C%H I rtin itf SiDoiiMtiipj mm iX% m DIV. 10 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION VOL. 2 (1) Involution. Creativity, and Aesthetics (.«re*jor\ I, Feist, Guest Fditor Ernst Haeckel - Kunstformen der Natur. Tafel 74: Cypnpedium (Orchideac. Venusblumen), 1904 Sir Edward Povnter - A Comer of the Villa Emile Mimicr - llcr '.'nai dian ain'cl km Sir l.iiwrcinc Mniu-Tadema f a I iii ihl\ Paradise William Alolplw Bouguereau - L'Anwur an papillon William Adolphv Bougneremt Le Coquillage Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts Vol 2 (1) Contents Evolution, Creativity, and Aesthetics - Gregory J. Feist, Guest Editor 33 Creativity as a Secondary Darwinian Process 2 Three Perspectives on Evolution, Creativity, and Aesthetics Dean Keith Simonton Gregory J. Feist 39 The Role of Creativity in the Dialectical Evolution of Ideas 3 An Evolutionary Perspective on the Nature of Art Robert J. Sternberg Nancy E. Aiken 7 Ars Brevis, Vita Longa: The Possible Evolutionary Antecedents of 44 Division 10 News Art and Aesthetics Message from the President John L. Bradshaw Sandra W. Russ 11 Natural and Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Creativity Message from the Past President Gregory J. Feist Robert J. Sternberg 16 Fit To Be Eyed: Genes, Culture and Creative Minds Charles J. Lumsden Editorial 20 Aesthetic Fitness: How Sexual Selection shaped Artistic Virtuosity Colin Martindale as a Fitness Indicator and Aesthetic Preferences as Mate Choice Criteria Div. 10 Executive Committee endorses Bob Sternberg for Goeffrey F. Miller APA President 25 An Evolutionary Perspective on Aesthetics Announcements Gordon H. Orians 30 Creativity in Art: Stylistic Waves and Monotonic Evolutionary Division 10 2001 APA Program Trends (Information Approach) Vladimir M. Petrov Division 10 Information Join Division 10 Membership Application Division 10: Psychology and the Arts Name: Mailing Address: Email: Phone: (Work) (Home) Applying to Division 10 as (circle one): Fellow Member Associate Affiliate Student Affiliate APA Membership Number (if already a member) Annual Dues: $17.00 for Members, Associates, and non-APA-Affiliates; $10.00 for Student Affiliates Fill out and mail to: American Psychological Association, Division 10: Psychology and the Arts, 750 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20002-4242 ¥ ¥ Vol 2 (1) Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts Three Perspectives on Evolution, Creativity, and Aesthetics sures, whereas the more ornamental forms of creativity (art and aesthetics) Gregory J. Feist are shaped most by sexual selection pressures. Lumsden is one of the pio­ College of William & Mary neers in applying evolutionary theory to the study of creativity and along with E.O. Wilson has proposed a theory of gene-culture coevolution. In This special issue of Bulletin of Psychology this theory he argues that biological evolution in and of itself is not enough and the Arts signifies a shift, perhaps even a revo­ to explain human evolution, but rather human evolution is a dual function lutionary paradigm shift, that has taken place in of genetic change and the mind's ability to shape and change its own devel­ the social sciences over the last 20 years. Darwin's opment. In this sense Lumsden can be placed in both the primary and the theory of evolution is no longer reserved for the cultural perspectives and may well be foreshadowing the next phase of biological and life sciences, but has become a pow­ evolutionary theory as applied to creativity. Miller's contribution rests on erful force in the social sciences, especially psy­ the assumption that human creative and aesthetic abilities are a function of chology. sexual selection pressures through mate choice because they are reliable Which is not to say evolutionary theory has signals of fitness. These abilities indicate not only the individual has good become the dominant power within psychology, genes but is in good health and possesses superior intellectual capacity. for it clearly has not and still meets with much resistance and criticism. Miller goes on to argue that aesthetic judgment has an adaptive function Some of these reservations are justified and some of them are not. Indeed, and is not merely a co-opted by product as other theorists (such as Pinker as anyone who attempts to think hard and deeply about the issues must and Gould) have recently argued. Finally, Orians argues that we have acknowledge, there are real difficulties with applying Darwin's theory of evolved preferences for certain kinds of ancestral environments. These natural and sexual selection to the complex behaviors of humans, espe­ evolved preferences revolve around 4 basic problems of survival: safety, cially the "higher reaches of human nature" seen in creativity, aesthetics, food acquisition, shelter, and