The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 21, NO. 3, pp.
229-230, 1994
Pergamon
BOOK REVIEW
Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why
Ellen Dissanayake
(New York: The Free Press, 1992, 317 pages, $24.95)
This long and complex text serves to substanti-
ate, from a number of academic perspectives,
what amounts to a quite straightforward and
simple conclusion. Art is a normal and neces-
sary behavior of human beings that like other
common and universal human occupations and
preoccupations such as talking, working, exer-
cising, playing, socializing, learning, loving,
and caring should be recognized, encouraged,
and developed in everyone. (p. 225)
With this statement, Ellen Dissanayake concludes
her text and succinctly underscores her primary the-
sis. But if you think that having read these words you
need not take the trouble to read the rest, think again.
This is not an easy book, as the author herself implies,
but it is one that should be read with care by all who
care about the arts.
The appellation “Homo aestheticus” reflects the
book’s Darwinian, or species-centered, perspective.
Thus the words “art is a normal and necessary be-
havior of human beings” are to be taken literally-
and not as the hyperbolic expression of an art enthu-
siast. Dissanayake, a scholar of art history who has
lived in several cultures, argues convincingly for the
survival value of aesthetic behavior. She points out
that artmaking-broadly defined to include every-
thing from body decoration to ritual song and dance,
to painting the Sistine Chapel-has been practiced in
all cultures ~oughout human history.
Central to Dissanayake’s argument is the propen-
sity for “making special.” Along with play and ritual
229
Copyright Q 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0197-4556/94 $6.00 + .OO
(and in combination with them), art is able to call
attention to-or make special-that which has signif-
icance for humans. Further, it has this ability because
it employs inherently appealing elements (e.g.,
rhythm, melodious sound, bright color) that give sen-
sual, emotional and cognitive pleasure. Making spe-
cial, Dissanayake asserts, has been used over the cen-
turies to transmit cultural values and other necessary
information, to build individual and community iden-
tity, to control anxiety through creating a sense of
order and to give meaning to existence. As a conse-
quence of the obvious advantages, individuals who
engaged in this behavior were favored by natural
selection.
This “art for life’s sake” view is elaborated in
scholarly detail in the book’s seven chapters. For
those who like (as I do) to peruse tables of contents,
chapter titles are as follows:
1. Introduction: Why Species-Centrism?
2. Biology and Art: The Implications of Feeling
Good
3. The Core of Art: Making Special
4. Dormena or “Things Done”: Reconciling Cul-
ture and Nature
5. The Arts as Means of Enhancement
6. “Empathy Theory” Reconsidered: The Psy-
chobiology of Aesthetic Responses
‘7. Does Writing Erase Art?
The first five chapters present and flesh out the central
premise. The last two expand the focus by taking a
230 BOOK REVIEW
fresh look at the mind-body problem and at the post-
modernist movement. Dissanayake’s treatment of
these topics deserves some attention.
Postmodernism opposes the elitist (“art for art’s
sake”) stance of modernism. Through her efforts to
dethrone and democratize art, Dissanayake can be
said to participate in the postmodernist agenda. In its
other aspects, however, she views this latest “ism”
as essentially inimical to art. And she considers the
hyperliteracy of its method and theory the primary
culprit. Although this attitude might seem ironic com-
ing from the author of a work that includes 17 pages
of references and 27 pages of notes, her point is that
literary discourse is not our only means of apprehend-
ing reality.
But it is Dissanayake’s handling of the mind-body
problem that I find most compelling (and most diffi-
cult). In her chapter on the psychobiology of art, she
marshalls an impressive array of research findings
from a variety of disciplines to show that aesthetic
experiences arise from ordinary biological processes.
Several implications derive from this. One is that
formal aspects of art can have emotional effects. An-
other is that, contrary to aesthetic “empathy” theory,
the viewer does not project bodily feelings onto the
work of art, but the other way around. Dissanayake
concludes,
Current neurophysiological findings . . . sug-
gest that the work of art writes itself on the
perceiver’s body: electrochemically in the sig-
naling patterns of activity that comprise the
brain’s cortical maps, which may in turn have
concomitant physiological and kinesthetic ef-
fects. . . [N]ow we can understand that the
arts affect at once our bodies, minds, and souls,
which themselves are aspects-processing
modules in the brain-f an individual that ap-
prehends as one. (p. 185)
This holistic view should have particular appeal to
those in the creative arts therapies. Indeed, although it
contains only one brief reference to art therapy, this
book offers much that is relevant to arts therapists. To
begin with, it provides a theoretical rationale for the
importance of the arts that could serve as a pillar for
our own much-needed theory of arts therapy. In ad-
dition, through the concept of “making special,” it
suggests that therapeutic learning can be reinforced-
by a making special of the therapy environment. Fi-
nally, it has a contribution to make to the art psycho-
therapy versus art as therapy debate, but in a manner
that may not be fully satisfying to adherents of either
position. On the one hand, Dissanayake doubts the
prevalence of unconscious symbolism in art and, on
the other, she downplays artistic skill (even though
noting that care should be taken). Still, it seems clear
that it is mainly the process, or making, of art that she
considers beneficial.
My reservations concerning this work are few. Pri-
marily, the reasoning can be difficult to follow. This
is not only due to the complexity of the material, but
also to the nature of the writing. Dissanayake has a
tendency to overqualify her statements that sometimes
leaves the reader in a muddle. (One is thankful,
though, for the relative lack of jargon.) Further, for
all her thoroughness, her exposition contains an un-
examined assumption. That is, she appears to have
equated our biological heritage with what is good for
us. But not every predisposition that benefitted us in
simpler times aids us now. For example, our geneti-
cally programed fight/flight response frequently hin-
ders us in the modem world. Although artmaking has
no obvious toxic consequences, addressing this as-
sumption would have made a tighter case.
Before concluding, let me re-emphasize that this is
a book that should be widely read. In particular, it
should be read by creative arts theoreticians for inspi-
ration and direction concerning the hard task ahead,
and it should be read by creative arts clinicians for
validation and elucidation of the healing power of
the arts.
Frances F. Kaplan, D.A., A.T.R.
Book Review Editor
The Arts in Psychotherapy