The concept of artistic expression has long been considered a hallmark of human consciousness, a unique manifestation of our cognitive and emotional depth. Yet, a closer examination of the animal kingdom reveals captivating instances where non-human beings engage in behaviors that strikingly resemble what humans define as art, compelling a re-evaluation of the very boundaries of creativity. This report delves into the fascinating world of animal-made art, exploring the historical and contemporary examples that challenge anthropocentric perspectives. From the spontaneous brushstrokes of a chimpanzee to the meticulously crafted natural displays of a bowerbird, animal artistry prompts critical questions about intent, cognition, and the nature of aesthetic appreciation. This exploration will traverse the celebrated narratives of iconic animal artists, analyze the scientific and philosophical discussions surrounding genuine creative expression versus conditioned behavior, and confront the profound ethical considerations inherent in human involvement with animal art. Ultimately, this inquiry seeks to illuminate the broader implications of animal cognition for the understanding of art itself, fostering a more inclusive and nuanced view of creativity across species.
The Dawn of Interspecies Artistry: The Case of Congo
The narrative of animal-made art often begins with Congo, a chimpanzee whose remarkable artistic journey commenced at the London Zoo. Born in 1954, Congo’s artistic inclinations became apparent at just two years old when zoologist Desmond Morris offered him a pencil and paper. Morris observed with fascination as "something strange was coming out of the end of the pencil," marking the chimpanzee's inaugural line, an initial, seemingly spontaneous act that laid the groundwork for a profound inquiry into non-human creativity.
Congo’s artistic development was swift and striking. By the age of four, he had produced an impressive body of approximately 400 drawings and paintings. Critics characterized his distinctive style as "lyrical abstract impressionism," frequently featuring a unique "radiating fan pattern". Morris’s meticulous observations revealed Congo’s innate sense of composition, his ability to achieve symmetrical consistency in his sketches, and his intuitive understanding of color balance, often mirroring colors on opposing sides of the paper. This early engagement with artistic principles, observed without explicit prior training for rewards, contrasted sharply with typical conditioned responses.
A particularly compelling aspect of Congo’s artistic process was his apparent autonomy and intentionality. Morris documented instances where Congo would reportedly "scream and throw fits" if his artwork was removed before he considered it complete. Conversely, if the chimpanzee deemed a piece finished, he would steadfastly refuse to continue painting, even under persuasion. These strong emotional reactions, which directly indicate an internal drive and a sense of completion or dissatisfaction, suggest an intrinsic motivation beyond merely performing a task for an external reward. Morris’s seminal work, The Biology of Art identified "Self-rewarding Activation" as a fundamental principle, proposing that the act of painting itself was intrinsically pleasurable for Congo. This observation fundamentally challenges purely behaviorist interpretations of animal actions, which often reduce complex behaviors to conditioned responses driven by external stimuli. Congo’s case points to a rudimentary form of aesthetic satisfaction or creative impulse that is internally motivated, pushing the boundaries of what constitutes "artistic intent" and "agency" beyond human consciousness. It suggests that the process of creation, rather than just the product, held inherent value for the animal, opening new avenues for understanding non-human minds.
The art world’s reaction to Congo’s paintings was a mixture of curiosity and acclaim. While initial media reception was mixed, it was largely positive and accepted with interest. Notably, the renowned Spanish painter Pablo Picasso was reportedly a "fan" of Congo’s work, even hanging one of the ape’s pictures in his studio. This significant endorsement from within the human art establishment, coupled with the commercial validation of Congo’s art, reached an unprecedented level in 2005. Three of his pieces sold for over US$25,000 at a Bonhams auction, remarkably outperforming works by human masters like Renoir and Warhol that failed to sell. His "Four-stage Painting," executed in 1957, was a highlight, exhibited at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. The artistic and commercial acceptance of Congo’s work, even if viewed as a curiosity by some, implicitly began to destabilize the long-held anthropocentric definition of art. It prompted a nascent reevaluation of artistic authorship and merit, hinting at a future where the "artist" might not be exclusively human. This early validation paved the way for later post-humanist art theories that challenge the human-animal divide, suggesting that aesthetic value and creative output are not solely human prerogatives but can manifest across species, even if the underlying cognitive processes differ. The market’s response indicated a perceived aesthetic quality that transcended the species of the creator.
