[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology

[G.H. Hovagimyan]

gh comments:
I believe that all art is based in the language function of the  
brain.   I also think that the cognitive sciences are having a  
profound effect on our understanding of art.  As a corollary I think  
that the form of religion, the creation of the god myths throughout  
the world comes from two separate survival instincts in humans. One is  
the ability to believe that something is there even though we can't  
see it. This is pretty handy when tracking animals on a hunt or  
hearing a noise in the trees and understanding it might be an animal  
about to attack you.  The other part of the brain that is reasoning  
always attaches a causal relationship to events even if one is not  
there.   God exists even though we can't see him/her.  Anyway,  Art  
and aesthetics are abstract functions of language. They are "word  
games" ala Wittgenstein on a certain level.  BUt I also believe that  
artists are experimenters. They make things and do things because they  
want to see what will happen.  An artist usually doesn't know the  
outcome of their creative process. They try to surprise themselves.  
This surprise is the basis of creativity.   It's quite different from  
craft or design where the outcome is known and the process is one of  
advancing to the already known outcome.  This is one of the basic  
problems with art in a capitalist society.  Commodities have to be  
known, fixed and quantifiable  in order to be given value so they can  
be bought and sold.  The more there is a fixed outcome for an artwork  
the easier to attach a value to it but the less creative  
experimentation is involved in the process.
Considering the topic of art as a social process and a group/community  
effort that point of view and process, engages the language function  
and also spurs on creative experimentation for members of the group.   
I always find that group collaborations strecth my point of view and  
open up news ways of perceiving things and methods of making art.  By  
the way, the other discussion of art as a part of religion is bogus.   
religions go to artists and architects and ask them to come up with a  
language or composition that somehow expresses the unknowable of their  
religious dogma. Art is external to religion it doesn't come from  
religion or a religious impulse.
On Jul 4, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Yunzi Li wrote:

> or him, everything is translation, which is closely related to his  
> view that seeing actions as manipulation in "Grammars of creation".  
> Isn't it?

G.H. Hovagimyan
http://nujus.net/~gh
http://artistsmeeting.org
http://turbulence.org/Works/plazaville