"What matters to [elephants] is the process: the friction of the brush against the surface of the canvas, the creamy viscosity of the paint, and the fine-motor activity involved in making different kinds of marks, from long sweeping strokes to quick rhythmic dabs and slithery caresses."

Just curious as to whether the elephants told her this over a glass of wine in the cafe, or how she found out otherwise.

Also contrast that sentence with these conclusions:

"In other words, Pollock taught us how to see art in a new way."

"Marla, the elephants, and perhaps even your own brilliant progeny may be terrific painters—but they're not artists. This is because art is not just about making things or slapping pigment on canvas; it's also a way of thinking and seeing."

Seeing a 4-yr old or elephant produce something that looks like a Pollock definitely teaches me to see AbEx in a new way.

And if the elephants don't think or see, how then do they appreciate "the friction of the brush against the...canvas, the creamy viscosity of the paint, and the fine-motor activity involved in making...long sweeping strokes to quick rhythmic dabs and slithery caresses"?

I'm still curious as to how Mia whatsit knows what's going on inside the mind of an elephant who can't think. Pretty good vocabularies, those elephants--don't know many 4-year-olds who can talk about "viscosity" and "fine-motor activity".

Maybe after Pollock produced something that looked like a 4-year-old did, he had to teach us how to see it by using sufficiently trendy language to impress art critics, delaers, and buyers.

Is she saying that even if Pollock and an elephant produced virtually identical pictures, Pollock's would be better because he thinks about art? Even though his thought is something completely outside the painting, and which he has to explain to us because the painting doesn't convey it?

"Just curious as to whether the elephants told her this over a glass of wine in the cafe..."

Hah! Too funny...

If intent is everything, then 1000 years from now, when nobody knows which was Pollock and which was an elephant, would either be worth anything?

Seriously, this is an argument designed to sell art as a luxury commodity to rich idiots in an age of infinite reproduction. How to justify the work necessary to create something new when all your customer has to do is just go to the poster store and they can buy a reproduction of the best there ever was.

You won't believe this...but I just read another article by this same author concerning the elephant paintings. Seems that the cable channel "Animal Planet" made a documentary about the elephant art, and the elephants appreciation for the viscosity and texture of their strokes.

While filming, "Animal Planet" caught a chimpanzee waddling out of the tree line, into the elephant arena, and prodding the elephant to paint. It would often provide guidance and instruction on proper pattern composition, color expression, and stroke texture.

At times, after multiple incidents were caught, the elephant would stop mid brush stroke and stare out into the wild...waiting for his little banana eating muse to come forward and provide direction.

The media is eating this up now. We should start another thread so that we can argue the merits of whether or not just any old elephant can paint art.

Great comment. So true. And it demonstrates that art (or life!) that rejects consideration of objective reality is...nothing.