Which is along the lines with what I wrote as well: "Desire is a dominant theme in these works... these paintings are working through the idea that newly-available psychoactive substances -- and, perhaps, material objects as well -- could dehumanize those who consumed them, reducing them to an animalistic level. Such consumers, it is implied, had moved down a step on the chain of being, having lost their powers of reason and been reduced to creatures that were 'sentient' in the original sense of the word: unable to think, and content simply to feel."
What I was trying to point out is that this specific sub-genre of images were reflecting new ideas about addiction (since the substances they're consuming were new to most 17th century consumers) in addition to the more general association of monkeys with sensuality/desire in early modern art, and the desire to use silly animals to satirize. I don't think its snarky at all to point out that the latter is an existing interpretation, but it's one that I was aware of when writing.
The reason why the topic matters to me is that I've lately become interested in the invention of the modern concept of addiction and the way we as a society grapple with it, which I think has some real world implications in terms of the legal system and in anticipating potential societal problems in the future, like the dopamine hits we all seem to get from things like Candy Crush (or being on the front page of HN).
I retain the criticism that within the essay, you should have located the symbol within the broader context of symbolisms of the time.
But given your explanation, it is definitely a point to be drawn out from the paintings: the addictions etc being presented within the monkey as signifier.
I thought it was an excellent article and I'm baffled by your suggestion that the author was oblivious to or indifferent to the symbolic language in the paintings, even if he didn't explore each individual one to the depth that you might have preferred.
It's poor form to post such a blithe dismissal without explaining what we're missing.
a little understanding of art history would indicate that the appropriate thing to do is understand the context for monkeys at the time of painting.
e: I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but most Renaissance/Enlightenment art is done in a symbolic language, and objects depicted are words, with the arrangement often in a particular grammar, with the context serving as part of the message. It's not particularly difficult to learn this or to access basic symbolic meanings. I don't think the author (hi there), has done enough due diligence. Sorry, Author.