Congo was not an isolated phenomenon. The mid-20th century saw other animal artists, such as Betsy, a chimpanzee at the Baltimore Zoo, whose paintings also garnered attention and generated income for her owners. Additionally, Jack, a Mexican burro, created art with his tail. These cases collectively fueled a broader cultural conversation about abstract expressionism and the potential for animal enrichment programs, setting a historical precedent for the burgeoning field of art created by animals.
From Rescue to Renown: Pigcasso and the Modern Animal Artist
Moving into the contemporary landscape of animal artistry, Pigcasso, a pig rescued at just four weeks old from a South African slaughterhouse in 2016, represents a modern chapter in this unfolding narrative. Her journey to artistic renown began when her rescuer, Joanne Lefson, observed Pigcasso’s unusual fascination with paintbrushes, distinguishing them from other toys she would typically destroy. This keen observation prompted Lefson to employ systematic clicker training and positive reinforcement techniques, teaching Pigcasso to grasp a brush in her mouth and apply paint to a canvas mounted on an easel. This deliberate, human-guided training approach differentiates Pigcasso’s artistic development from Congo’s more spontaneous beginnings.
Pigcasso’s creations are characterized by a vibrant abstract expressionist style, featuring bold, colorful abstract works. A unique aspect of her practice was the explicit collaboration with Lefson. While Pigcasso skillfully manipulated the brush across the canvas, and Lefson played a crucial role in selecting the colors and providing subtle direction from a distance. Each original artwork bore Pigcasso’s distinctive nose-tip signature in beetroot ink, countersigned by Lefson, affirming the collaborative authorship. This explicit framing of the art as an "unparalleled collaboration" where Lefson selects colors and directs from a distance signifies a shift in the human-animal art paradigm. It moves beyond mere observation or entertainment to a deliberate, structured partnership where the animal's "art" becomes a powerful tool for advocacy. This redefines the purpose of animal art, transforming it from a mere curiosity into a vehicle for social change and ethical discourse, highlighting the increasing human recognition of animal sentience and the potential for interspecies partnerships.
Pigcasso achieved significant commercial success, with her paintings selling for thousands of dollars to collectors worldwide. Her piece, "Wild and Free," set a new record in 2021, selling for £20,000 and surpassing the previous record held by Congo the chimpanzee. Crucially, the proceeds from all of Pigcasso’s art sales were dedicated to supporting Farm Sanctuary SA, the animal sanctuary where she lived. This philanthropic model aimed to inspire a "kinder and more sustainable world" and raise public awareness about the welfare of farm animals. The substantial funds generated for the sanctuary demonstrate a clear financial benefit for animal welfare. However, the act of commercializing animal "creativity" can inadvertently reinforce the idea of animals as performers or commodities, even when the intent is benevolent. This creates a tension between pragmatic fundraising and the philosophical ideal of animal liberation. The increasing commercial viability of animal art presents a complex ethical dilemma. While it offers a sustainable model for funding critical animal welfare initiatives, it risks normalizing the commodification of animal behaviors, potentially blurring the lines between genuine creative expression and trained performance for human profit. This compels a deeper societal conversation about the ethics of valuing and selling animal-produced goods, even for a "good cause," and the potential for a market to inadvertently perpetuate a utilitarian view of animals.
Pigcasso’s fame, much like Congo’s, ignited widespread discussions about the very definition of art and the nature of animal creativity. However, her story also brought a powerful spotlight to the often-overlooked living conditions of farm animals, adding a layer of social activism to her artistic endeavor and demonstrating how art can serve as a vehicle for advocacy.
Beyond the Brushstroke: Innate Artistic Expressions in the Animal Kingdom
To fully grasp the spectrum of animal artistry, it is essential to look beyond human-directed painting and acknowledge the naturally occurring aesthetic displays found throughout the animal kingdom. These innate expressions broaden the understanding of "art" beyond conventional human mediums and intentions.
