The Natural Art

I really had a hard time accepting this piece of writing.  I thought that there were some good points that were presented but also some ideas that seemed too far fetched to be connected.  There are some basic needs that all human beings feel.  There is a need for water and protection.  These instinctual needs, as stated in the text, are most likely found in our DNA.  DNA is responsible for instincts and thus could be connected with our instinctual liking or disliking of certain images or colors.  However, there is one main flaw that was looked over in the text that I believe is equally important to consider.  This is the idea that this instinctual DNA reason for being drawn to a piece of art does not account for the different stages and periods of art that man kind has gone through.  The text does not account for how mankind, and more importantly our DNA, can "artistically evolve" over only a few hundred years.  Even Picasso evolved many times just over the course of his own lifetime and then didn't become fully recognized until after his death.  If he can go through many phases that have no correlation with his natural instinct, then how can DNA describe art preferences?  One other aspect that needed to be acknowledged is that in the text it states that humans are genetically configured to find fear in animal patterns.  This I would tend to believe and could agree with.  The problem with this idea is that it does not explain water.  Water is essential to all types of life.  The text even says that people are drawn to art with blue in it or drawings of oceans or lakes because of this fact.  However, there are many people who cannot swim or have had bad experiences with water.  They would not find these images appealing.  Therefore, what I believe is that there may be some type or instinctual preference that people have to art but I see it as something that you are mostly influenced by your experiences and the world, or art world, that you are brought up in.