|
The evolution of creativity
Creativity is often considered to be one of
the defining hallmarks of modern human behaviour. Whilst there are
considerable cultural differences in the definition and expression of
creativity, there is evidence from ethnography, archaeology, and ethology
that creative products such as painting, dance, humour, and story telling
are evolutionary old and universal behaviours (Darwin, 1901; Dissanayake,
1988, 1992; McBrearty & Brooks, 2000; Miller, 1998; Mithen, 1996;
Power, 1999). While a universal trait may have arisen as a by-product or
neutral trait, universality may suggest that the trait under review was
selected for through evolutionary mechanisms. Thus universality makes an
evolutionary approach relevant.
Cognitive prerequisites
There have been a number of theories as to
the cognitive prerequisites necessary for creativity to have evolved.
Carruthers (2002) considers childhood pretence as fundamental to the
development of adult creative abilities. He proposes that there would have
been two cognitive elements required during an episode of pretence, a
supposition-generator, to allow humans to imagine possibilities that had
not previously occurred, and a 'possible worlds box' which acted as a
memory system to allow these suppositions and the thoughts around these to
be stored.
Mithen (1998) also discusses the cognitive
prerequisites required for human creativity and proposes that these are a
theory of mind (TOM), language, and a complex material culture leading to
an extended mind. These cognitive abilities then came together to enable
the emergence of cognitive fluidity, which facilitates the production of
creative thought by allowing the mind to combine concepts across the
social, technical and natural history domains
Another possible cognitive prerequisite for
creativity is an aesthetic appreciation (Dissanayake, 1988; 1992; Orians,
2001; Orians & Heerwagen, 1992; Thornhill, 1998), which would have been
a much earlier precursor for the evolution of creative abilities. The
ability to find something beautiful or ugly can produce powerful positive
or negative emotions respectively. These emotions can then trigger
appropriate behaviours in response to the object. In fact, Orians (2001:3)
defines beauty as
'…the product of interactions between traits
of objects and the human nervous system that evolved so that objects we
consider beautiful have properties that result in improved performance in
some aspect of living if we respond positively to them.'
The emergence of creative abilities
In an attempt to explain the reason why the
emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens at approximately 150,000
years ago and the appearance of creative activity do not coincide,
Carruthers (2002) states that the cognitive prerequisites for creativity were
present when anatomically modern humans first appeared, at approximately
150,000 years ago, but that between this time and the creative explosion,
at around 30 to 40, 000 years ago, there was selection for a predisposition
for children to engage in frequent pretend play.
In a similar attempt to understand this time
lag, Mithen (1996:222) proposes that cognitive fluidity began to occur with
the emergence of modern Homo sapiens and was a gradual process, which was
completed between 60,000 and 30,000 years ago when creative behaviour is
first observed in the archaeological record.
According to Dissanayake (1992) the activity
of 'making special', which she claims is the common behavioural denominator
in the arts, arose as early as 300,000 years ago with the use of red ochre
or hematite, although an aesthetic sensibility was present much earlier by
the time of Homo erectus if not Homo habilis (Dissanayake,
1988). In fact, Dissanayake states that body decoration can be considered
as the prototype of the visual arts. In general Neanderthals are thought
not to have possessed fully symbolic minds. However, from the viewpoint of
this theory Neanderthals would not have needed to be symbolisers to have
appreciated specialness. Nevertheless, Dissanayake suggests that it was not
until anatomically modern humans became aware of the past and future that
there was a need to make things special to deal with the uncertainty that
these concepts evoked. Therefore this led to a move to deliberately make
things special. However, Neanderthals may not have possessed such
understandings of time (Lewis-Williams, 2002) and so whilst able to
appreciate specialness may not have considered a need for it which would
explain the scarcity of clear archaeological evidence for the Neanderthal
manufacture of the arts.
Natural or sexual selection
Carruthers (2002) suggests that creativity
is an indicator of intelligence and problem solving ability, and therefore
that it would have been selected for through both natural and sexual
selection. This is further supported by Orians (2001) and Thornhill (1998)
when they claim that what is felt to be beautiful, such as high degrees of
symmetry in human faces, is believed to indicate high levels of
reproductive and survival fitness whereas what is perceived as ugly
suggests reduced reproductive and survival fitness.
Dissanayake (1988; 1992) considers that the
arts could have been co-opted by sexual selection to act as fitness
indicators but that their original function was to promote the survival of
the group and hence the individuals within the group. To do this the arts,
such as song, music and dance, were used in rituals to elicit and provide
controlled expression of emotions (Dissanayake, 1992).
