, as another reviewer has noted, it was originally written in French and has been translated to English, with the possible loss of some nuances and idioms in the process.
   
   Overall, I repeat my initial judgment: this is a mandatory item for anyone seriously interested in the history of costume to have in their library.



2. I would never have passed any of my Costume Design classes in college without this book and even now find it to be ridiculously useful when it comes to double-checking period dress I see in shows or movies. You wouldn't believe how many people get the costumes wrong!!!



3. I recently purchased 8 different books on the history of costume, and I am pleased to say that this book seems to be, by FAR, the best book, while also being the lowest priced work that I purchased! I purchased the books with the intention of using them to assist in dating eighteenth and nineteenth century portraits, and this book is PERFECT for the task. When you open this book and flip through the pages, you can't help but think that it is exactly what you were seeking. It is just bursting with text and images, all on quality glossy paper that makes the images easy to see. Many of the fashion books I have examined seemed to have either too much text at the expense of images, or too many images with no additional information to assist. This book offers substantial helpings of both! I have to disagree with the reviewers who say the text is hard to follow or that the pictures are too small.... The pictures are quite easy to see, and the only ones in black and white are of origiinal works that happen to be in black and white, so I don't think this was a fair criticism. The text seems logically presented, with easy-to-follow section headings. I would never say that this book could serve as the "only" book you need if you are serious about obtaining specialist knowledge on the history of costume. However, I would certainly name it as the best "all-in-one" to start with. This book combines drawings of fashions, photographs of actual period clothing in museum settings, and plenty of examples of painted works depicting fashion trends. Being the critical person that I am, I cannot help but point out what I see as the one flaw: this book has extremely sparse information on military uniforms, so if you are interested in militaria you will need to seek a more specialized book. If you are interested in SEWING period clothing, I recommend Norah Waugh's works, "The Cut of Men's Clothing" and "The Cut of Women's Clothing". If you are interested in identifying period fashion trends, especially in small details such as accessories, hairstyles, buttons, etc. I HIGHLY recommend this book. I can honestly say that if it cost three times as much, I would still be recommending it as the best one I've seen yet. If it were an option, I would have given this book SIX STARS!



4. I really debated between giving this 4 or 5 stars. This is a book I reference when I need a little more in-depth info about a certain period or style. As some of the other reviewers have said it is not an easy or engaging read. However, the text is very scholarly and deals a lot with political and economic factors that influenced the world of fashion (many books simply describe the developments in the garments without dealing much with the "why"). There are many images to show the progression of fashion changes and Boucher includes photos of extant garments (where possible), statues, accessories, etc. alongside reproductions of paintings. Each period is introduced by a general overview of the European world of the time (politics, economy, etc.) and then divided into sections such as Spanish Costume, or Military Costume. If you need a general overview of the complete history of (Western) fashion with a lot of scholarly text to back it up, look no further.



5. This book is a great source for pictures but the text is not as useful. It is more anthropological than historical and has been translated from French so is sometimes unclear.

4 comments about Survey of Historic Costume: A History of Western Dress.

1. This is the textbook from my History of Fashion course. Like nearly all Fairchild Publication books, this is extremely well put together. It describes the dress of the time, construction and what it was made of, as well as the social/historical events at the time that helped influence the dress styles. It covers women's wear, men's wear, and children's wear. It is truly an excellent resource.



2. The book came in great condition! It was shipping fast, which is great because it was needed for a college class. I would definitely use them again for future purchases.



3. There are some real photos of paintings from the time periods, but also a lot of drawings of tiny cartoon people wearing time period clothing which are confusing. The author could have at least made the drawings bigger and drawn arrows naming each piece of the outfit, but under many pictures the caption just reads "women's attire" which leaves the student forced to read through the entire chapter and match up the cartoon character's garments to the clothing descriptions. It takes longer to learn and study for tests and is often confusing. I wouldn't reccomend this book! If your costume teacher has a PHD please let them know it is their duty to write a new history of costume book!!!



4. This book is perfect for anyone who wants to become familiar with what people have worn through history of clothes.
   I loved it.

3 comments about How to Understand, Enjoy, and Draw Optical Illusions: 37 Illustrated Projects (How to Understand & Draw).

1. I find optical illusions a fascinating subject, and this book plays right into my curiosity! In this book, there are examples of all types of visual illusions - impossible objects, distortion illusions, ambiguous illusions, and the like. What makes this book so great is the way the illusions are explained and the invitation to play with them to see how they work. Even when I demonstrated for myself how these illusions work using the easy hands-on projects in the book, I found it impossible to convince my eyes that they were being tricked! I found project after project in the book to be captivating and intriguing. This book is both informative and lots of fun! If you're interested in optical illusions, how your mind can be tricked, or just like to see how some puzzles work, this book will give you hours of satisfaction.



