In Monkey Painting Lenain argues that any results we gain from the pictures created by non-human primates are not useful, because we have placed the primates in an artificial scenario, and the pictures they make are dictated by the tools they are given and not by the animals themselves. In the wild, he argues, primates have enough outlets for disruptive play, and will never turn to art.
An interesting phenomena can inform our analysis of Lenain’s argument. A few groups of Japanese macaques which are free-ranging, but artificially provisioned with food, have begun to exhibit a seemingly non-adaptive behavior. They handle stones. Both young and old monkeys do this, suggesting that it is not motivated only by play. Some monkeys carry the stones, some stack the stones, some throw them. There are a variety of behaviors, but they share one thing in common: the monkeys gain nothing from these behaviors. Stone-handling itself seems to be intrinsically rewarding.52
Relating stone-handling behaviors to theories of art’s origin, we can see some interesting parallels to both Desmond Morris’ definition of art as rewarding in and of itself, and to the “byproduct” theory. Freed from the time constraints of foraging for food, these macaques begin to use their excess time and attention in a novel way. Some have posited that stone-handling is a precursor to tool-use, but perhaps stone-handling is actually a precursor to art.
If primates in an otherwise natural environment turn to proto-art activities, then it does not seem strange that captive primates in artificial environments might be inclined toward these types of activities. Further, just as the “byproduct” theory postulates that art behaviors play an adaptive role in protecting the efficient brain from boredom, a captive primate with all its physical requirements provided for needs supplementary activities to protect its psychological well-being. Typically, this necessity is addressed in the form of environmental enrichment.
An excellent survey and evaluation of the common means of enrichment, “Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman Primates: Theory and Application”, was published by Corrine Lutz and Melinda Novak.53 One important consideration advanced by Lutz and Novak is that environmental enrichment should foster species-typical behaviors as this could be considered a normalization of their behavioral repertoire. Manipulation and destruction of objects are species typical behaviors for primates, and, according to the authors, “In general, the more destructible the object is, the more it is manipulated.”54
So, returning to Lenain’s statement, it seems that in the wild, disruptive play actually has a relatively small role in the overall time budget of a primate. It is only when their needs are met that they have the ability to develop art-related activities. Maybe the results of these activities we gather have little value for analysis, but art is not a means to an end. It is intrinsically rewarding, active, manipulatable, and importantly, destructable—or capable of being obliterated. Therefore, it is not a frivolous endeavor to supply captive primates with art: we have a responsibility to these animals to supplement their environment and activities to facilitate their psychological well-being. It is not an add-on. It is a necessity.
52 Huffman, Michael A. “Acquisition of Innovative Cultural Behaviors in Nonhuman Primates: A Case Study of Stone Handling, a Socially Transmitted Behavior in Japanese Macaques.” Social Learning in Animals. Ed. Cecilia M. Heyes and Bennett G. Galef, Jr. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1996. 267-289. eBook.
53 Lutz, Corrine K., and Melinda Novak. “Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman Primates: Theory and Application” Enrichment Strategies for Laboratory Animals. Spec. issue of ILAR J 46.2 (2005): 178-191. Web. 3 April. 2016.
54 Lutz, p. 180.