Darwin (1871/1901) was one of the first to suggest
that physical and psychological traits in humans could have evolved through
sexual selection. In fact he states that 'higher powers' such as
imagination will have evolved partly through sexual selection and partly
through natural selection (Darwin, 1901:859-60). However, since Darwin argued that choice came not only from competition but also through female
choosiness his ideas on sexual selection were largely ignored for several
decades.
Miller & Haselton (2002) support the
sexual selection hypothesis for the emergence of creativity. In a study
that they conducted poor male artists were found to be more successful in short-term
matings than wealthy, less creative men when females were at a point in
their menstrual cycle when they had a higher risk of conception. However,
creative individuals may also be more successful in long-term matings. For
example, Buss (pers. com) supports the long-term strategy when he describes
humour, which may be considered a creative product, as a resource
acquisition since humour implies high intelligence and this could be
employed in the attainment of resources.
Summary
Recently a number of interesting theories on
the evolution of creativity have emerged, only some of which have been
discussed here. There have also been a number of theories built up around
the evolution of specific creative products such as Upper Palaeolithic cave
paintings (Lewis-Williams, 2002), and music (Brown, 2000; Dissanayake,
2000; Falk, 2000; Hagen & Bryant, 2002; Miller, 2000). This has opened
up opportunities for research to provide empirical support or to refute
these hypotheses. Thus, an exciting chapter is opening in the discovery of
one of the most fundamental traits that defines us as human, creativity.
References
Brown, S. 2000. The 'Musilanguage' Model of
Music Evolution. In N.L. Wallin, B. Merker & S. Brown (eds) The
Origins of Music. pp 271-300 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Carruthers, P. 2002. Human Creativity: Its
Cognitive Basis, Its evolution, and Its Connections With Childhood
Pretence. British Journal For The Philosophy of Science. 53(2)
Darwin, C. 1901. The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex. 3rd edition. London: John Murray
Dissanayake, E. 1988. What Is Art For?
Seattle: University of Washington Press
Dissanayake, E. 1992. Homo Aestheticus.
Where art Comes From And Why. New York: The Free Press
Dissanayake, E. 2000. Antecedents of the Temporal
Arts in Early Mother-Infant Interaction. In N.L. Wallin, B. Merker & S.
Brown (eds) The Origins of Music. pp 389-410 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Falk, D. 2000. Hominid Brain Evolution and
the Origins of Music. In N.L. Wallin, B. Merker & S. Brown (eds) The
Origins of Music. pp 197-216 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Hagen, E.H. & Bryant, G.A. 2002. Music
and Dance as a Coalition Signalling System. Cogprints Database
Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. The Mind In The
Cave. Consciousness And The Origin Of Art. London: Thames & Hudson
McBrearty, S. & Brooks, A.S. 2000. The
Revolution That Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human
Behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39 453-563
Miller, G.F. 1998. How Mate Choice Shaped
Human nature: A review of Sexual Selection and Human Evolution. In C.
Crawford & D.L. Krebs (eds) Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology.
Ideas, issues and Applications. pp. 87-129. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Miller, G.F. 2000. Evolution of Human Music
through Sexual Selection. In N.L. Wallin, B. Merker & S. Brown (eds) The
Origins of Music. pp 329-360 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Miller, G.F. & Haselton, M. 2002. Fertile
Women Prefer Poor, Creative Men to Wealthy, Uncreative Men as short-Term
Sexual Partners: Preliminary Evidence for Ovulatory Cycle Shifts in
Attraction to Artistic and entrepreneurial Excellence. Abstract from
Human Behavioural and Evolutionary Society Conference.
Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the
Mind. A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science London: Phoenix
Mithen, S. 1998. A Creative Explosion?
Theory of Mind, Language and the Disembodied Mind of the Upper Palaeolithic.
In S. Mithen (ed) Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory. pp.
165-191. UK: Routledge
Orians, G.H. 2001. An Evolutionary
Perspective On Aesthetics. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2(1)
Orians, G.H. & Heerwagen, J.H. 1992.
Evolved Responses to Landscapes. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby
(eds) The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of
Culture. pp. 555-579. New York: Oxford University Press.
Power, C. 1999. 'Beauty Magic' : The Origins
of Art. In R. Dunbar, C. Knight & C. Power (eds) The Evolution of
Culture. pp.92-112. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thornhill, R. 1998. Darwinian Aesthetics. In
C. Crawford & D.L. Krebs (eds) Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology.
Ideas, issues and Applications. pp.543-572. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
|