This is what I always thought?! Boris Shoshensky -- William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The trouble I have with this view is its implied assumption that no two cultures share anything aesthetically material. There is always form and a peculiar sameness to the way humans make form despite the differing symbolic purposes of form. Since human beings share universal genetic traits and have a demonstrable genetic genealogy, it is extremely unlikely that they can compose societies, symbols, forms, etc., that are wholly distinct from one another. The most elemental common thread among humans is a preference for altering natural form. The best example of this is of course the prehistoric, paleolithic cave images. We can share their exlemplification of form even if we have no concrete ideas of their purposes or symbolism.
WC ____________________________________________________________ Click for FHA loan, $0 lender fees, low rates & approvals nationwide http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4tEH3RVVA2lpVsIBPputFiay A5DCk30TfLnJnuvRGADHQemo/
