I am not aware of any. Usually recognition of self for example is considered evidence of high, human, intelligence and it seems that few other animals have that awareness. Representational awareness is equally considered evidence of high intellectual capacity. There is also the matter of the dexterity of the human hand for tasks difficult for paws, flippers or maws to perform. While the elephants trunk has that level of dexterity, there is no evidence of any making art.

There is some research with chimpanzees but so far nothing that can clearly be called representation.

Thank you to each! Stanley - thank you for reminding me of fine versus gross dexterity of limbs between species. I do note that by a sort of taming of our own body, from infancy we acquire fine motor skills, only to lose them in old age (and feel "betrayed by" or "disappointed in" our limbs -- as though our bodies were pets who have forgotten how to beg or to roll over). Especially thank you Peter - yes, that's terrific - a kind of olfactory artwork. That's so helpful. Certainly when I watch my pets I see that they both seek for and identify "stories of transit" (almost like an Indian scout) and develop images of what left its scent there (even on me, on my clothes, after visiting my neighbor's pets). But as they also leave their own trails at times (and not by accident!), that does seem to approximate a form of intentional, olfactory imagery, in which anything the body can use as effluvia would make a great color in that "painting". I have heard that matriarchs among the elephants use some sort of body chemical that way on their heads too. Awesome - thank you.

Another point, Lonny; tool making is connected to art, so as there are several animals we now know use tools we can stretch the definition somewhat, but of course they rarely make them, just utilise whatever is available.

Tool making in early man was directly linked to the body, providing extensions.

Thank you Stanley - great share - I can identify with this. Both smithing and hefting have huge connections to the idea of savoring one's craft - like a "sommelier" of arrowhead or blade design - we often adore our tools (and never even use them when so - like a Ferrari). Really nice swords are often only for show (my friend in youth had one from the Civil War on his wall - the more fancy, the less it is likely to be used so much as just worn). That suggests we are unlikely to (archaeologically) uncover day-to-day- tools, actually, in decent condition and might mistake a "show tool" for a domestic one. And Donald Norman has a lot to say on this. Thank you for this connection between tools and artistry.

You are right. The process of creating an axehead appears similar to sculpture. An appropriate stone is identified, an image seen in the stone, and stone flaked away until image is visible. Aesthetics played its part too.

Awesome - thank you. And the little I know of sculpture, is how incredibly important it is to "see your final work" suggested by the stone you select (sometimes the work is inspired after seeing that stone, not before). I assume then, this is true whether we are crafting a bust of a famous person, or an axe head for a famous person to carry to display their status. It is pareidolia at its best - there is an image by Da Vinci of it as I recall. Thanks! https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/f4/d8/9ff4d89dad27bb24b968ef34e925e337.jpg

Here it is: (attached)

Michelangelo: There is a sculpture inside this stone. I will chisel out everything except that (not verbatim).

My contention is that real art is a process through which an artist finds what is in his/her mind. Real art is the process of itself. The shape of a plant ultimately comes from how it grew -- leaf by leaf, spiral by spiral, curve by curve. It is the way it travelled, moved -- from roots to top.

You can see here the difference between fine arts and the art of literature. Fine arts are exactly what you do at the moment PHYSICALLY. A painting or sculpture is exactly what the artist did, to his/her medium. But a work of literature is not what you do physically -- it gets published in some form, which has nothing to do with the actual physical process of writing.

Some stray thoughts. That's all :)

Stanley, the first ever axe or hammer or screwdriver was a real work of art despite the preconception. Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/08/arts/it-seems-art-is-indeed-monkey-business.html

Thanks! I used to like to eat my art supplies as much as create with them too! My teachers only let me be the paste monitor once, for instance. Tasty! The larger question is, would they paint or sculpt without being instructed or prompted? Would we? If none of us had ever seen a painting, would we instinctively paint? What do you think? My guess is that living beings seek novel avenues to express what current avenues limit them to. Painting, dancing, and (wordless) music are one way to break down barriers and say what words can't say. They appeal to visceral feelings, to put it in Donald Norman's neat terminology.

Copying and learning how to imitate what others have done is one kind of skill. Inventing a new form of expression seems different - it's like reaching outside the art form, and hurling paint at your limitations.

Usually creating artifacts of one kind or another is considered a specifically human trait, whether creating an axe head or a clay pipe. Utilisation does not necessarily exclude art as pointed out. A mental map tends to be involved, plus use of hand and eye.

Although we now know that many animals use tools, and some shape them, invariably they serve single contingent purposes. (Does that though exclude them completely from art?)

Thanks Stanley - these are excellent suggestions for me. Does art serve a social purpose? Sometimes I think that what we did spontaneously (and for no other reason save to be spontaneous among those we care about), was much the same thing as a transitory art form. If so, any creature that does the unusual is really an artist.