ANIMAL DISPLAY
In a treatment of the relation between art and sexual life the facts
must necessarily be classified under two different headings, namely,
the influence of artistic activity upon sexual selection and the
importance of erotic motives in works of art. These two points of view
have indeed often been confounded with each other. But it will soon
appear from the following how indispensable it is to maintain the
distinction between them.
In modern literature there has scarcely appeared any treatise of the
same importance, not only for the theory of art, but also for æsthetic
proper, as the chapters on sexual selection in _The Descent of Man_. As
is well known, Darwin supposes a necessary connection between beauty
and art. He takes it for granted that music, poetry, drama, and the
rest chiefly aim at pleasing. When he sees that activities and forms,
which at least technically correspond to the various kinds of art,
are to be met with not only among the lower tribes of man, but even
among some of the higher animals, he therefore explains these forms
and activities as emanating from a conscious or unconscious endeavour
to please through beauty. And for this endeavour he finds a reason in
the necessity of gaining preference in the favour of the female. By
endowing the female with æsthetic attention and æsthetic judgment[262]
he has been able not only to explain the appearance of art amongst
savages and animals, but also to account for the importance of beauty
in life.
In the foregoing arguments we have already with sufficient clearness
pronounced our dissent from Darwin’s primary supposition. In the
chapter upon the art-impulse we have tried to show that this tendency
in its essence is something quite different from the tendency to
“attract by pleasing.” But with all this theoretical argumentation
it has of course not been proved that the endeavour of the males
to win the favour of the females by singing, dancing, and other
similar performances has exercised no influence on the _history_ of
art. However little these activities may have to do with real art,
they might, however, have afforded a raw material to be used by the
art-impulse proper for its own purposes. In this connection it is
necessary, therefore, to discuss the question, To what extent has
æsthetic choice, exercised by either of the sexes in selecting a mate,
favoured the development of artistic activities in the other sex?
The æsthetic theory of Darwin has its chief interest in the fact that
it can be applied to the activities of animals as well as to those of
men. Darwin himself has chosen the majority of his examples from bird
life, and his critics have generally restricted the discussion to the
zoological application of his thesis. As the data of animal psychology
are less complicated than the corresponding facts in the mental life of
man, it is in every respect advantageous to begin with this supposed
animal art. When the illustrations are chosen from bird life the
argumentation can, moreover, be handled with a freedom which would be
impossible in discussing the delicate questions of human erotics and
sexual life.
The theory of an appeal to some primordial æsthetic appreciation
in the hen birds is one which, however well it may account for the
beautiful plumage of some species and for the melodious singing of
some others, necessarily must arouse objections from the point of view
of comparative psychology. Æsthetic judgment presupposes a certain
development not only of intellectual qualities, but also of moral
self-restraint. In other words, it might be said that attention to
beauty, whether manifested in forms or colours or sounds, always
is what Ribot calls an “attention volontaire.”[263] It is hard to
believe that the hen really has reached such a state of spiritual
freedom that, when looking at the finery and the antics of her rival
suitors, she could be able to bestow her attention upon the æsthetic
qualities in the display. One has only to work out into all its details
and consequences the idea of a bird who approves or disapproves the
performance, and who, after balancing the merits of the various
competitors, awards her prize to the one nearest her ideal of beauty,
in order to realise the improbability, not to say the absurdity, of
this avian connoisseurship. M. Espinas, who describes in detail the
dilemma of the anxiously hesitating arbiter, has added nothing to
the theory of æsthetic selection. But it may safely be said that his
illustration of the thesis acts as a caricature of it.[264]
The improbability of an æsthetic judgment is yet more palpable when
one considers the state of mind in which the hen is likely to be on the
occasion. It has indeed been contended with regard to some species—as,
for instance, the satyr bird—that the hen behaves with a perfect calm
and indifference during the display of the cock.[265] But it would be
undoubtedly too rash to form any general conclusion on the ground of
her outward show in some single instances. Amongst the wood-birds, on
the other hand, the hens are known to be so excited during the “Balz”
that they can easily be caught with the hands.[266]
To all these _a priori_ objections there may also be added the remark
of Geddes and Thomson, that if the females of insects and birds had
really called into existence all the detailed patterns on the dresses
of their respective males by the exercise of æsthetic selection, they
would possess more discrimination than is shown in their predilection
for any sort of gaudy-coloured objects, such as pebbles, slips of
paper, and rags.[267]
However great the psychological improbability of the supposed
æsthetic selection, there is still more reason to take exception to
it from an evolutionistic point of view. The female appreciation
for gaudy and gorgeous dresses must necessarily, as Darwin himself
remarks, in many cases give rise to a plumage, as a result of which
the males become encumbered in their movements and easily discovered
by their enemies.[268] Æsthetic judgment, which is in itself so
incomprehensible, would thus have been developed in a continuous
conflict with natural selection. This circumstance, more than anything
else, makes it indispensable to look for some more utilitarian cause of
the secondary sexual characters and activities than the hypothetical
necessity of satisfying a sense of beauty in the female sex.
