On Elephants Who Paint

I'm sure by now you've seen the video of the elephant who paints a self-portrait. I did a bit of research as someone told me it wasn't real, and I found nothing to say it wasn't, other than people who point out you never see the entire elephant while she's painting.

I wondered whether the elephant was trained, and if so how, where she lived, and of course, whether her work was being used as a source of cash. Call me skeptical, but I've never seen an animal product that humans didn't find a way to exploit, and I'm sure that elephant and her painting is next in line. I said that to someone recently, and he replied, "Man, you are just not a fan of the homo sapien."

"I'm not a misanthrope," I replied, "I'm just looking at history and making a fairly obvious observation."

Today, I bring you the next in line via "Animal Artwork a Source of Zoo Revenue," by Dinesh Ramde.

Let's deconstruct:

• Observe as Ramde, perhaps unwittingly, tells a chilling story . . .

Brittany wields her paintbrush with confidence, slapping it roughly against the canvas to produce streaks of green or smears of orange. With apparent pride, she steps back, inspects her work - and extends her trunk to receive a freshly loaded paintbrush.

Brittany, an African elephant, is doing her small part to pay her way at the Milwaukee County Zoo. Her artwork is sold at the zoo's gift shop to raise funds.

She is in captivity. She has no choice. There is no way her needs can be adequately met by a zoo. And yet she is "doing her small part to pay her way." As if she owes her captors/keepers anything.

• Brittany isn't the only animal who paints. There are sea lions, chimpanzees, ocelots and even a Komodo dragon.

For years zoos and aquariums across the country have encouraged animals to paint as a way to keep the penned-up denizens mentally enriched. Typically, the paintings were discarded or set aside.

But officials have recently discovered that animal lovers are willing to pay hundreds - or even thousands - of dollars for the creatures' creations, prompting zoos across the country to study whether their animal artists might be an untapped source of revenue.

Penned-up denizens. An untapped source of revenue.

• Ramde reports:

One especially profitable painter is Towan, a 40-year-old orangutan at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. For Valentine's Day, the zoo auctioned a pair of his paintings on eBay for a total of more than $1,300.

Profitable for whom?

• And who buys the artwork?

. . . typically animal lovers who know the money is going toward a good cause.

The continued captivity of healthy pachyderms is a good cause.

Comments

[Nick]

It's pathetic that humans constantly try to squeeze every penny out of the animals they enslave. This brings up a question I should ask, though. I'm sure you've heard of Koko, the gorilla who became famous for learning American Sign Language. She and her former counterpart, Michael, painted quite a few paintings. From what I understand, they were not forced to do so. However, their paintings are for sale by the Gorilla Foundation, so money is being made. While it's deplorable that a zoo would force an elephant to paint, would you consider it acceptable for an organization to profit from the voluntarily created paintings of more intelligent primates? I guess this brings up a larger question of the ethics of interacting with primates, or any other hyper-intelligent non-humans. I know that the "use" of these animals is not vegan. However, is it so bad for creatures so much like humans to behave as humans? And is there not a line to be drawn between slavery and dependency? That is to say, children and slaves have in common the fact that they cannot leave their guardians, yet there is a clear distinction between being a minor and being a slave. I know this has nothing to do with the elephant now, but would you consider captive primates who are treated well slaves or minors? And while it is clearly unethical to profit off your "slaves," is it exploitative to sell your "children's" artwork? I feel like I have presented a sort of speciesist slippery-slope argument, with which I am far from satisfied, and I am curious to hear your opinion. And I suppose one must also take into account that gorillas are endangered, so lovingly keeping one in captivity is a lot like taking in a stray dog that would otherwise be killed.

[Mary Martin]

Hi Nick,

You ask:"is it so bad for creatures so much like humans to behave as humans?" I don't see it that way. They could very well be behaving like primates.

Furthermore, as I see it, children and slaves don't have that much in common once you consider that slaves were property so their owners were their owners. They actually owned them. Parents do not "own" their children. Animals are indeed property, just like slaves. Well-treated primates are well-treated property. They are well-treated slaves.

Also, I am of the mind that gorillas are not ours to manage, therefore, I don't think "lovingly keeping one in captivity" is acceptable. The only exception for me is wildlife who cannot survive in their natural habitats. Sanctuaries, assuming they have adequate land and the animals are permitted to run free, are okay in my mind.

Here's my personal litmus test: Is the individual unable to survive without help? If so, it's a matter of life and death and intervening is acceptable. Similarly, no matter what ridiculous scenario someone gives me where it's me versus an animal, I ask: Do I need to hurt or kill the animal or hold her captive to ensure my survival? Do I NEED to do that? If I don't, I cannot morally justify the action.

But that's me.

[Dan]

Mary, you mentioned the word “misanthrope” in this blog entry and I started wondering if I’m a misanthrope.

I think the question of whether I’m a misanthrope is a good one and needs some exploration. I might do a blog essay on it sometime. For now, I think that I’m not a misanthrope from the standpoint of hating or being angry at our species or humans-in-general (mainly because I accept determinism and deny free-will). However, under a more broad definition of thinking of our species as *generally* being technological geniuses and moral imbeciles, and having a healthy dose of contempt for the moral imbecility of most people, I might qualify as a misanthrope. Is it elitist of me to think that way? Maybe (or maybe not), but probably less elitist than the elitism of the person who would accuse me of elitism in this regard. Further, it’s not so elitist when you think of the idea that all I’m asking is that we refrain from such obvious harms as intentionally killing and exploiting innocent others.

Anyway, if I’m a misanthrope, I’m certainly a cheerful one at that.