verpooten, jan and nelissen, mark (2009) SENSORY EXPLOITATION: UNDERESTIMATED IN THE EVOLUTION OF ART AS ONCE IN SEXUAL SELECTION THEORY? In: UNSPECIFIED.
This is the latest version of this item.
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)
|
PDF
manuscript_jan_verpooten_Boston_studies_2009.pdf Download (446kB) |
Abstract
In this paper we argue that sensory exploitation, a model from sexual selection theory, deserves more attention in evolutionary thinking about art than it has up until now. We base our argument on the observation that in the past sensory exploitation may have been underestimated in sexual selection theory but that it is now winning field. Likewise, we expect sensory exploitation can play a more substantial role in modeling the evolution of art behavior. Darwin's theory of sexual selection provides a mechanistic basis to explain the evolution of male display traits. This mechanistic approach has proven useful to developing hypotheses about the evolution of human art. Both Boyd and Richerson (1985) and Miller (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) have applied an indirect-benefit model from sexual selection to the evolution of art behavior. We argue that the mechanistic possibilities sensory exploitation has to offer as a model have remained underexplored so far, so we propose a concept based upon it. From the sensory exploitation perspective it follows that exaptive exploitation of psychosensory biases is a primary force in the evolution of art production (notice that the use of a model from sexual selection does not imply art evolved as a sexual display - we only use it for its mechanism) and that the indirect-benefit model only provides secondary forces. Thus, sensory exploitation may operate alone under some conditions but usually secondary processes as a result of indirect benefits are expected to kick in. The concept of sensory exploitation will need to play a central role in articulating all of the existing hypotheses about art.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Conference or Workshop Item (UNSPECIFIED) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | manuscript under revision | |||||||||
| Keywords: | sensory exploitation, sensory biases, evolution of art, sexual selection, mimicry, indirect benefits, signal evolution, cultural transmission, iconic representations | |||||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Biology > Evolutionary Theory Specific Sciences > Sociology Specific Sciences > Cognitive Science Specific Sciences > Psychology > Evolutionary Psychology |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | jan maria jozef verpooten | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 14 Jan 2010 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 07 Oct 2010 15:19 | |||||||||
| Item ID: | 5112 | |||||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Biology > Evolutionary Theory Specific Sciences > Sociology Specific Sciences > Cognitive Science Specific Sciences > Psychology > Evolutionary Psychology |
|||||||||
| Date: | 2009 | |||||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/5112 |
Available Versions of this Item
-
Why did art behavior evolve? A cultural sensory exploitation hypothesis. (deposited 12 Jun 2008)
- SENSORY EXPLOITATION: UNDERESTIMATED IN THE EVOLUTION OF ART AS ONCE IN SEXUAL SELECTION THEORY? (deposited 14 Jan 2010) [Currently Displayed]
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}