I teach art (among other things), and find this a very interesting and worthy area of discussion. I've read all of your ideas/hypotheses, and feel they are all three very good; worth further thought. Unfortunately, each of you know, as well as I, that, within the confines of such unsubstantiated subject matter, there are neither facts, nor answers to base anything on; There doesn't even exist a reliable starting point, a launching pad, by which we might trust, as fact, to begin a valid theory. Instead, we are stuck with only questions and points of view, that lead to more questions than we had before.
Therein, I've enjoyed reading your ideas, and I agree with each, even though often times they are at odds. There is, on the fringe of each of your beliefs, a place where I feel that your ideas overlap, in an area that becomes as intellectually complex as placing a definition on art itself. Allow me to illustrate.
Goldie, you stated, ‘I think their (Sasquatch) ability to camouflage so well and so creatively is evidence of "Art"'. Hmmm. Interesting. Kisal, you presented your personal definition of art as the ‘artificial decoration created purely for aesthetic reasons". When I put those two definitions together, I think back to my time in the Army. One of our jobs in preparation for any particular mission was to camouflage ourselves (There's even a chapter in the Army handbook that gives you step-by-step instructions on how to handle and apply the camouflage, for our more intelligent soldiers, that just can't quite manage without directions). And since I'd been involved in the arts, it was fully expected of me, by my squad, to paint their faces up in one crazy green, brown and black color scheme or another (Usually KISS, Alice Cooper, Sting, etc. you know) But, is that art? Is the act of creating effective camouflage, itself an art, such as Marine Corp Snipers and their gille (sp?) suits. (Their incredible, by the way! I've trained with them at various times, and you just cannot see them...ever! They disappear and you never find them!) How about movement with stealth, in the forest, remaining unseen, which is, if I'm not mistaken, what Goldie was driving at? Is it not a discipline of the body and mind, moving through the forest, stealthily, feeling with your feet for loose twigs to avoid and solid, quite footing to step on, while your eyes ever scan the woods around you, ducking under branches, stopping, crouching, listening; A discipline of the body and mind together, perhaps like the dance arts and the martial arts, which are both disciplines of the body and mind? There is a book (check amazon on the particulars) that combines all of the above, and is entitled, "The Art Of Camouflage".
Kisal said also, ‘camouflage...to me, is purely a survival effort...cave art and pictographs (were)...created to please the various "gods" or "Spirits"...in the hope of gaining their aid or good will in hunting or magic'. Very true. On the other hand, isn't ‘the hope of gaining aid in hunting', broken down in its purest form, a ‘survival effort' in itself? So, perhaps it comes down to intent? Does an expression need to be intended as an art form, to be art?
Art is a reflection of the society that creates it. Many lesser species of animals have social structures, and from a good bit of testimony (arguably, like every other aspect of this mystery), Bigfoot seems too, as well. We consider architecture to be an art form that reflects the society of its creator, the world around him, and what knowledge that world possesses, as we celebrate those architects as artists. When I saw photos of Bigfoot ‘Dens', where the creatures have allegedly bent small trees and saplings over to create dome-like dwellings, I wondered if that might not be the expression with intent, needed to qualify the creature as having produced a work of art? Is the intent there? Is it in proper amounts? Is it a ‘survival effort' or ‘a reflection of his society?'. Perhaps it as not intent that we should be looking for? Perhaps the question might be in simply creating something? Is the act of creating something, from the extent of one's knowledge of his/her environment (such as the Bigfoot Dens), enough to concede the creation a work of art? If so, then are our assembly lines creating works of art. Do we assume the draftsmen of a hot Ford Mustang, an artist? How about the auto manufacturers who assemble 20 a day? Their creating something? Should we define it as art? Maybe we should just look it up in Websters and move on?
As a footnote, Jim, you obviously know your stuff, but are you sure that your sources, dated the first "true", or written language at 50,000 B.C.? You said that you had a problem with that date, and I tend to agree, unless I am misunderstanding your use of the term "true" language, as being that of art itself, defined as language. The way I understand it, however, the first written languages were either (still being debated) Cuneiform, invented in Mesopotamia, around 3200 B.C., during the Uruk City-State Period, or Fayum A, from central Lower Egypt dated at approximately 4400 B.C., from the Egyptian Pre-Dynastic Period. I didn't know that the Neanderthal appropriated art ideas from the Cro Magon Man! That is really interesting!
Posted on Jul 26, 2002, 1:12 AM from IP address 208.11.228.37