Re: lexicon

I think a large problem with the reductionist approach to art, language and
human culture generally is that it seems to be formulated by people who have
no experience of creative art or poetry. Thus we get sweeping statements of
the "language is communication" variety. While something of language may be
communication, a lot of these statements seem to imply that's all it is.
Please note here that I'm talking about people who frame these theories, not
necessarily those who subscribe to them, so no personal slights are
intended. A lot of early art, for instance, is obviously magical/worshipful,
but since these are not concepts with which reductionist theories can cope
with, they are ignored. Surely, central to this discussion is the fact that
all art is a two-way process, implying an audience as well as a creator who,
importantly, is conscious of the creative act. So, marks made by chimps with
the medium of a paintbrush don't constitute art unless they realise what
they're doing. If language is "Hard-wired" into our brains then maybe art is
too. And I think you'll find that art has nothing at all to do with free
expression. It always involves a certain amount of self-discipline; though
to be sure after you've been through that stage you feel more able to break
the rules that you've assimilated. Poetry regularly breaks rules of
communication, but surely most poets must already have a better-than-average
command of their own language in order to get to that stage.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: lexicon


> Let me clarify my position.  First, although this is all tangent to my
> original point, I'll say where I stand on the precedence thing:
>
> The *ability* to communicate must have preceded culture, because there can
be
> no culture without communication.  But since there can be no communication
> without someone to communicate with, actual communication and culture
> probably developed about the same time.
>
> Language, specifically, is an advanced variety of communication.  In
> the usual definition it seems to be restricted to humans, though the line
> between animal communication and human language is not the great dividing
> wall some make it out to be.
>
> Art is an advanced variety of non- or meta-linguistic communication, that
> is much more strongly restricted to humans.  Ape paintings and the like
> have yet to show much of an artistic penchant in other animals. :)
>
> But none of that is what I was talking about.  The thread to which I was
> replying was discussing art as possibly the original motivation for
> the development of language.  I argue that this is incredibly unlikely
> because of the fundamental differences in, well, how fundamental language
> and art are.
>
> The capacity for language is built into our brains; it's an instinct; it's
> hardwired.  We're born ready to recognize concepts and categorize them
into
> groups roughly analogous to nouns, verbs, and prepositions.  We're born
> with grammar universals that are shared by every natural language.
> Language must have been an incredible survival advantage;
> that's the only explanation for its presence as such a fundamental
> part of the brain's makeup.  It also must have originated a really really
> really long time ago in order to have time to be specialized to the
> degree that it has.   Given the time involved, I find it incredibly
> unlikely that our first language-using ancestors were sufficiently
developed
> to be artistic.
>
> No such fundamental blueprints exist for art; art is by its very nature
> the ultimate in free expression, refusing to obey set channels or rules.
> It is practically indefinable.  And artistic ability varies dramatically
> among human individuals, far more than linguistic ability.   The
> drive to create is an instinct; art isn't.
>
> Besides, every other medium used for art - painting,
> writing, music - was originally utilitarian; only later did people
> have the luxury of using these things for art.  I don't see why
> language would be any different.
>
> -Mark

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.480 / Virus Database: 276 - Release Date: 12/05/03

Replies