Artists have had access to monkeys, whether in their own menageries, or those of their patrons, for centuries. And those monkeys, as a matter of course, had access to art materials. Yet no paintings or drawings executed by non-human primates prior to the twentieth century survive today. However, I came across a tantalizing anecdote23 that seems to suggest that monkeys had been known to use paint as early as the fourteenth century.
In the tale, Italian painter Buonamico Buffalmacco was hired by the bishop of Arezzo to paint a fresco. However, the bishop’s ape,24 having observed Buffalmacco in the act of painting, climbs the scaffolding at night and imitates the painter, obliterating the fresco. The next morning, seeing the ruined painting, the artist approaches the bishop, furious at what he regards to be sabotage by a local artist. A trap is set, and that night, the ape is apprehended as he “corrects” the artist’s work.25 As punishment, the ape is placed in a cage on the scaffold, able to watch Buffalmacco paint, but not free to create his own version of the fresco.
This story is likely an allegorical reference to the popular trope of the artist as an apish imitator of the Creator, ars simia naturae.26 Indeed, the artist and the ape eventually trade places when Buffalmacco asks for a covered chamber to be constructed around a new fresco requested by the bishop. The artist then uses the cage to disguise his trickery. He paints the exact opposite of the bishop’s commission,27 locks the door behind him, and escapes.28 In this way, the artist mocks the religious authority, and completes the parable.
So, although primates had access to art implements, and were, in this instance at least, represented as artists, it does not seem that any drawing or painting they produced was perceived to be an art object. This makes sense if you consider that the classical aesthetic was fully representational. Thus, the carefully rendered products of artists were denigrated as the clumsy fumblings of monkeys, ars simia naturae, and the pictorial interventions of monkeys were never recognized by artists.
It was only after the rise of both non-objective painting and the science of ethology29 that paintings and drawings created by non-human primates would be considered to have artistic or scientific value.
23 Sacchetti, Franco. Tales from Sacchetti. Trans. M. G. Steegmann. London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1908. Print.
24 Probably a Barbary macaque, Macaca sylvanus, although the word “baboon” is also used to describe it.
25 Sacchetti, p. 167.
26 Jason, H.W. Apes and Ape Lore in the Renaissance and Middle Ages. London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1952. p. 291.
27 The Bishop asked Buffalmacco to paint an eagle (the symbol of Arezzo) standing on a vanquished lion (the symbol of Florence). The artist instead painted a lion mauling an eagle; turns out he was from Florence.
28 Sacchetti, p. 168-169.
29 Ethology: the study of animal behavior.