One of the most compelling takes on Lascaux is that it isn't art. It's not about idealization, worship, beauty, or being human. It was made by hunters to get closer to their prey. They wanted to become the deer and the buffalo to know them better, so they could ultimately become better hunters of them. Herzog made that point in "Cave of Forgotten Dreams".
How art invented humanity
41–50 of 61 posts
Re: How art invented humanity
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is terse but the comment is sensible to me.
OK, what does "_Tools_ have a response to this post" mean to you, in the context of the posted article, and as a response to it? Why would a human being organically reply to the article with that sentence?
tools as an artifact can be contraposed to art as artifact? the juxtaposition hints to a challenge of the article's claims about the dualities of art?
Re: How art invented humanity
#43[deleted]
Re: How art invented humanity
#44Thought-provoking article. When the cave painters were at work, they most probably didn’t see themselves as “artists” and of course not scientists, philosophers. That was an age where all those things were together at once, living in a religious state, I think. Little by little, they separated (to sometimes unhappy results). Brings to mind the old myth where humans were both male and female originally, but gods, fear…
"All art is, in the end, adoration" J.Campbell. (quoting by memory), essentially art and humanity are one in those times, no one invented the other.
In more recent times things are changed, life and art are on different path, but still in reinessance times people received education bot in liberal arts and in scientific (by the times) matters. Art and science still talks under the surface.
Re: How art invented humanity
#45So many thinking to avoid the simple point? IN those times humanity and nature are the same, art and life are one.
Re: How art invented humanity
#46“Only humans produce ecstatic art” I guess they have never heard of the bowerbird: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/eptuty/b...
Or maybe simply he miss one poin: all the rest of universe -is- art.
Re: How art invented humanity
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
That answers a different question. The empirical success of the equation in question is strong evidence that the theory captures something about the universe, however it does not prove that the proposition exists, or is true, independently of any language or conceptual framework. Technologies working can test physical predictions. They cannot test the metaphysical claim that facts have truth independent from common l…
>The empirical success of the equation in question is strong evidence that the theory captures something about the universe, however it does not prove that the proposition exists, or is true, independently of any language or conceptual framework. The proof that the proposition exists can be found in the countless references and papers referencing it, including Einstein's original 1905 paper. You can find the Wikipedi…
> Write it upside down and it still works the same.
shred it into pieces ! lmao
Re: How art invented humanity
#48One of my craziest ideas is that language created minds and not the other way around. One view of history is that humans evolved brains sufficient to host language, invented language, and then our brains grew around language. My crazy idea is basically the thesis of this article except swap out "art" and swap in "language". In my view, art is just one form of expression. That is, language predates life. Although, lan…
Language and "minds" are not unique among humans.
Re: How art invented humanity
#49This is such a classic Aeon title
Haven't read any of their articles in maybe almost a decade (in aggregate they seem so whimsical with fantastical titles) but am bored enough so far today at the 9to5 to where it is an exceedingly great option.
Re: How art invented humanity
#50“Only humans produce ecstatic art” I guess they have never heard of the bowerbird: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/eptuty/b...
the argument is that the bowerbird isn't making ecstatic art though, in the sense that while the bird is still expressing an aesthetically driven directive, its still biologically motivated, which then remains unexamined beyond preference and aversion in its audience (ie potential mate)
the argument the author is instead trying to make is that humans are the only organism that produces ecstatic aesthetic experiences, not simply that it is the only organism that can make pretty things.