Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He may not play Purple Haze or even Three Blind Mice, but would he create his own kind of music if alone his whole life?
Yes, it's possible he might be able to thump out some pathetic little tune by slapping some stones or popping a stick against his head but I don't think he'd be playing Carnegie Hall anytime soon.
Yes, it's possible he might be able to thump out some pathetic little tune by slapping some stones or popping a stick against his head but I don't think he'd be playing Carnegie Hall anytime soon.
Hank Aaron learned how to play baseball by hitting bottle caps with a broken broom-stick...when he got the proper tools, he became a legend. Would it not be the same with Mozart if humans were simply cave dwellers who were just like most solitary animals?
Hank Aaron learned how to play baseball by hitting bottle caps with a broken broom-stick...when he got the proper tools, he became a legend. Would it not be the same with Mozart if humans were simply cave dwellers who were just like most solitary animals?
What you're saying is very true but flashing an attractive coloring of feathers to attract a hot bird is very different from something that we learn through a society. The OP seems to be talking about advancements that involve language and culture which we learn about and communicate with one another.
There are some birds who build nest to attract a mate. Than they flash the color. Primates aren’t that far from that situation and they will flash a bit of color at times too.
Hank Aaron learned how to play baseball by hitting bottle caps with a broken broom-stick...when he got the proper tools, he became a legend. Would it not be the same with Mozart if humans were simply cave dwellers who were just like most solitary animals?
I have to admit that it's an interesting thought to imagine someone who was as naturally gifted as Mozart or Leonardo da Vinci in such circumstances. However, your example of Hank Aaron learning how to grasp the basics of baseball by swinging a broom stick seems different than the complexities of a musical instrument. Swinging a bat isn't much different than swinging a stick except that if you're really good at it you can become famous as a baseball player and very few players are gifted with those athletic talents. Music, on the other hand, involves a kind of language of it's own that I don't believe a single individual could simply invent within a human lifetime, even if it was Mozart. My whole point is that all of the advancements in human society are built upon the knowledge of previous generations and this needs to be taken into consideration when you're talking about human progress. Inventing music would be like inventing language, one person can't do it by themselves, it's an accumulation of knowledge.
There are some birds who build nest to attract a mate. Than they flash the color. Primates aren’t that far from that situation and they will flash a bit of color at times too.
Dammit, I know it, but I've tried putting up flashy billboards and neon signs next to my nest and I still can't seem to attract a mate!
I think we ought to gather several expecting mothers - especially those in the third trimester - and study what their babies are doing en utero. My daughter would kick to the rhythm of music we were listening to. Can't get any more isolated than prenatal! So, from that, I believe there is an inherent creativity in man that will come out...although it may never be observed/appreciated by anyone other than the one who created it. After the creator dies, his art dies unless and until societal contacts are made to pass along the art.
Say man never reproduced in large numbers and ended up solitary like many different animals in nature, would there still be art, music and literature?
June suspects that the potential for the above would continue to exist in man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6
Would man bother to be creative if there was nobody else around?
Where does "creativity" stem from, and what is it in reaction, response to? Why it develops, and the process of how it develops would appear to be at the root of the issue. -Is it only dependent upon others, (ie, "a society") in either it's origins or definition?
June is weighing in, for now, with thinking that no, it's not.
I think if man were alone he would have even more need to be creative. Art is an expression of your thoughts and feelings. If there was nobody there to share those feelings and thoughts with physically or verbally then art would be the only option left. We have so much that goes on in our minds (well, most people do) that we would go crazy without some form of expression. Have you ever spent a few days without any human contact? It really can drive you nuts, your thoughts go round and round and become more abstract and less in tune with reality as time goes on. The natural inclination is to express yourself in some way before that happens.
Each persons individual area would be a true expression of themselves because ,not being social, we would not decorate or arrange anything to fit in with social norms or to impress anyone else. We would probably not have the technology that we have now because most things have been invented with the idea that it will be of benefit to other people. If we don't care about other people then why would we worry about what would make their life easier? As individuals we would probably still be living as gatherers of wild foods, but only hunting small animals because larger animals require a group effort.
I wonder though, who would raise the children? How much would the child be taught before being pushed out into the world on its own? We could still develop in small ways because we do need some parental care for survival of the species. Just how much could the child be taught and how much further can that child take that information before it is time to pass it on to the next generation? Development might be a lot slower but it would still happen. I guess to take that thought further, different family lines would develop at different rates according to intelligence and natural abilities. Would we evolve in different directions and create entirely new sub-species over a vast amount of time?
It seems to June that someone who is truly creative will create regardless of his/her surroundings, or for that matter, circumstances. As Rilke said, the poet/writer creates because he "has" to...Is driven to. Artists have gone to great lengths (and often times absurd ones, at that) despite the lack of any acknowledgement and/or recognition by others. -Or knowledge on the part of others that they are even in the process of doing art.
If June is a creative person, and you remove/isolate her from society, she would still create. (Am not saying that I am creative by any stretch of the imagination, as that, in and of itself, would require huge amounts of creative thinking just to imagine June as creative.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP seems to be talking about advancements that involve language and culture which we learn about and communicate with one another.
P.s.
