In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 6)

From what I understand of Dewey’s artistic theory, I believe that he would say that non-human art is a possibility. In the essay, Dewey makes his idea abundantly clear that art is both viewed and created in the everyday processes of living. This is true in both human and animal environments. Animals have often showed a preference to aesthetically pleasing stimuli in certain situations (i.e. the peacock having bright and colorful feathers used to attract a mate) meaning that there is a possibility that this appeal to aesthetically appealing stimuli could extend beyond the spectrum of usefulness. Since the fact that animals take an interest in aesthetics for a variety of reasons is well known, I do not believe that Dewey would rule out the possibility of animal art altogether. At the same time, it seems unreasonable to say that one is certain that animal art exists since there is no definite proof of such thing occurring. Although non-human art is a definite possibility, verifying this hypothesis could never take place because there is no known way to discover whether or not the animal creating the work a person may perceive as art was creating it for its aesthetic appeal versus a more common explanation of the creation, such as to serve a specific purpose. It is unlikely that the discovery of whether a bird places a leaf in a certain part of its nest was conducted for an aesthetic use or as a constructive tool, but the possibility of animals creating art on some level is definite. Do you think that some animals are more likely to have an appeal to aesthetics than others?