Picture of an elephant, painted by an elephant

[MacCruiskeen]

Bull elephant Noppakhao paints a picture of another elephant in Ayutthaya province, Thailand

Picture: REUTERS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2246645 ... -2008.html

Snopes confirms that it's true (with an amazing video).

[orz]

Pretty amazing indeed, tho it does seem that the elephants are trained/directed by humans when painting a figurative painting like this.

They're good at music too:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5UMJ8qfw-4E

[marmot]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

[MacCruiskeen]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

Pretty amazing indeed, tho it does seem that the paintbrushes are trained/directed by humans when painting a figurative painting like this.

[barracuda]

Do a search. We had a whole thread on this monstrous abuse of these intelligent animals about a year ago. It's no more nor less disgusting than a circus elephant performing under the whip. Unfortunatly, the only hope thaat larger mammals have in a world run by hairless primates is to excersize their ability to "perform" for tourists. Otherwise, (drags finger under the neck).

If they weren't being coerced and tortured, would they really paint the trappings of their servitude (blanket and tack) on their self-portraits?

[marmot]

Squirrel tricks out on some sports juice <video>

[Sepka]

Pretty amazing indeed, tho it does seem that the elephants are trained/directed by humans when painting a figurative painting like this.

Human children learn to do figural drawing by much the same process. Most of one's early skills in drawing are acquired from parents and older siblings/friends teaching the conventions of how to portray this or that subject so that others will know what it is that you're drawing. Humans have the advantage also of living in an art-rich environment. I doubt if the elephants have a lot of decorative pictures in their environments.

I'm left to wonder if she understands that she's depicting another elephant. I can tell, for instance, that the subject is wearing a blanket, and spraying water out of her trunk. Does the artist understand the picture that same way, or is she just making marks in a certain manner to please her trainer?

If she understands her work as a depiction of something, does she ever extend her existing conventions to cover some new item? E.g., since she uses blue dabs to represent spraying water, does she maybe go on to using those same blue dabs to represent rain? A human child would do that. It's a fair feat of abstraction when you get right down to it. Will the elephant do it? If she does, then you've got a fascinating way to see inside the elephant's mind, and see what she thinks is interesting and important enough to draw.

[Sepka]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

That looks like the work of a graphics program to me...

[marmot]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

That looks like the work of a graphics program to me...

Yes, Sepka, it looks that way. Yet, even graphics programs have "paintbrush" tools. My point was that the Elephant and paintbrush are both tools in the hands of humans.

[MacCruiskeen]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

That looks like the work of a graphics program to me...

Yes, Sepka, it looks that way. Yet, even graphics programs have "paintbrush" tools. My point was that the Elephant and paintbrush are both tools in the hands of humans.

Unlike an elephant, a paintbrush can't pick up a paintbrush and paint by itself. The elephant in the photos above is no tool, nor (even more obviously) is the other elephant in the video I linked to.

Sepka talks a lot of good sense when he is not talking about politics, especially Middle Eastern politics.

[marmot]

Picture of a paintbrush, painted by a paintbrush

That looks like the work of a graphics program to me...

Yes, Sepka, it looks that way. Yet, even graphics programs have "paintbrush" tools. My point was that the Elephant and paintbrush are both tools in the hands of humans.

Unlike an elephant, a paintbrush can't pick up a paintbrush and paint by itself. The elephant in the photos above is no tool, nor (even more obviously) is the other elephant in the video I linked to.

Who's behind the elephant painting the elephant? But a human trainer, a director. Man could design a machine with a graphics program that would, on cue, pick up a paintbrush and paint itself or an elephant. It is possible, just as we see it is possible for an elephant to paint an image of itself.

Look at the beginning and the end of the process and you'll have a human programmer directing the means to the end that we have a painting. Seen this way, to me, the elephant is, indeed, a tool.

Who's directing the means to the end? It's a human director using an intermediary tool---the elephant---to paint a painting. This is exactly what the elephant was programmed and trained to do.

[Sepka]

Look at the beginning and the end of the process and you'll have a human programmer directing the means to the end that we have a painting. Seen this way, to me, the elephant is, indeed, a tool.

When I sculpt, I'm using the conventions and techniques taught me by my instructors to produce a work that can be interpreted within the idiom of western representational art. In some sense, I'm an instrument for my instructors, and their instructors before them, ad infinitum. How does my experience differ from that of the elephant?

For that matter, if we consider the elephant as a tool because she uses techniques taught her by her trainer to accomplish a task, what are to consider the trainer? He surely uses techniques taught him by other trainers to accomplish his task of training the elephant.