By the theory that has been advanced by Wallace, and further
developed by Westermarck, the nuptial dresses of the males have
indeed been accounted for in a simple way.[269] Reference to the need
of recognisable marks for every different species can explain the
most prominent characteristics in male plumage without any appeal
to an æsthetic sense. This need, together with the equally great
indispensability of protective colouring, must necessarily give rise
to precisely such brilliant coloured spots on a monotonous or plain
surface as are so often found on the bodies of the northern birds. The
gaudier coloration of the tropical species, on the other hand, appears
as a result of their more brilliant surroundings. Even here protective
colouring often leaves to the colour of recognition only a narrow and
limited space, on which this has to develop itself with so much the
greater intensity. In this way one can find a reason not only for the
decorations, which are beautiful according to our standard, but also
for the inharmonious and glaring colour-combinations.
An adherent of sexual selection can, however, easily object that these
theories, however sound and sensible they may be, still leave the main
point in Darwin’s thesis quite unaffected. When trying to prove the
existence of an æsthetic judgment in birds, he did not lay so much
stress upon decorative plumage itself as upon the fact of its being
displayed in the presence of the hen. If secondary sexual characters
had their only purpose in facilitating recognition between individuals
of the same species, then these elaborate performances would be quite
superfluous. And this argument can of course be further strengthened by
reference to the musical and dancing entertainments given by the males.
Any theory which leaves these activities unexplained must therefore be
regarded as incomplete.
In Mr. Wallace’s _Darwinism_ due attention has indeed been paid
to pre-nuptial performances. But his explanation, viz. that the
dancing and singing, etc., are only the effect of an inner impulse to
movement and activity which accompanies sexual maturity,[270] can but
incompletely unriddle the problem. For the purpose of affording an
outflow to a surplus of vigour or of discharging a nervous tension,
activities of a far simpler character would have been sufficient. As,
however, amongst birds with gorgeous plumage every movement in the
display tends towards exhibiting their splendour with the greatest
possible _éclat_, an influence upon the hen cannot be argued away. It
is, as Darwin remarks, impossible to believe that the Argus pheasant,
for instance, should have developed precisely such a curious and
peculiar sort of dance, through which his beautiful dress is so
effectively shown forth, if this dance had been of no effect upon
its spectators.[271] This effect cannot, as has been shown above, be
considered an æsthetic one. It is also difficult to believe that the
hen, as it has been suggested, should appreciate the secondary sexual
characters as signs of greater or smaller vital force, and thus prefer
not the most beautiful, but the most vigorous and ardent mate.[272]
Whether it is founded on an æsthetic judgment or on an estimation
of the force displayed, her conscious choosing seems to be alike
improbable.
But if it is difficult to believe that the display of the males could
call forth an intellectual activity in the hen, such as that of
comparing and valuing the merits of the rival suitors,[273] one can
safely assume that it might influence her emotional and instinctive
life. And for the production of such an effect there is no need to
suppose any intervening æsthetic activity. Considering the close
parallelism which shows itself in the development of either sex, it
would only be natural if a colour and voice alteration in the cock,
which undeniably is dependent upon sexual ripening,[274] should
directly and almost physiologically imply a reaction in the sexual life
of the hen. The more energetically the male forces himself upon the
attention of the female by the conspicuous visual and acoustic signs of
his sex, the more powerful must necessarily be the emotional response
in her.
If secondary sexual characters are interpreted in this way, as signs,
by which the sex of the male is manifested in an unmistakable manner,
then one can easily understand the influence of a prolonged display.