Among the most compelling examples are the male bowerbirds of Australia and New Guinea. As part of their elaborate mating rituals, these birds construct intricate bowers, which are not nests for eggs, but rather visually stunning structures designed solely to attract a mate. They meticulously decorate these bowers with colorful leaves, stones, and even discarded human objects, demonstrating a sophisticated, inherent aesthetic drive for courtship. Charles Darwin, recognizing this profound capacity, referred to birds as "the most aesthetic of all animals". This phenomenon, where complex, visually impressive structures are created primarily for mating, fundamentally challenges the anthropocentric definition of art, which typically requires conscious human intent, cultural context, and conventional mediums. By demonstrating that complex aesthetic creation can arise from innate biological drives, particularly those related to survival and reproduction, it forces a reevaluation of art as an evolutionary strategy. This suggests that "art" is not solely a human cultural invention but a broader biological phenomenon with deep evolutionary roots, pushing the definition towards a more biocentric view where aesthetic production serves a vital, adaptive purpose in the natural world.
Another remarkable instance of natural artistry comes from the white-spotted pufferfish. On the sandy seabeds, these fish create intricate, geometric circles, often several feet in diameter, solely for the purpose of attracting females. The complexity and precision of these patterns showcase a sophisticated, innate form of visual artistry, demonstrating that aesthetic creation can be deeply embedded in biological imperatives. Beyond visual displays, the animal kingdom offers other forms of natural aesthetic expression, such as the complex and melodious bird songs that serve various communicative and courtship functions. The use of specific colors, patterns, and elaborate dances in mating rituals across countless species further reinforces the idea that aesthetic appreciation and production are not exclusive to humans but are fundamental to many forms of life.
These natural phenomena resonate with Darwin’s groundbreaking theories on sexual selection and animal aesthetics. Darwin argued that the "sense of beauty" coevolved with beauty itself, driven particularly by female choice in mate selection, where aesthetic appeal became a powerful evolutionary force, often independent of mere utility. He posited a profound "continuity between animal and human aesthetics," suggesting that the roots of human aesthetic appreciation are deeply embedded in shared evolutionary history. The existence of complex aesthetic displays in nature, coupled with observed aesthetic discrimination in diverse species, suggests that the capacity for aesthetic judgment and appreciation is not a uniquely human trait. It is a fundamental sensory and cognitive ability that has evolved across various taxa. This reinforces the idea that aesthetic experience is not merely a cultural construct or a byproduct of advanced human consciousness, but rather a deeply ingrained biological capacity with evolutionary significance. It suggests a spectrum of aesthetic sensitivity across species, with humans representing a highly developed, but not entirely unique, manifestation. This perspective encourages a biocentric approach to understanding cognition, where aesthetic preferences are viewed as adaptive traits that contribute to an organism’s survival and reproductive success, thereby enriching the understanding of the shared biological heritage of all life.
The Philosophical Canvas: Creativity, Cognition, and Conditioning
At the heart of the discourse surrounding animal-made art lies a profound philosophical and scientific debate: are these creations genuine expressions of creativity, or are they primarily the result of conditioned behaviors? This question probes the very essence of animal minds and challenges the human-centric understanding of artistic agency.
Proponents of animal creativity point to several compelling indicators. Desmond Morris’s observations of chimpanzees, particularly the apparent "self-rewarding activation" where the act of painting itself was the reward, and their autonomy in deciding when a piece was "finished," suggest an intrinsic motivation beyond mere external incentives. Morris’s interpretation of apes’ "intrinsic motivation toward abstract creativity" and their observed progression in expanding paint coverage and developing compositional elements further supports this view. Moreover, the concept of animal creativity is increasingly linked to behavioral flexibility and innovation in problem-solving. The "Insightful Problem-Solving model" posits that novel behaviors can emerge from the spontaneous interconnection of previously learned actions, implying a cognitive process more complex than simple rote conditioning. Anecdotal evidence, such as animals reportedly enjoying painting spontaneously and their styles changing with their moods, also lends credence to a genuine expressive capacity. Some academic arguments even propose that similar neural processes might underlie novel behavior in both humans and animals, suggesting a shared biological basis for creativity.
