Thank you, Heather Bennett, for sending us this beautiful painting.
I appreciate that you have not posed any specific questions about this picture. This not only gives me a lot of flexibility on how to approach it, but it is also very respectful to art itself. Is it not that art can produce its meaning differently with each single interpreter? Asking a question about art can be very suggestive and impose a limit on what it can bring to the world and what difference it could make. So, let me interpret it for you while acknowledging that it no doubt asks more questions than I could ever see.
There are at least two things happening in this painting that I find worth addressing. A cat is looking into a mirror at its own reflection, and it is painting a self-portrait. This act of recognising oneself in a mirror is a profound sign of consciousness. So, this painting raises the question:
1. Are animals self-conscious? That is, can an animal recognize itself in a mirror?
Unfortunately, pet owners could confirm that animals do not really recognize themselves in a reflection. Dogs bark at themselves or greet themselves like an unknown dog, and cats tend to just pass it by without realizing that there is a reflection at all. For some, this would be enough to claim that pets do not have consciousness – because they are not self-aware. However, many pet owners could also confirm that their pets have characters, that they are capable of dreaming, and that they repeat certain ‘social’ interactions, like sniffing each other’s’ butts, and other ways of greeting each other, which might as well be a sign of having a mind. So, maybe pets have some sort of ‘mind’, with which they are not capable of distinguishing themselves from their surroundings, but which still gives them an awareness of their being in the world – that is what this picture seems to be indicating. Something else it suggests is that this lovely kitty is capable of painting a portrait. Now it is perhaps debatable whether it is just looking in the mirror to get the proper ratio for a tiger’s face or whether it is truly an attempt at a self-portrait, one which failed due to the narcissistic tendencies of the artist. So, the painting raises another question:
2. Can an animal be an artist?
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to think that animals are not capable of creating art, for at least two reasons. First, the one mentioned above: art as a form of self-expression requires self-awareness, which many would deny that animals have. Secondly, animals are not equipped with thumbs. We may wonder how this kitty is even holding a brush. Many would claim that our civilizations (including our art) have developed thanks to our opposable thumbs, which give us the ability to make and use tools, which allows us to transform the world we live in. Against these two arguments, however, I would point to a few examples of animal artists. Have you ever heard about the abstract expressionist pig, Pigcasso? His art is being sold for quite an amount. Or what about Suda, the elephant who mastered holding a brush in her trunk? Or Coco the gorilla and her attempts to critique her own art?
I shall now conclude with a provocative statement: Art is not really exclusive to people; or, to put it another way, nature is capable of art making.
What do you think? What do you make of this picture? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: (credit)
I am a PhD candidate in Political and Social Thought at the University of Kent, Canterbury. I am researching modern Western cosmologies and approaches to organicism. My interests lie in the area of continental political thought, process ontologies and the philosophy of technology. My favourite philosophers are A.N. Whitehead and F.W.J. Schelling, whom I admire for their organic systematizations of nature and natural knowledge.