When the cock is exhibiting his plumes or pouring forth his notes, and
thereby impressing upon his female listener the notion of his malehood,
he cannot but produce in her an enhanced inclination for pairing.[275]
She needs no æsthetic appreciation or intellectual judgment in order
to comprehend the simple text of all his utterances. With all her
instincts and impulses she can at once grasp the only thing she wants
to know—the thing that is brought home to her with a greater and
greater clearness during the continuation of his performance, namely,
that the passionate actor in front of her is a mature representative
of the other sex. And besides this, the secondary sexual characters
and activities tell another tale of no less importance. If the colours
and the tones of the cock, as Westermarck has shown, are of great
consequence for facilitating from a distance recognition between
members of the same species,[276] their biological significance is
perhaps yet greater when they, during the display before the hen,
accentuate the community of species. By virtue of her inherited
constitution, the instinctive life of the hen will be deeper stirred
the more the male is able to show that he “wears the feathers of her
tribe.”
It is evident that the effect upon the hen must be greater in
proportion as the sex marks and species marks of the male are more
clearly defined, and therefore easier to perceive. Not only as means
of recognition, but also as instruments for sexual incitement,
colour-patterns with lucent points must be more advantageous than any
other system of decoration. It is easily understood that a design like
that on the tails of pheasants and peacocks is eminently capable of
attracting the female attention to the displaying cock. But it would
be stretching the theory too far if the marvellous “balls on sockets”
were explained as nothing but conspicuous signals, the meaning of
which the hen is able to decipher by help of her inherited instincts.
The influence of the display is amongst these species undoubtedly
strengthened by an action which is quite independent of any sexual
associations. Besides accentuating the sex and kind of the cock, these
luminous spheres will, moreover, in virtue of their very smallness
and brilliancy, provoke a stimulation in the mind of the hen before
whom they are vibrated. To understand this effect, it is necessary
to investigate the more general question of animal appreciation of
brilliancy.
The powerful attraction exercised by lucent things can be sufficiently
proved by numerous instances from the life of insects and fishes as
well as of higher animals. It is needless to dwell upon the various
means by which man has availed himself of this disastrous predilection
in order to entice animals within reach of his weapons.[277] More
important in this connection is the mania for collecting lustrous
objects that has been noticed in the case of ravens, jays, magpies,
jackdaws, goldfinches, chiff-chaffs, sea-pies, etc.[278] It has
scarcely ever been suggested that the thievish jackdaw is prompted
by any _æsthetic_ liking for brilliant plate. But as it shows itself
amongst the atlas birds and the bower birds, this exaggeration of the
appropriative impulse has been regarded as an indication of artistic
inclination. It has been contended that these birds not only appreciate
shining and gorgeous objects, but even understand how to arrange them
according to a decorative plan.[279]
No one will deny that structures, such as, for instance, the gardens
of the atlas birds, which have been depicted by Beccari, are most
wonderful specimens of animal industry.[280] But it is undoubtedly
misleading to speak of them as artistic. As far as can be judged from
the descriptions—which are seldom complete—the arrangement of the
objects seems to be quite accidental. Darwin has indeed collected some
most eulogistic accounts of the decorative taste of the Australian
bower bird. But he has also, candidly enough, illustrated them with a
picture, on which an irregular heap of shells and bones is to be seen
in front of the bower. And the description he borrows from Mr. Strange
is yet more significant. To judge from this account, which is further
corroborated by the statement of Captain Stokes, the chief interest
of the birds seems to be not the arranging of their treasures, but
the playing with them. It has been noticed that the cock of the great
bower bird amuses himself by flying to and fro in the bower carrying
a shell in his bill, which he picks up on one side and carries to the
other.[281] On an anthropomorphic interpretation such a behaviour would
perhaps indicate a desire of trying some new decorative effect. But it
seems more natural to assume that brilliant objects, even after they
have been stored up in the nest, still exercise their irresistible
attraction, and thereby tempt the birds to repeated trifling with them.
If the supposed redecorations of the gardens be accounted for in this
manner, then there is no reason for considering the collecting impulse
in the Australian birds as anything more than a higher development of
the same tendency which shows itself in our common magpies and jackdaws.