Conversely, critics often emphasize the role of operant conditioning in animal art. Many animal art programs, including Pigcasso’s, openly utilize positive reinforcement techniques, where animals are rewarded for specific actions, such as holding a brush or touching it to paper. This raises questions about the extent of the animal’s independent creative agency. Furthermore, behavioral models are criticized for potentially overlooking internal cognitive processes, thus limiting their ability to fully explain complex learning, creativity, and critical thinking. For instance, research on elephant painting suggests that the activity offers little enrichment beyond the positive reinforcement received, with elephants often drawing the same line-for-line patterns, implying direct instruction rather than independent artistic vision. Observations of zoologists confirm that elephant trainers usually use physical cues, such as tugs on their ears, to direct brushstrokes. The legal stance of the US Copyright Office, which denies copyright to works lacking human authorship, underscores a prevailing philosophical and legal distinction that attributes true creativity solely to humans. This perspective often highlights an "anthropocentric viewpoint" in animal cognition research, where human-like skills are disproportionately valued, potentially leading to a biased assessment of animal creativity. Indeed, the very concept of "art" is largely a human construct.
A more nuanced understanding suggests that the truth lies not in a strict dichotomy but along a continuum. Congo’s documented autonomy in deciding when a painting was "finished" and his emotional responses to interruptions strongly suggest an intrinsic, self-directed engagement. This points to higher agency. Pigcasso’s process, while involving positive reinforcement, also includes human collaboration in color selection and distant direction, indicating a guided but still active participation. The animal’s "moods" influencing style also suggests some internal state. Elephant painting, in contrast, is often described as highly conditioned, with trainers using physical cues to direct specific line-for-line repetitions. This analysis reveals that "animal art" is not a monolithic phenomenon but exists along a spectrum of animal agency and human intervention. It moves beyond the simplistic "either genuine creativity or mere conditioning" binary, proposing instead a more granular understanding where the degree of intrinsic motivation, behavioral flexibility, and human guidance varies significantly across species and individual cases. This nuanced perspective is crucial for accurately assessing animal cognition and for refining the definition of creativity itself, acknowledging that forms of artistic expression can exist on a continuum rather than as a strict human monopoly.
The significant commercial success and widespread public interest in animal artists like Congo and Pigcasso are undeniable. Humans have an innate tendency towards anthropomorphism, attributing human-like characteristics, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities, which directly influences empathy and conservation efforts. The public presentation of animals as "artists" directly taps into and amplifies this human tendency towards anthropomorphism. By creating art that resonates with human aesthetic values, these animals become more "relatable" or "intelligent" in the public imagination. Animal art, regardless of the underlying cognitive mechanisms, serves as a powerful cultural artifact that shapes human perception of animal intelligence. This anthropomorphic lens, while sometimes viewed critically in strict scientific contexts, can be a potent force for fostering empathy, driving public engagement with animal welfare issues, and influencing conservation efforts, as seen with Pigcasso’s sanctuary funding. It suggests that the impact of animal art on human consciousness is as significant as the discussion over its inherent "creativity," leading to a re-evaluation of how humans interact with and define the cognitive capabilities of other species.
Ethical Brushstrokes: Captivity, Exploitation, and Welfare
The captivating world of animal-made art is inextricably linked to profound ethical considerations, particularly concerning the welfare of animals in captivity. The very act of engaging animals in artistic endeavors necessitates a critical examination of human responsibility and the potential for exploitation.
A primary ethical concern revolves around the training methods employed to elicit artistic behaviors. For instance, organizations like PETA vehemently argue that elephant painting and other animal performances are inherently "cruel and harmful". They detail how handlers reportedly resort to beating, shocking, and punishing elephants to force them into unnatural routines, instilling fear and trauma. Undercover investigations have documented the use of bullhooks and electric prods to coerce elephants during painting stunts and other performances. Such coercive methods can lead to severe stress, trauma, and the exhibition of abnormal behaviors like constant swaying and increased aggression.
The distinction between genuine behavioral enrichment and outright exploitation is a fine line often blurred in animal art contexts. While some zoos claim that activities like painting provide valuable enrichment and prevent boredom in captive environments, research suggests a more complex reality. For elephants, studies indicate that the benefits derived from painting are often limited to the positive reinforcement given by zookeepers, rather than the activity itself, with animals frequently drawing the same line-for-line patterns, implying instruction over independent creation. This raises questions about whether the primary motivation for such activities is the animal’s well-being or human entertainment and profit. The high commercial value and public demand for animal art create a powerful economic incentive. This incentive acts as a double-edged sword: it can be leveraged for genuine animal welfare, as with Pigcasso’s sanctuary, but it also drives exploitative practices when profit is prioritized over ethical treatment. The financial success of animal art highlights a critical ethical tension within human-animal interactions. It reveals how economic forces can either facilitate compassionate care and advocacy or perpetuate severe exploitation. This necessitates a deeper societal reflection on the commodification of animal "talent" and the moral responsibilities that accompany human financial gain from animal activities. It suggests that public consumption of animal art must be accompanied by rigorous ethical scrutiny and a demand for transparency regarding the animals’ welfare and the use of proceeds.