choosing associates for reproduction, forag­ and intelligence. I do. however, predict that some time in the future (maybe ing, protection, and gaining status. Sensory preferences are the result of distant, maybe near) that the evolutionary perspective will reach the level evolved and adaptive sensory constraints and filters. Aesthetic and emo­ of importance in psychology that it has in biology if for no other reason tional preferences adaptive responses to these basic problems of survival. than if one does acknowledge the fact that humans are the result of evolu­ tionary forces, and the human brain is one such product, then human be­ Secondary Darwinism, by contrast, applies Darwinian theory metaphori­ havior ultimately must be viewed as a product of evolution. This includes cally to the cognitive processes involved in creativity. That is, evolutionary the human mind. processes are analogous to how creative ideas are born and survive and therefore become a model of creative thought. Simonton argues that cre­ If we are to understand how the mind of modern //. sapiens got to ative behavior and achievement is the result of a process of "blind-varia­ where it is and allows the species to behave in the ways that it does, espe­ tion and selective retention" (BVSR). Simonton integrates and review evi­ cially its unique capacity for creative thinking and behavior, then under­ dence from cognitive, personality, developmental, and social psychology standing its evolutionary history becomes essential. Why has only one spe­ consistent with the BVSR model of creativity. He goes on to argue that the cies of one genus in the history of life on this planet developed religion, model not only explains and organizes known data in these fields, but can art, and science? The answer has to lie in the evolutionary pressures that also provide specific predictions about the kinds of career paths, aesthetic shaped the bodies—and brains—of modern humans. stylistic change over time, and the probabilities of "multiple discoveries" After much underground and latent growth the evolutionary perspec­ occurring in certain conditions. tive is slowly but now steadily catching hold. Dozens of books have ap­ The third perspective offered by various contributors could perhaps be peared in the last 10 years on the evolution of mind and the present special conceptualized as a subset under the secondary Darwinian perspective, but issue is in many respects a refinement of this movement. Creativity and I feel it is distinct enough to warrant its own category. This viewpoint sees aesthetics are to my way of thinking two of the most fascinating and pow­ the evolution of culture as the central theme in understanding the creative erful expressions of the human mind and a critical mass of scholars who and aesthetic process. In this sense, the third position could be labeled study creativity and aesthetics from an evolutionary perspective has now "cultural evolution" in contrast to biological evolution. As mentioned above, been reached. We have been fortunate to get many of the key figures in the Lumsden's model of gene-culture coevolution falls under the rubic of pri­ field to contribute to this special issue. mary Darwinism as well as this third perspective of cultural evolution. Petrov There are 3 distinct perspectives presented by the authors of the special takes an informations approach to analyzing the aesthetic stylistic patterns issue. Two of these perspectives fall along the lines of what Simonton (1999) over historical time periods. Specifically he sees the opposing aesthetic has termed the "primary v. secondary" forms of Darwinism. Primary Dar­ styles of "analytic and synthetic" or "left and right hemispheric" as the two winism focuses on the biological evolution of the organism. For the special competing and vacillating styles. The essence of these two styles is the issue, the primary perspective plays out in its focus on the literal evolution degree to which literary, architectural, musical, painting, and poetic styles of creative and aesthetic abilities, namely how did//, sapiens come to have exhibit symmetry, rationality, order, and logic on the one hand (left hemi­ the creative and aesthetic abilities that it currently possesses. Aiken pre­ spheric) or asymmetry, irrationality, chaos, and emotion on the other (right sents both an historical and philosophical overview of aesthetics. She then hemispheric). Petrov then presents evidence that the predominant trends argues that evolutionary theory can improve upon the historical view that and styles vacillate between these two extreme at roughly 50 year intervals. the aesthetic response is cool, rational, and disinterested as well as great art Sternberg views cultural evolution as the result of dialectical tension be­ imitates nature.