By the Australian instances, however, the general predilection for
brilliant objects is brought into connection with the pairing dresses
of pheasants, peacocks, and humming birds. The small and brilliant
objects with which the bower birds play during their pairing season
remind us irresistibly of the “balls on sockets” and of the ocelli
designs of the colibri.[282] It is true that the pheasants carry on
their tail what the Australian birds keep in their bill. But apart
from this unimportant difference, the display seems to be the same in
both cases. In Mr. Strange’s letter it is said that the cock, when
performing the exalted antics that precede pairing, “runs to the bower,
picks up a gaudy feather or a spotted leaf, pours forth some peculiar
notes, and runs through the pavilion.” It is not quite clear from this
wording whether the objects really are exhibited _before_ the hen. But
one may safely assume that she in any case has paid some attention to
her consort’s performance. She has decidedly not, any more than the
pea-hen, received any sort of æsthetic impression from the display. But
the brilliancy has undoubtedly stimulated her, as it stimulates all
the other birds quoted in this connection, in a purely physiological
way. This action, on the other hand, is sufficiently explained by
recent researches on the physiological effects which the contemplation
of concentrated lustre produces on animal organisms. It is also well
known that objects with exactly the same qualities as the ocelli on the
peacock’s tail play an important part in hypnotic experiments. And the
primitive shamans as well as the modern cultivators of “crystal-gazing”
are acquainted with the peculiar effects of prolonged gazing on
glass-balls or the shining surface of water. More familiar still is
the fascinating influence exercised by that lustrous little globe, the
human eye.
In all these various examples the smallness of the object fetters the
attention, and thereby makes the mind a defenceless prey to the images,
feelings, and impulses which for the moment invade it. The lustre, on
the other hand, will, to use the language of M. Binet, strengthen the
intensity of these mental images.[283] There is no reason why these
effects, which presuppose no sort of intellectual activity, should not
take place in animals as well as in man. In the case of the peacock,
therefore, the idea “male” will imprint itself with greater and more
efficacy upon the mind of the hen when she is exposed on every side to
the twinkling eyes on the expanded tail of her mate.
Even in the very cases that have been regarded as the most
incontestable proofs of a taste for the beautiful, the influence on
the hen can thus be explained as one which directly, _i.e._ without
any æsthetic mediation, has served the interests of pairing. But it
may still be asked, Whence the need of strengthening and intensifying
the emotions in the female, which must already have been awakened by
the mere presence of the male? This objection, however, is easily met
by a reference to the psychological aspects of pairing. Throughout
the animal kingdom the males have to conquer a resistance from the
side of the females. This instinctive coyness, the importance of which
for the maintenance of the species is incalculable and self-evident,
constitutes by itself a sufficient cause for the supposed æsthetic
characters and activities of the males.[284] It has made it necessary
for them to have a stately carriage, which makes them bigger and more
pompous than ever, and to display their bodies in flying tricks, or
dances and antics,—in a word, to emphasise their sex as energetically
as possible by colours and tunes and movements. And this necessity has,
by means of a _natural_ selection, called forth a colouring which is
not only easily recognisable from a distance, but which also forces
itself on the senses when seen at close quarters.
The æsthetic judgment of the hen forms the pivot of the whole Darwinian
theory. When it has been eliminated, it is therefore quite superfluous
to controvert the assertion, which Darwin himself would not positively
defend, that the performances of the males have originated in an
artistic endeavour.[285] Once granted an instinctive coyness in the
hen, which must be overcome by every possible means, one can easily
understand that secondary sexual characters and activities would
gradually appear in the males. The expressive movements in which
they seek to relieve their nervous tension afford a material out of
which natural selection will shape, as the most effective means of
incitation, the various forms of display, or dance, or song. As is
well known, Wallace,[286] Spencer,[287] and Hudson[288] have even
contended that emotional pressure, or, as they put it, overflowing
vitality, by itself constitutes a sufficient explanation of the “Balz.”
In the above treatment of the question, which in its main points
accords with the conclusive researches of Professor Groos, we have
endeavoured to show that the various sorts of display never could
have reached their special and differentiated forms if it had not been
for the necessity of overcoming female coyness. But, on the other
hand, this necessity could never have created out of nothing all these
complicated activities. It is difficult—perhaps even impossible—to
make any general assertions about the relative importance of these two
explanations.[289] The only point which it is necessary to bring out
in this connection is that a sort of nuptial performance would have
appeared amongst the males even independently of its influence upon
the hen. The hygienic need of an outburst is one reason, and a very
strong one indeed, for such motor manifestations. But it seems also as
if their purpose ought not to be restricted to this cathartic effect.
