4 Answers

  1. I don't believe in the fourth theory of the origin of art. I can come up with a dozen different hypotheses and it will be absolutely meaningless!

    Any baida about the fact that ancient people reacted to reality in this way? Or were you trying to connect with the gods? Or maybe you wanted to please your children with rock paintings? Did the aliens bring it?

    Conjectures made up by amateur art critics! They have the right to exist , but no more.

    By the way, what kind of art are we talking about? If we talk about the visual arts, then we must understand that it is younger than the decorative and applied arts, which were born out of utilitarian needs.

    The meaning of human existence has been and remains unchanged for thousands of years. Eat, sleep, and reproduce. If these three basic needs are met to some extent, then all sorts of thoughts and additional desires wake up.

    Think at your leisure, scribble something on the wall, come up with a wheel for efficient delivery of loot, etc. You can sing while identifying yourself!

    But when art already exists, is classified and studied well enough, then the thought arises: What is it for?

    And then it becomes clear that some people are looking for functions in it, all sorts of utilities.

    It turns out that these utilities are very different: from simple – I watch and enjoy it, I will hang a picture to cover the spot on the wallpaper, to buy, sell and get a lot of money.

    For those interested in the genesis of thinking on this subject, I recommend Pelevin's book AI FAK, sorry for the French, which very clearly gives an idea of the place of art in a stupid human head.

  2. Only the individual determines what art is, where it comes from, and how it affects it. Imposing someone else's vision, opinion and ratings is not acceptable for me. I write only for myself and do not impose my thoughts on anyone else. Verbiage is not for me. To me, one word of truth is more precious than ten volumes of lies. Art, for me, is Nature that does not learn from anyone, but Creates!!! Her work, for me, is a true art and I enjoy this art every day, every hour and every minute. The function of art is to study the knowledge of life, to improve the knowledge of the world in which I live, this is what I live, this is Me in Nature and Nature in Me. We Are one!!! With respect.

  3. Art-1. The highest incentive for the revival of the spirit.

    1. Transformation of a person (to bring them closer to understanding beauty). 3. An exponent of the characteristics or character of the people.

    Knowledge is an art. Science is a technique.

    There are more than 4 theories of origin ( hypotheses). But none of them is in harmony with my worldview.

    Isusstvo was not born. It has always been there, because it is a phenomenal expression of the universal principle of love.

    In other words, this spark is present in every creature of Creation. Here is the link to “fish artist”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMNb5C2OTMQ

    In other words, art is the potential for the evolution of the spirit (consciousness). A person who does not have this spark is Frankenstein.

  4. I prefer the theory that most closely correlates with historical science.

    Each of the theories has a “sound grain”, but only one of them can “see to the root”.

    Consider, for example, game theory. It is correct in the sense that a person needs activity, which means that if there is no work, then a person will “find” it for himself.

    But what is at odds with this theory? It is clearly at odds with the fact that humanity has always had more energy and free time (as tools have improved more and more), but even we do not have enough time now.

    “Free time” first appears among the elite strata of ancient societies. The accumulation of means of production (private ownership of cultivated land) led to the enslavement of others, lowering them in status to the level of “additional hands” of their master.

    Thus, who had time in ancient times, so it is only the layer of rulers, owners and the stratum of the “””intelligentsia “”” (in three quotation marks). The others couldn't have had time.

    So it is not art and play that have distributed social roles, but social roles that have opened up opportunities for “professional” art.

    Thus, this theory is correct for many reasons, but it is wrong in the main one.

    What's the best part of magical theory? Magic from the point of view of materialism (and not from the point of view of magic) is an attempt to reflect on the surrounding reality. Art also reflects the surrounding reality.

    What's wrong with the magic theory? In fact, it does little to reveal the” source ” of art; it only chronologically shows where it might have originated. In this case, in the cultural era of modernity (“the era of enlightenment”), art had to significantly lose its position, turn into something like a religion. Whole societies would have to give up art, just as they would have to give up religion.

    We will not discuss whether it is good to abandon religion or not, but the fact remains that if art originated from magic and did not become “valuable in itself” (and this theory, I repeat, does not explain what exactly happened to art, that it suddenly became valuable in itself), then this means that art would have to die, like magic.

    However, we see the opposite. Thus, although this theory is probably true in fact, it does not explain what actually happened in the end, why art survived.

    All biologizing theories are always destroyed by the question ” why can't animals do this?”. Humans differ from animals in that they transform the world, forming a new kind of matter that is higher than biomaterial: social matter. And to understand what people are doing now, as well as “where they are” (what is their personal and common place in the world), they use reflection (see the point about game theory). Apparently, they did without instincts and other things.

    Of course, a person is flesh and blood, and our emotions can really be considered as fluctuations of some hormones. But the fact is that for people, for transforming the world, hormone fluctuations are just a mechanism that, in principle, could be something else (just as the same program can be written in many different ways).

    The labor theory may seem too pragmatic, but let's not forget-earlier, for people, the very reflection of the world around them was perceived as something sacred. The same was true for something effective – any interaction with the world was just mixed with “magic”. For example, writing was perceived by most ancient peoples as a great secret, despite the fact that many of these scripts chronologically arose from the needs for banal “accounting”.

    Also, this description of “from labor” for social matter is compatible with the constructive part of game theory.

    As for the main functions of art, globally the main function has always been the same: art is a part of reflection in the public and personal consciousness, the beginning of the” bridge ” between sensation and explicit vision on the way to solid knowledge.

    If you choose “from the list” (social-transforming, artistic-conceptual, educational, aesthetic, consolatory-compensatory, anticipations or suggestions), then I find it difficult to choose, because some functions are just rehashes of each other (for example, educational and suggestions), and some can even merge into one in particularly critical situations (for example, artistic-conceptual, socially-transforming, anticipations and even consolatory-compensatory in addition to them).

    But I would probably personally choose the social-transforming, consolatory-compensatory and “suggestion-education” function. About the latter: sometimes in art some examples are given, which we, as they say,”leave on the subcortex”. This dependence is not direct, because a work of art can simply not be perceived (you don't even want to get acquainted), but in general, I personally can hardly imagine my development without a variety of moral examples from art and without my attempts to repeat the deeds of my favorite characters.

Leave a Reply