The ethical dilemma of animal art is a microcosm of the larger debate surrounding zoos and animal captivity. Critics argue that confinement, regardless of its perceived humane conditions, causes significant stress, boredom, and health problems for animals accustomed to vast natural territories. Concerns extend to the breaking of intergenerational bonds when animals are traded, overpopulation resulting from breeding programs designed to attract visitors, and the minimal standards often set by regulatory bodies, such as the Animal Welfare Act. What humans perceive as stimulating or beneficial, such as painting, may not align with the animal’s natural behaviors, cognitive needs, or intrinsic motivations, especially if it involves coercive training or repetitive tasks. This reveals a significant ethical and conceptual gap in how "enrichment" is defined and implemented for captive animals, highlighting an anthropocentric bias in welfare practices, where human aesthetic preferences or entertainment values can overshadow the genuine well-being of the animal. It underscores the need for a biocentric approach to animal welfare, where enrichment activities are designed based on species-specific ethology and cognitive science, ensuring they truly benefit the animal rather than serving human interests or perceptions.
In stark contrast to potentially exploitative practices, the model of true animal sanctuaries, such as Farm Sanctuary SA, where Pigcasso resided, offers an ethical alternative. These organizations prioritize animal welfare, explicitly refrain from forcing animals to perform tricks, and transparently utilize proceeds from animal art for the direct benefit and upkeep of the animals in their care. This model demonstrates a more responsible and compassionate approach to human-animal interaction within an artistic framework. Recognizing these complex issues, various professional bodies have begun to establish ethical guidelines. The College Art Association, for instance, emphasizes that while artists should have expressive freedom, they also bear responsibility. It explicitly states that no work resulting in cruelty to animals is endorsed and urges artists to carefully examine practices involving animals, considering alternatives to minimize harm or discomfort. These guidelines provide a crucial framework for fostering responsible and humane engagement in the creation and exhibition of art made by animals.
Reframing the Masterpiece: Implications for Human Art and Animal Minds
The phenomenon of animal-made art serves as a powerful catalyst, compelling humanity to fundamentally reassess its long-held anthropocentric definitions of art, creativity, and consciousness. For centuries, art has been regarded as an exclusively human domain, a product of the unique human intellect and emotion. However, the compelling evidence of animal artistry forces a re-evaluation of this deeply ingrained assumption. Traditional definitions of art are human-centric, requiring conscious human activity and intent. Yet, instances like Congo’s intrinsic motivation and the innate aesthetic displays of bowerbirds and pufferfish challenge these human-exclusive criteria. The field of animal studies and contemporary art discourse are actively re-evaluating the human-animal relationship, extending the conceptual boundaries of "artist" and "art". Animal art is not merely a curious anomaly but a powerful force driving a fundamental philosophical re-evaluation of art itself. It compels art theory to move beyond anthropocentric limitations, embracing a post-humanist perspective that acknowledges a continuum of creative potential across species. This shift raises questions about whether art is solely a cultural construct or if it taps into deeper, biological, and evolutionary capacities for aesthetic expression, thereby enriching and expanding the very definition of what art can be. It implies that artistic value can exist independently of human consciousness and cultural frameworks, forcing a reassessment of human exceptionalism in creative endeavors.
These instances of animal creativity necessitate a deeper, more nuanced understanding of animal minds. Academic research in animal cognition is increasingly moving beyond a simplistic "one cognition" model, recognizing that cognitive skills are often specialized and evolve independently across species, challenging the notion of a universal human-centric intelligence. The philosophical discourse extends to profound questions about whether animals possess concepts, beliefs, self-awareness, metacognition, and emotions, moving decisively beyond Cartesian views that dismissed animals as mere soulless machines. The 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, signed by prominent neuroscientists, explicitly affirmed animal consciousness, further supporting this shift in understanding.