The “lek” of the wood-birds tends no doubt to _increase_ nervous force
at the same time as it relieves the tension. M. Espinas thinks that the
males, when collecting in great numbers during the pairing season, are
led by an unconscious desire to stimulate their feelings by the view of
other equally excited fellow-males.[290] Such an unconscious desire of
enhancing nervous force probably lies also behind the inclination for
brilliant objects and the trifling with them in the bowers.[291] That
a sort of artificial stimulation really is necessary may perhaps be
concluded from Brehm’s general remark about the sexual life of birds:
“The pairing is often repeated, and still more often ineffectually
attempted.”[292] In a private communication to Groos, Professor
Ziegler, the eminent zoologist, also refers to the increased nervous
activity which is necessary for pairing, and the passionate preludes
which precede it in so many animals.[293]
By these two principles, viz. the necessity of overcoming the
instinctive coyness of the hen and that of stimulating the nervous
system of the cock, it is, we believe, possible to account for all the
secondary sexual characters and activities which in Darwin’s theory
necessitated the hypothesis of an animal æsthetic. When the directly
physiological importance of the nuptial preludes is acknowledged one
can also, without appealing to the effects of association, explain
the occurrence of a “lek” in birds who have already made their choice
of mate.[294] And, on the other hand, we need not give up any one
of the general results at which Darwin arrived in his researches.
Although conscious selection on the part of the hen must be denied,
the fact that she consents to couple only with the cock who has been
able to stir her feelings better than any other, constitutes a kind of
unconscious choice. It may seem unnecessary, therefore, to lay so much
stress upon the theoretical inappropriateness of Darwin’s language. The
æsthetical terms in _The Descent of Man_ could easily be exchanged for
more physiological ones without any important alteration in the main
thesis of the book. And it must even be conceded that, owing to the
extreme cautiousness which was such a remarkable peculiarity of Darwin,
this substitution would not be required in more than a few passages. He
himself often speaks of ornamental plumage as a means of “exciting,” or
“charming,” or “fascinating” the females;[295] once he even restricts
himself to saying that the hens “prefer, or are unconsciously excited
by, the more beautiful males.”[296] From the biological point of view
it would therefore be pretentious to claim any importance for this
reformulation of the Darwinian theory. But, from what must be the
dominating point of view in this work, it is by no means unnecessary
to disentangle the confusion between æsthetic appreciation and
physiological stimulation. The æsthetic corollaries, which are the
most important in this connection, will be greatly modified as soon
as the more physiological interpretation is applied to the various
manifestations of animal art.
When Darwin chose to endow the hen with an aboriginal æsthetic judgment
he was at once confronted by a difficulty which was perhaps even
greater than that of locating the beginnings of art in the animal
kingdom. The facts compelled him to admit that in some species this
æsthetic judgment seemed to be a very bad one indeed.[297] When
secondary sexual characters are regarded as signs by which the kind
and sex of the males are accentuated, this apparent inconsistency is
easily understood. The harsh cry and the inharmonious colouring of
the macaw[298] tell their tale as eloquently and convincingly as any
of the æsthetic characters of the other birds. The roaring of the
battle bump,[299] the disagreeable miauling of the peacock, and the
bleating call-note of the greenfinch[300] no doubt cause as great a
pleasure in their respective hens as is ever caused by the song of
the nightingale in his mate. That the secondary sexual characters
of the birds on the whole are so much more beautiful than those of
the mammals is not the result of any originally higher standard of
beauty with their respective females. The superiority of the birds
is quite sufficiently accounted for by the peculiar conditions of
their life, which necessitate and call forth graceful shape as well
as graceful movements. Their gorgeous colouring, on the other hand,
is undoubtedly—as has been shown above—to some extent at least
conditioned by the gaudy colouring of the tropical landscape. It must
be remarked, moreover, that notwithstanding their undeniable splendour,
the dresses of the birds by no means generally fulfil the claims of
tasteful composition. When appreciating the plumage and the songs of
the birds, we usually look upon them as pieces of nature. We admire
them as we admire the woods and flowers and every other manifestation
of nature and life. This attitude must necessarily be given up as soon
as a conscious tendency is assumed in “animal art.” When we regard the
secondary sexual characters in the manner of Darwin—as results of an
æsthetic choice—we cannot help missing all the æsthetic qualities of
harmony and composition, which are never expected, and therefore never
missed, in the objects of nature. If the proper distinction between art
and nature is maintained, it will be possible to combine an unabated
admiration for the marvels of beauty in bird life with a denial of
“animal art.”