Certainly, no one knows how Paleolithic people thought about their cave paintings etc. And to reinforce that argument, we know that the Egyptians for example did not think of their statues etc as 'art' (they had no word for 'art'), and that the same goes for many other cultures - including our own prior to the Renaissance.
But works from all these cultures have become 'art' for us - since about 1900. So when I say that 'art' was invented at least as early as the Paleolithic, that is what I mean. Large numbers of works from all those cultures are among those which today we regularly call art. Of course that raises the very interesting question of how works that were not created as 'art' have become 'art'. I refer you to Malraux for the answer. (No other theorist, amazingly, has even discussed the problem!) DA On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:09 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't accept Derek's argument that art came before > science (it's embarrassing to even join in such a > ludicrous debate) when he's pointed out, redunantly, > the obvious fact that no-one know what the paleolothic > people were thinking when they made images. Also, one > can argue rather convincingly that "art" did not begin > until around the time that modern science began. > There's no doubt, however, that what we would call > psychology and what we would call art had their early > antecedents in human history both through magic and > practical coping with daily life. > > WC > > > --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Re: 'In regard to > > speculating about their origins, the question might > > be whether > > art or science came first in the evolution of > > humanity. ' > > > > Given that science in the current acceptation of the > > word did not really get > > under way until the 16th/17/th century, and art > > began in Palaeolithic times, > > if not before, the answer seems to me fairly clear > > cut. > > > > DA > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Frances Kelly > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Frances to William and others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dealing with any relation that might exist between > > art and > > > science remains a complicated thorn for me. In > > regard to > > > speculating about their origins, the question > > might be whether > > > art or science came first in the evolution of > > humanity. It seems > > > clear that in the evolution of humans their > > intelligence must > > > have came before their art or science, because a > > dumb brute brain > > > cannot be filled with the signs and symbols of art > > or science, or > > > language for that matter. The causes of art and > > science in any > > > event would of course seem to lay with the growth > > of humanity, > > > but not necessarily within the realm of knowledge. > > Even > > > primordial persons and primitive peoples after all > > engage in such > > > acts. This implies that these acts are grounded in > > biotics and > > > anthropics, rather than in ethnics and epistemics. > > The > > > determination of objects being art and science > > would therefore > > > lay initially with feelings, rather than mainly > > with knowings. > > > This then is a fuzzy contradiction for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > What the artist and the scientist may have in > > common is the > > > "independent" awareness of their feeling or > > knowing the very > > > objects and actions they engage. They should after > > all pursue > > > their activities for its own sake, and expect > > nothing in return > > > for the effort. It may be that the artist wishes > > to feel what the > > > form of an artwork really might be and for the > > pure sake of it, > > > even independent of being aware of feeling it, but > > whether the > > > artist in so feeling has the same feeling > > simultaneously towards > > > art as a typical class itself is unclear. In other > > words, the > > > artist engaged in doing art may not care about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the particular token as say an artifice, and > > its global tone > > > as say some artfulness, and the global type as say > > the art, are > > > all felt together at once by the artist in the one > > artwork, then > > > this suggests that tonal qualities and typical > > classes can very > > > well be as objective as the token fact that > > carries or implies > > > them; and independent of mind. This is a > > metaphysical conclusion, > > > but would be supported by idealist realism and its > > naturalist > > > pragmatism. Furthermore, if art and science are > > held to be > > > objective global classes, then the forms of art > > and the laws of > > > science must also exist objectively and > > independent of mind. The > > > factuality and the actuality of such existent > > classes and forms > > > and laws would exist independent of mind, but the > > reality of such > > > things would be dependent on subjective sense and > > thus mind. > > > Under such a realist approach even imagined > > fantasies and deluded > > > illusions and fictional figures and alien worlds > > would be justly > > > sensed as real. The artist in doing their art may > > assume a goal, > > > be it the substantive manifestation of attributed > > essences as a > > > reality, which implies some "dependent" awareness > > in > > > contradiction to mainly an "independent" > > awareness, but then all > > > art in being pursued for the sake of the pursuit > > itself tends to > > > suggest that art is functionally functionless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > William wrote. > > > > > > I don't see this issue as very complicated. A > > > > > > scientist wants to know what a thing really is, > > > > > > independent of our knowing it. That's the goal. > > It's > > > > > > understood that some part of knowing is > > subjective,
