Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
you misread me, csflim. it is exceedingly difficult to argue that a person's motivation in expressing creativity, especially abstract creativity, is a direct result of genetic pressures for survivial. that's genetic determinism at it's most close minded, and i believe, it's most errant.
You later make the point that we must not ignore nurture...and i would strongly concur.
|
My point was that art is a result of us having a disposition towards the "emotion" of creativity, and that creativity in of itself does have inherrent surviability benefits.
To put it another way, nothing that an artist does is going to contribute towards his/her survivability, but art is a manifestation of our need to create, and that "need to create" does have a very strong survival benefit.
And yes, after re-reading my post It did in fact appear as though I came off sounding like a "genetic detrminist" or a "social evolutionist", hence the footnote in my second post. My point is not that evolution is the be all and end all in life, but rather our "instincts" and "emotions" have all formed due to evolution.
How we use these emotions/instincts is a result of our personal intelligence, and the environment we find ourselves in.
So I am of the belief that it is "nature" which creates us as we are, but it is our "intelligence" or "society" or "nurture" which determines which traits rise to the surface, and how they manifest themselves.