Re: lexicon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>


> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 01:43:34PM -0400, Sally Caves wrote:
> > Why do you think that?  Why can't art also be "hard-wired" in the brain?
>
> Well, maybe we just haven't studied art sufficiently to identify the
> universals, but the term is applied so broadly that I can't see
> what it is that might be "hardwired art."
Is applied so broadly by whom? :)  By me?  I intended it broadly.  I thought
you were looking at it a little too narrowly and with too modern a
definition.

> > Art is a fundamental aspect of human society and has been from the
beginning,
> > evolving along with language and culture.  What has changed our
> > understanding of this basic human truth is the scientific revolution,
and
> > scientific materialism.  We are basically machines, we function to get
> > things done, society functions to provide us with the basics, art is an
> > excrescence belonging to those "humanist" guys.
>
> Back up a bit.  We ARE machines, but usually the term "humanist" is
> reserved for the folks who agree with that statement.
Not in all cases.  The term is also used by some of my scientific colleagues
to distinguish what they do from what I do (as an academic). :)

> And while I agree
> with it,
....that society first and foremost functions without art?  Let's back up a
bit and look at some of my "broader definitions" that you snipped.  Building
a shelter and making it pleasing.  Is that an art or not?  Clothing.  Even
the most small-scale societies, living in the warmest regions of earth,
decorate themselves.  Not all art has to be the Mona Lisa, or even playing
the clarinet.

> I certainly don't think art is an "excrescence".
I've heard it referred to as such.  Fluff.  Dispensible.

> I'm a bit of
> an artist myself - drawing as well as conlanging.  And it may be that
> it's part of our programming, but I still don't think it's as fundamental
> as language.
The original argument was whether artistic development came after linguistic
development or developed with it.  We have all agreed that we are in basic
ignorance about this fact.  I think one could argue safely that writing
developed reasonably late.  However, the fact that art is part of our human
programming is an important point we have in common.  Thank you.  I would go
further and say that it is probably as ancient in development as language
is.  That it has developed into something far more complex and evocative
than language, and nuanced, and harder to pin down, is an argument for
another rainy day. Meanwhile, Michael has had some interesting things to say
on this topic.

Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."

Replies