The Biology of Art

Description

Biological accounts of art typically start with evolutionary, psychological or neurobiological theories. These approaches might be able to explain many of the similarities we see in art behaviors within and across human populations, but they don't obviously explain the differences we also see. Nor do they give us guidance on how we should engage with art, or the conceptual basis for art. A more comprehensive framework, based also on the ecology of art and how art behaviors get expressed in engineered niches, can help us better understand the full range of art behaviors, their normativity and conceptual basis.

'Like Biological Classification before it, I find The Biology of Art definitive; it is fundamental, original, and written with superb clarity. This is the work to go to for a source and basic review of importance in consilience and the creative arts generally.' Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University 'This seventy-one page book by Richard A. Richards is in Cambridge's Elements in the Philosophy of Biology series, which provides 'concise and structured introductions to all of the central topics in the philosophy of biology'. It meets these conditions admirably. As well, it is clearly written and highly accessible, avoiding jargon and explaining technical terms where required. It judiciously evaluates arguments and positions for their merits and faults. It can be read usefully by those whose interest is more in art than biology, including undergraduates.' British Journal of Aesthetics 'I found it highly readable and engaging. No knowledge of philosophy of art is presumed. It provides a balanced introduction, and a clear articulation of the author's view. I would not hesitate to recommend The Biology of Art to a newcomer to philosophical aesthetics or to set it as a reading in an undergraduate philosophy of art course. Indeed, I think it would serve class discussions well ... The book is a curious contribution to a Philosophy of Biology series. Many central controversies in philosophy of biology can be brought to bear on the arts. This element sidesteps those to offer instead a defence of naturalism in philosophy of art-a position I would wager most professional philosophers of biology would already endorse.' Anton Killin, Metascience