[-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology

[G.H. Hovagimyan]

I believe the cognitive scientists say that language is acquired and  
learned at an early age and it has to do with establishing neural  
paths. This establishment of neural paths stops or slows down  
dramatically after a certain age. (Is it 4 years old?) From there the  
social aspects of language take over. It seems to me that self is  
formed first and then the self interacts with the group.   If you  
trace that teleology and map it onto the art making process, a person  
first make art because of some desire to express the self. From there  
art becomes a social activity in it's natural path to communicate.    
OF course all humans have both the self and the social as a system. My  
feeling is that art is a dissociative state.  I also think that the  
first symbolic abstraction of cave paintings was the manifestation of  
that dissociative state.  It's a step back from the social and the  
world  and a recognition of a linguistic system.

On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:

> As for art being akin to language and both being somehow hard-wired  
> into the
> brain...this is contentious territory. This Chomskian view, popular in
> neuroscience and other empirical domains, that regards language (and  
> thus
> many aspects of self) as determined by cerebral biology is in direct
> contradistinction to a view that would regard language and self as  
> emerging
> from the social. It is basically the old nature/nurture debate re- 
> hashed.

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