because it's there?
Why do we create? I mean, as a species.
I look back to this summer while backpacking out in the desert and the encounter and small talk with the lone German Tourist on the trail. She had a wooden flute with her. It's clear it was her self-defense flute. When crossing paths with strangers far from civilization, apparently having a cudgel (musical or otherwise) at hand gives some comfort. But let's assume that she didn't carry it around solely for self-defense. Assume for the moment that she was hiking in the wilderness without water, food or extra gear. Shorts, T-shirt, sneakers, flute, camera. She wasn't planning on staying overnight.
So she consciously packed her flute. To play it out in the desert. Why? What does that mean to her? She's the only one who will hear her. And she's not the only one . There are visual artists or writers who never exhibit or publish in their lifetime. Their works are found only after their death.
"It's just a part of the human spirit - to create" is too easy an answer. To what end do we do? If we have free will, that conflicts with compulsion by some extra-corporal forces like environmental/evolutionary pressures to create art. If it were some complex form of sub-/pre-/meta- mating ritual performance, the solo artist would be an evolutionary dead end. It would have been eliminated from our genetic repertoire long ago.
It is an act of anthropological vandalism? Make a mark on the world to prove we were here. Not wanting to feel alone in the world. For some taggers, spray paint on a boxcar that travels across the country takes them to places they never otherwise would go. For some breeders, their children are the "me I never was".
On the desert trail, rock cairns mark trails, but when you come across an alcove filled with them, it's not just marking the path. It's a statement. The first cairn marked a path. The second one wasn't redundant - is said "Kilroy was here". After the 20th or 30th, maybe it becomes a competition. Creation as a competitive act?
Or is it just boredom? Too simple there, too. Sure, in boredom, idle tapping can become a rhythm, a beat, a song. Doodles become an image. But the intentional, planned, staged effort of sculpture or performance? That's not boredom. Boredom with the addition of a competitive streak, evolved beyond its source or origins, maybe.
7 comments:
Being creative for one's own enjoyment is somehow in question?!?! To me it would seem foolish to create with the intent to show others unless there was something in it for the creator (no, not talking about some 'god' here). I mean, I can understand the boy bands ca$hing in, I can understand making gifts for others that one thinks they will like, but playing music on a street to throngs of people (most of whom would rather just go about their business) I just don't get.
No, it's not "in question" in the sense of a judgement about it. I mean creation of anything not directly or indirectly linked to species/individual survival. In this case, I mean artistic expression when there is neither vanity, exhibitionism, profit, ego, social standing, courting, posterity, etc. involved.
If art occurs in the forest and there is no one around to appreciate it - does it have purpose? Is it art? And if so, why did the artist create it when no one would appreciate it. And if not, why did the artist go to the effort?
Given the hermit-on-the-mountaintop scenario, "aesthetics" is the only answer I can come up with. But when it's a hermit on the mountaintop, aesthetics begins to lose meaning, neh?
Ah, but you seem to be missing the obvious; the person creating is doing it for their own pleasure/enjoyment, not for someone else's. Now, that does not answer any questions about why evolution would not rid the world of this evil... sort of like masturbation if you think about it; serves no evolutionary/reproductive purpose, no profit, courting, prosperity... Why go through the effort?
Is that a silly analogy? Of course, but that was the point - a pleasurable solo activity that serves no purpose other than pleasure (and that everyone should be able to relate to).
Oh, and I am guessing that your hermits masturbated too :-)
Why didn't I think of this before hitting the publish button...
What if your German tourist's flute was intended as a sex toy? Would that make it better? Easier to comprehend why it would make the trek across the pond and end up in the desert?
As far as imported-flute-as-sex-toy goes... I highly doubt it. It was clearly bought locally, of Native American design. And the brandishing of it on the trail was neither because I interrupted her masturbatory escapades, nor a 'come hither' flirtation. Really, I was there... you're just going to have to trust me on this.
More importantly, it's beside the point. The presence of "The German and the Flute" is only a trigger for the larger topic of art creation and isolation.
--------------------
From whence is the pleasure of creation derived? When one creates for purposes of ego, courtship, posterity... causal links are easily made.
But pleasure... if one uses the pleasure of masturbation as an example - it has roots in evolutionary pressure. Pleasure of fucking (and masturbation is a sensory proxy for fucking) propagates the species, therefore when it's pleasureable, it has evolutionary benefit. Fairly clear how masturbation can have causal roots.
But pleasure in the result of solo, isolated creation of inanimate objects or transitory visual/audible events? I'm not suggesting that there can't be pleasure from that. But is it only because that notion of pleasure is derived from society? (i.e. ego, courtship, posterity)
Can that pleasure of creation occur ab inito? And if so, from whence does it come? Success in causing it to occur? That's too easy - that's a form of ego.
I guess I'm leaning to the notion of creative art as a societal manifestation. That the human child raised by wolves will likely never create art, but the human child raised in a society where it might compete for mates, or mark territory, will.
You were holding out on an important bit of info there... The observation that her flute was new/locally produced and she is traveling probably says that she has nowhere private to try out her new toy. So, she was out where she wouldn't bother anyone playing with the new toy.
Now, of course that doesn't answer the real question of why create when it is not going to be shared. My thought is that the creation part is separate from the exhibition part for the person creating. When a musician composes/writes (i.e. creates) I bet it is not in front of an audience. When that same person has an audience I bet they are not really creating, just replaying. Same goes for the painter, sculptor, etc.
The creative phase is generally solo, but we as the audience are not privy to that by design. So, we end up glossing over that and assuming that the creation happens in the same environment that we experience the creation.
As for weather the urge to create is biological or societal - who knows and who cares; too complex and too frightening of an experiment to figure out for sure (think Nazi experimentation here).
Just enjoy the creations.
Give up on the German Tourist. Her motivations, buying habits, lodging accommodations, and masturbatory intent are irrelevant. I'm using her as a foil for the issue in the abstract.
The audience/exhibition part of art is specifically what I'm NOT talking about. I'm talking about the creation of it when there is no audience, no viewer. And there's a difference between ideation, creation, and exhibition. When it's music performance we're talking about, composition falls into the ideation segment - the execution on an instrument is creation, and if there's an audience, it's exhibition. For sculpture or paintings, sketches and thoughts are ideation, making the art object(s) are the creation, and putting it on display is the exhibition.
>When that same person has an audience
>I bet they are not really creating, just replaying.
There are plenty of jazz musicians/composers who will heartily disagree with you about "replaying" and where the art lies in the process.
>As for weather the urge to create is biological
>or societal - who knows and who cares; too
>complex and too frightening of an experiment
>to figure out for sure (think Nazi experimentation
>here).
That biological vs. societal urge is the whole point of the rhetorical question in the original post. Yes, it's complex.
Who cares? I do. I wouldn't have spent any time thinking about it or writing about it if I didn't.
And one doesn't need to resort to unethical experiments on humans to ponder the topic. Pulling Nazis into it is fairly irrelevant as well. And the question can't be answered by experimentation. There are many questions of law, economics, philosophy, etc. that CAN'T be answered by experimentation, let alone shouldn't. Doesn't make them any less valid.
>Just enjoy the creations.
No.
In this case I'd rather think about, experience, not experience, or argue about creating. "Just enjoy" is not enough for me.
Post a Comment