The Art Instinct_ Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution - Denis Dutton [139]
Meyer’s views are in Dutton (1983). The faked piano recording example was originally published in the British Journal of Aesthetics in 1979; it is in Dutton (1983) and on the Web [w/s denisdutton .com meegeren].
See Tooby and Cosmides (2001). Free and dependent beauty is discussed in Kant (1987), section 16. The charming example of the boy who fakes the nightingale for the plea sure of the guests at the inn can be found in section 42. My own take on free and dependent beauty is in Dutton (1994), also on the Web [w/s dutton kant free beauty]. 190–91 The list of basic emotions is in Ekman (2003). For Jonathan Haidt’s important work on admiration and elevation as distinct, identifiable emotions, see Algoe and Haidt (2008).
For background on the 2004 Turner Prize, [w/s turner prize 2004 gordon’s most influential]. For analysis of Duchamp and Fountain, see Humble (1982); Brough (1991); Danto (1981). Rubin (1984) provides a general history of Duchamp and modernism.
Duchamp’s remark on Comb is quoted by Humble (1982). Information on Henry Darger is widely distributed on the Web [w/s henry darger]. 00–201 Danto (1986), p. 35; the odd syntax is Danto’s.
More can be learned about the exploits of Piero Manzoni by searching the Web: [w/s piero manzoni tate shit]. Don’t miss the Tate podcast for young people entitled “What’s Inside the Can?” Two Tate curators earnestly analyze the “problem the artist faced when trying to can his own shit.” In the end, they are deeply moved: “It’s a tribute to the artist that he’s done something that is still impenetrable by science. So the idea lives on. It’s a great idea.” Completely, unintentionally hilarious [w/s listen what’s inside the can manzoni].
CHAPTER 9: THE CONTINGENCY OF AESTHETIC VALUES
See Shiner and Kriskovets (2007). Among recent philosophical accounts that deal with food, and therefore to some extent smell, are Korsmeyer (1999) and Telfer (1996).
The figure 30,000 gets tossed about as an estimate for the number of individual smells the normal human nose can distinguish. Thanks to Avery Gilbert for trying to track down the source of this supposed fact, which turns out to be a rumor of uncertain origin. No researcher has ever tried to bring together thousands of smells and apply them to pool of human subjects. See Gilbert (2008), pp. 1–5. Gilbert recounts the history of attempts to inject smell into movies, culminating in Mike Todd, Jr.’s Smell-O-Vision of 1959. Smell was actually first introduced into a film in 1906: rose scent to accompany a newsreel of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade; see Gilbert (2008), pp. 147–69.
Beardsley (1958), p. 99. Robert Parker’s nose is legend. See the classic Atlantic Monthly article by William Langewiesche [w/s robert parker million dollar nose]. Sibley’s account of smell is in Sibley (2001).
Darwin (1896). These passages can be found in any searchable version of The Descent of Man: [w/s darwin descent man gutenberg]. The “supervowel” suggestion is nicely put by Pascal Boyer (2001), p. 132. Other recent treatments of music can be found in Wallin et al. (1999) and Mithen (2006).
David Huron’s overview of musical psychology (2006) in terms of anticipation and fulfillment is one of the most illuminating accounts of music I have ever read. The discussion of repetition is at pp. 228–29, and intervals in melodies at pp. 339–44.
Gary Marcus’s Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind (2008) argues that any foibles of human thinking emerge from cobbled-together mental routines and algorithms that we evolved in the savannas: they are far from being rationally systematic or even suited to modern life. “Haphazard” is also my word for the adaptations that make up the arts as we have them today. The Kentner observation was quoted without further source by Martin Kettle in the Guardian, February 16, 2008.
CHAPTER 10: GREATNESS IN THE ARTS
All quotations are from the first chapter of Art, Bell (1958). For a Web version in which I have