The existence of animal art, both human-assisted and naturally occurring, aligns with Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking concept of a continuum between animal and human aesthetics. Darwin argued that the "sense of beauty" arose in the animal kingdom, particularly through sexual selection, where aesthetic appeal became a driving force. Experimental evidence suggests that animals can discriminate and even exhibit preferences for aesthetic stimuli, such as pigeons distinguishing between "good" and "bad" pictures or songbirds preferring certain musical styles. While human aesthetic pleasure is often described as "disinterested," animal aesthetic appreciation may be more directly linked to biological imperatives, such as sexual desire; yet, it undeniably exists and contributes to the "basic stock of the aesthetic" from which human art evolved.
The emergence of animal artists compels a critical re-evaluation of authorship and agency. If an animal creates a work, can it be considered an "artist" in the human sense? The legal framework, as exemplified by the US Copyright Office’s stance that works lacking human authorship cannot be copyrighted, highlights this challenge, effectively denying legal personhood to animal creators. However, philosophical discussions delve into the animal’s "intention to create," its agency in the creative act, and its awareness of the process, unpacking the nuanced distinctions between human and non-human creative authorship.
Beyond the academic and philosophical realms, animal art has a profound impact on human perception and empathy. The inherent human tendency towards anthropomorphism, while a cognitive bias, is a significant driver of public response towards wildlife preservation. Animal art, by humanizing its creators, can powerfully foster empathy and encourage a more inclusive view of life on Earth, prompting a redefinition of the meaning animals hold in human lives. It serves as a potent narrative tool, bridging the perceived gap between human and animal realms and potentially inspiring greater conservation efforts. Scientific research, particularly in comparative cognition, reveals specialized animal intelligences and challenges the "one cognition" model, advocating for a biocentric view. Human anthropomorphism, the attribution of human traits to animals, is a pervasive psychological phenomenon that significantly influences empathy and conservation efforts. Animal art, through its public display and commercialization, acts as a powerful bridge, leveraging anthropomorphism to foster public engagement with animal intelligence and welfare. This highlights a complex, symbiotic relationship in which scientific advancements in understanding animal cognition inform public perception, which is often mediated and amplified by cultural phenomena such as animal art. While science strives for objective understanding, the public’s emotional response, usually fueled by anthropomorphism, can be a potent force for ethical progress and conservation. The challenge lies in strategically leveraging the public’s fascination with animal art to promote scientifically informed and ethically sound human-animal relationships, moving beyond mere entertainment towards genuine respect, understanding, and advocacy for animal well-being. This creates a feedback loop where art inspires empathy, which in turn supports scientific inquiry and ethical action.
The phenomenon of animal-made art remains a fertile ground for interdisciplinary research, pushing the boundaries of art history, philosophy, cognitive science, and animal ethics. It encourages a shift towards a more biocentric understanding of intelligence and creativity, fostering a deeper connection with the natural world and prompting humanity to consider its ethical responsibilities in an increasingly interconnected planetary ecosystem.
Conclusion
The captivating world of animal-made art, from Congo’s abstract impressionism to Pigcasso’s vibrant canvases and the innate aesthetic displays of bowerbirds, offers a profound lens through which to examine the very nature of creativity. This exploration has revealed not only the remarkable capacities of diverse species but also the complex interplay between intrinsic motivation and conditioned behavior, challenging anthropocentric biases. The ethical considerations inherent in involving animals in artistic endeavors, particularly in captivity, underscore the critical importance of prioritizing animal welfare over human entertainment or profit, advocating for practices rooted in genuine enrichment and respect.
Ultimately, animal-made art compels humanity to reconsider its place in the natural world, expanding definitions of art, intelligence, and consciousness. It invites a more biocentric perspective, recognizing a shared continuum of aesthetic experience and cognitive potential across species. This phenomenon serves as a powerful mirror, reflecting not only the extraordinary capabilities of animals but also humanity’s own evolving values and understanding of life on Earth. As the mysteries of animal minds continue to unravel, the artistic expressions of the animal kingdom will undoubtedly remain a fertile ground for interdisciplinary inquiry, fostering a deeper connection and a heightened sense of ethical responsibility towards all sentient beings.
References
Amici, Federica, and colleagues. "Social Influences Shape Our Perceptions of Animal Intelligence." iScience, June 18, 2025. https://bioengineer.org/social-influences-shape-our-perceptions-of-animal-intelligence/.
