Why do some people keep trying to explain artmaking as a product of mental impairment? And why do some people try to explain artmaking as a product of verbal and social incapabilities or maladjustments? Where are the measured facts and what are they? To say that some people with brain damage make art is not to say that brain damage is the cause of artistry. One could not even reach that conclusion rationally if all people who were brain damaged practiced artmaking. When will educated people -- including those who take art and matters of the intellect seriously -- stop relying on myths to explain art and when will they stop assuming that the explanation of myth constitutes a scientific basis for art analysis? Who, precisely, are the nutty ones, artists or their mythologists? wc
----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 4:29:26 AM Subject: Could there be a neurological basis for the compulsiveness of artists? According to the following recent article: - The injuries damaged the left side of his brain and impaired his short-term memory and language skills, among other things. But because the left side of my brain was so damaged, the right side worked twice as hard, Johnson said. Art became an obsession. I could not stop doing it. http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/arts/armory-art-center-names-first-emerging -artist-981070.html
