Re: (Re)Introduction, Art, Nature, Periods of the Day

Quoting Ajin Kwai <yasmin4@...>:


> the recent lexicon/defense of nature discussion has
> been  fairly interesting for me.  It does seem to
> demonstrate how difficult it is to step outside of
> one's own cultural   shoes.  Art is basically Symbol
> when it comes down to recognizing universal patterns
> of human behaviour.  There are cultures with no
> concept of "art", yet they engage most earnestly in
> what Westerners would term "art".  To the doer, the
> particular act may be "worship", "magic", "duty",
> "custodianship", "speech", "expression", "living" ...
> not neccessarily "art - ifice".
>
> To me, language is a structured system of Symbols and
> their relationships...
>
> I wonder if the concept of the Japanese garden, etc.
> is not one of nature tamed, but of nature fulfilling
> itself... if truly seen from the perspective of
> "humans=nature".  How many insects, animals, even
> plants organize spaces in nature to make them more
> amenable to whatever use is intended?  Very many
> indeed... Is theirs too a defense against nature?
In one sense, obviously yes; an anthill is quite literally the ant's castle.

But, insects, as far as is known, lack humans' tendency for symbolic/magical
thinking; if art is 'defense against wilderness', it is a spiritual rather
than physical defense, while the anthill, apparently, more closely corresponds
to more practical human pursuits - the building of houses as shelters against
unpleasant weather comes to mind.

                                              Andreas