"Animal Art." Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.cmzoo.org/support/animal-art/.
"Animal-made art." Wikipedia. Last modified April 25, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal-made_art.
"Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos." Treehugger. Last modified July 22, 2024. https://www.treehugger.com/arguments-for-and-against-zoos-127639.
"Behaviorism in Education: What Is Behavioral Learning Theory?" National University. Last modified July 2, 2025. https://www.nu.edu/blog/behaviorism-in-education/.
"Congo (chimpanzee)." Wikipedia. Last modified July 29, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee.
"Congo the Chimp." MutualArt. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Congo-the-Chimp/1BCD409F77F6CC6F/Artworks.
"Do Animals Like Art?" Wonderopolis. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/Do-Animals-Like-Art.
"Four-stage Painting." Christie's. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5184491.
Luty, Jerzy. "Do Animals Make Art?" Avant. The Journal of the Philosophical-Sociological Association 14, no. 2 (2023): 107-120. https://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/Luty-Do-Animals-Make-Art.pdf.
Morris, Desmond. The Biology of Art: A Study of the Picture-Making Behavior of the Great Apes and Its Relationship to Human Art. London: Methuen, 1962. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3101922-the-biology-of-art.
Nosowitz, Dan. "Meet Pigcasso, The Painting Pig." Modern Farmer, March 29, 2017. https://modernfarmer.com/2017/03/meet-pigcasso-painting-pig/.
"Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not 'One Cognition'." PubMed Central. Last modified July 2, 2020. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7555673/.
PETA. "What's wrong with elephant painting and elephant bathing?" Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.peta.org/features/elephant-painting-other-tricks-bad-for-animals/.
"Pigcasso." Wikipedia. Last modified April 25, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigcasso.
"Pigcasso | Art." Pigcasso. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://pigcasso.org/art.html.
"Pigcasso | Shop." Pigcasso. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/all.
"Policy on the use of animals in art." Fredonia.edu. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.fredonia.edu/academics/colleges-schools/college-liberal-arts-sciences/visual-arts-new-media/policy-use-animals-art.
Santana, Luiz Henrique, and Miriam Garcia-Mijares. "Animal creativity as a function of innovation and behavior flexibility in problem-solving." Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 56, no. 4 (March 2022). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334223864_Animal_creativity_as_a_function_of_innovation_and_behavior_flexibility_in_problem-solving.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Animal Cognition." Last modified Summer 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/cognition-animal/.
Tarrikas, Siiri. "Modelling Animal Creativity from Uexküllian Approach—Attention, Search Image and Search Tone." PhilPapers, 2024. https://philpapers.org/rec/TARMAC.
"The Controversy and Ethics Behind Zoos." SURFACE at Syracuse University. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=intertext.
"The Philosophy of Animal Minds." Cambridge Core. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/philosophy-of-animal-minds/6964D586AD847AB142035F3149A3600B.
"The Use of Animal Subjects in Art: Statement of Principles and Suggested Considerations." College Art Association. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://www.collegeart.org/standards-and-guidelines/guidelines/use-of-animals.
"The Westmoreland Blog: Art Making Activity for the Birds." The Westmoreland Museum of American Art. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://thewestmoreland.org/blog/art-making-activity-for-the-birds/.
"Theanthro.art: Can humans empathize with animals? Recognizing our limited view in understanding animals' intelligence." The Anthro.art. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://theanthro.art/can-humans-empathize-with-animals-recognizing-our-limited-view-in-understanding-animals-intelligence-gabrielle-bruggeling-illustration-by-eline-veldhuisen/.
"When Animals Create Art, What Are They Thinking and Feeling?" Psychology Today. Last modified May 2025. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/202505/when-animals-create-art-what-are-they-thinking-and-feeling.
Welsch, Wolfgang. "Animal Aesthetics." University of Michigan. Accessed August 1, 2024. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/ca/7523862.0002.015/--animal-aesthetics?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
Watanabe, Shigeru. "Animal Aesthetics from the Perspective of Comparative Cognition." In Animal Behavior and Cognition: A Comparative Approach, edited by S. Watanabe, 175-190. Tokyo: Springer, 2012. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278637050_Animal_Aesthetics_from_the_Perspective_of_Comparative_Cognition.
Add comment
Comments