2. Over the last decade or so there have been dozens and dozens of books and games which focus on optical illusions. I should know. I have written two books on the subject; produced two board games which are based on illusions; and, published six decks of playing cards each containing 55 different illusion images. Virtually all of the existing materials using illusions are basically collections of images. The text which accompanies them is usually descriptive intending to make the illusory effect more readily available to the reader assuming it is not readily apparent. They help the reader "see" the illusion. This book is "different." The author takes us into each image using a step by step easy to follow conversational tone which not only makes the illusory aspect of the image clear, but importantly and differently, makes us not only "see" the effect but understand "how" it was achieved! He then encourages the reader to go ahead and create his or her own special images. It is very well done.
   
   J.R. Block, PhD



3. As a published digital photo artist specializing in "Illusion Fusion", I am a big fan of optical illusions and have been purchasing books and calendars on the subject for many years from authors like Block, Seckel and now Ausbourne. Because optical illusions are compelling and entertaining in their own rite, most books on the subject (and there are a lot) tend to fall into two categories - creative picture/story books, or scientific explanations of how the mind's eye works. Ausbourne, a graphic artist himself, and publisher of arguably the first and longest running science web site on optical illusions, has taken a more unique approach with his first book. As the title suggests, this book shows how to understand and draw illusions from someone who has been creating illusion art for almost two decades. The book's illusions are beautifully rendered and printed in full color throughout the thirty-seven enlightening and easy to follow workshop projects. By dissecting the world's most popular illusions into their basic forms, Ausbourne was able to definitely explain the steps for creating my own illusions using a variety of media. I see these projects being a valuable source of inspiration for my own illusion creations for years to come. I give this book my highest illusion rating: Three thumbs up.

1 comments about Writings on Art.

1. Mark Rothko created some of the more spiritually radiant paintings of any artist form any ear. That his paintings were abstractions - blocks of color conjoined by a marriage of midline intercourse of pigment - makes this accomplishment something that still befuddles art critics and historians and viewers alike. Here at last, some thirty-six years after his death by suicide, editor Miguel Lopez-Remiro has gathered notes from his addresses to Pratt Institute, letters to artists and friends and curators and writers, proving that Rothko was not the silent warden of explanations about his work: he was an eloquent spokesman and writer who simply felt that words were unnecessary in people's experience of his visual statements.
   
   He wrote, 'I have never thought that painting a picture has anything to so with self-expression. It is a communication about the world to someone else. After the world is convinced about this communication it changes. The world was never the same after Picasso or Miro. Theirs was a view of the world which transformed our vision of things.' Kind accolades from a man once thought to be a recluse. In response to art critics' questions he merely state 'A painting doesn't need anybody to explain what it is about. If it is any good, it speaks for itself.'
   
   Rothko's writings collected in this book demonstrate that he did indeed have the ability to discuss his mysteriously beautiful works: he also makes it clear that the communication between his paintings and the viewer should relay on the spiritual needs and vulnerabilities. These letters and essays are informative, well arranged chronologically by Lopez-Remiro, and graciously allowed to stand alone for their impact, much in the way his paintings must stand alone - usually in context with other Rothko paintings in isolated rooms with special lighting that gives the work the sense in frailty and intransigence. Highly recommended reading for those who have experience the miracle of standing before a Rothko image. Grady Harp, May 06

5 comments about Max Ernst: A Retrospective (Metropolitan Museum of Art Publications).

1. The reproductions in this book are every bit as good as those in a similarly-priced volume from Thames & Hudson (isbn 978-0500976586) in terms of color fidelity, and far superior terms of selection and size. Additionally, reproductions are much better than in cheaper volumes from Taschen (978-3822813881) and Phaidon (978-0714828664). Maybe the reproductions in the monumental Oeuvre Katalog are superior, but at $2500 most of us will never aspire to own a copy.
   
   Don't let other reviewer's gripes about color fidelity dissuade you from owning this marvelous volume.



2. This book is the most comprehensive collection of Max Ernst work. Having read the other reviews, I was concerned the print quality would be less than stellar. I find the print quality and color reproduction to be fine. No art book ever captures the full impact of the actual art, and color correction is one of the more problematic aspects of printing. MOMA and the Yale University did a good job with this book. This is a good collection of work and I wouldn't hesitate buying it again.



3. I just saw the retrospective a couple of weeks ago as well and agree with the other reviewers: the exhibition is great, but the quality of the plates in the catalog is miserable.



4. Having just seen the exhibit today (June 6 2005), and having perused copies of the book available at the exhibit, I concur that the color reproduction negates the highly informative text of this book.



5. The exhibit of Ernst's work, which is still running at the Metropolitan Museum is a stunning tribute to an artist whose styles have influenced so many others over the course of the twentieth century. His style shifted and evolved so much over time that it is hard to believe the same artist that painted "Saint Cecilia" also painted "The Kiss" and "The Robing of the Bride." Unfortunately, the poor quality of the prints in the museum's book makes it a big disappointment, especially at this price. The text is alright, but the colors in the prints are radically darker and different in tone and do no justice to the original works.

No comments about Painting Missouri: The Counties En Plein Air.

No comments about The Arts And Human Development: With A New Introduction By The Author.

1 comments about The Art of Rebellion 2: World of Urban Art Activism.

1. it is a great book to check what is going on in the street