Why Are There So Many 17th Century Paintings of Monkeys Getting Drunk?
resobscura.blogspot.com
resobscura.blogspot.com
Many kinds of monkeys have a strong taste for tea, coffee, and spiritous liquors: they will also, as I have myself seen, smoke tobacco with pleasure. (6. The same tastes are common to some animals much lower in the scale. Mr. A. Nichols informs me that he kept in Queensland, in Australia, three individuals of the Phaseolarctus cinereus [koalas]; and that, without having been taught in any way, they acquired a strong taste for rum, and for smoking tobacco.) Brehm asserts that the natives of north-eastern Africa catch the wild baboons by exposing vessels with strong beer, by which they are made drunk. He has seen some of these animals, which he kept in confinement, in this state; and he gives a laughable account of their behaviour and strange grimaces. On the following morning they were very cross and dismal; they held their aching heads with both hands, and wore a most pitiable expression: when beer or wine was offered them, they turned away with disgust, but relished the juice of lemons. An American monkey, an Ateles, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus was wiser than many men. These trifling facts prove how similar the nerves of taste must be in monkeys and man, and how similarly their whole nervous system is affected.
- "The Descent of Man"
Not a crazy idea, Darwin would not match scientists of today, he was just revolutionary for his time and helped todays scientists be great.
a little understanding of art history would indicate that the appropriate thing to do is understand the context for monkeys at the time of painting.
e: I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but most Renaissance/Enlightenment art is done in a symbolic language, and objects depicted are words, with the arrangement often in a particular grammar, with the context serving as part of the message. It's not particularly difficult to learn this or to access basic symbolic meanings. I don't think the author (hi there), has done enough due diligence. Sorry, Author.
Which is along the lines with what I wrote as well: "Desire is a dominant theme in these works... these paintings are working through the idea that newly-available psychoactive substances -- and, perhaps, material objects as well -- could dehumanize those who consumed them, reducing them to an animalistic level. Such consumers, it is implied, had moved down a step on the chain of being, having lost their powers of reason and been reduced to creatures that were 'sentient' in the original sense of the word: unable to think, and content simply to feel."
What I was trying to point out is that this specific sub-genre of images were reflecting new ideas about addiction (since the substances they're consuming were new to most 17th century consumers) in addition to the more general association of monkeys with sensuality/desire in early modern art, and the desire to use silly animals to satirize. I don't think its snarky at all to point out that the latter is an existing interpretation, but it's one that I was aware of when writing.
The reason why the topic matters to me is that I've lately become interested in the invention of the modern concept of addiction and the way we as a society grapple with it, which I think has some real world implications in terms of the legal system and in anticipating potential societal problems in the future, like the dopamine hits we all seem to get from things like Candy Crush (or being on the front page of HN).
I retain the criticism that within the essay, you should have located the symbol within the broader context of symbolisms of the time.
But given your explanation, it is definitely a point to be drawn out from the paintings: the addictions etc being presented within the monkey as signifier.
I thought it was an excellent article and I'm baffled by your suggestion that the author was oblivious to or indifferent to the symbolic language in the paintings, even if he didn't explore each individual one to the depth that you might have preferred.
It's poor form to post such a blithe dismissal without explaining what we're missing.
Blooger is one seemingly moribund service I wish Goggle would spend some dev time on.
(That's not to say you shouldn't self-host but it's not a great suggestion for someone who made the decision to use blogger in the first place.)
When attempting to pinch-zoom, many times the gesture will activate Blogger's hidden navigation feature, taking one to the next or previous post of the blog. On its own, the post navigation is activated by a swipe either right or left. (And your guess is as good as mine as to which way through blog history each swipe takes you.)
Occurs on: iOS/Safari MacOS/Chrome/using touchpad
[0]: Here's a delightful classic with pictures: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/05/three-projections-of-doctor-f...
> What makes it funny
MonkeysMy first thought was to compare it to "Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp" [1] which was a slightly bizarre show in the 70's, mostly intended to be funny.
I didn't much like it then, and couldn't even watch a whole episode this year. In discussing it with a co-worker, he pointed out that some people find monkeys inherently funny, so they'd get a kick out of it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Link,_Secret_Chimp
If Vince Gilligan were to create a 17th century drama chronicling the misadventutes of underworld simian alchemists who sell drugs, I would complain.