Is this why people produce art?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Anthropology Forum » Is this why people produce art?

Page 1 of 1

Author

Message

Martin Phipps

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:21 am

Guest

http://www.memecentral.com/

The science of evolutionary psychology is based on the premise that
people behave in such a way that their genes will be passed on. Thus
living a long time, having a lot of sex and caring for are children
are all things that we do instinctively. If people do not do this
then their genes do not get passed on and after a few generations all
you have are long living, horny parent types.

This does not explain why we create art. Creating art does not help
us pass on our genes. But I was thinking that maybe the analogy
between memes and genes can be made use of if we think in terms of the
group rather than the individual. I mean, it doesn't make sense to
say that a person has "culture" in the sense that it is used in
anthropology, does it? I mean, an individual displays behaviour. It
is only when a whole group of people show or at least more than one
person in a group shows the same behaviour that it can be considered
their culture, right?

So we have a group of people with a culture. How do they pass down
their culture? Their culture isn't passed down genetically. The one
way to pass down their culture is to create art and writing that will
be passed on to future generations. This would mean that all art is
educational in nature. Presumably we are encouraged from a young age
to create art to enrich our culture and thus have it survive. If
famous paintings and buildings and sculptures and writings exist then
a culture has not been forgotten even if the group itself dies out.
For that matter, just as our DNA carries all the information about our
physical forms, each member of a culture carries within him or her the
language and basic traditions of that culture and is capable of
passing his or her culture on to his children. Even if an individual
from one culture marries someone from a different culture there is the
chance that the children can pass on elements of each culture in the
same way that they pass on their parents' genes.

Of course, the analogy can be extended such that natural selection can
be applied: presumably those cultures that have died out were not "fit
to survive" for whatever reason. I guess this is where I need to ask
another one of my stupid questions. Do cultures die out when they
don't produce enough art? Do cultures thrive when they produce art?

You know, having just asked that question, I would have to say "Yes,
obviously". I mean, look at Japan. Nowadays Japanese culture is
spreading worldwide because of Pokemon and other manga/anime.
American culture is spread through Hollywood and MTV. Indian culture
is spread through Bollywood. Chinese culture has spread throughout
Asia because teachers travelled to other countries and taught the
Chinese language and customs. I'm wondering at this point if I am not
just stating the obvious when I make these statements.

I also have to wonder if we really need to distinguish between "pop
culture" and "alternative culture". I mean, if "culture" is not
popular, what chance does it have of surviving? There is therefore a
motivation for making art as interesting, creative and original as
possible. Certainly, great artists and writers have achieved a sense
of immortality even if we don't actually know their names: even those
who don't recognize the names Mary Shelly, Bram Stoker or Arthur Conan
Doyle will know the names Frankenstein, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes.

Here's a more serious question. Is it really a bad thing when a
culture dies out? Yes, we might have missed an opportunity to learn
something from another culture but it also might be a natural process
a kin to the extinction of a non-viable species. Mind you,
naturalists shed a tear over the extinction or endangerment of modern
species so I suppose the same argument applies there too. The scary
thing is that ultimately globalisation would eventually have us all
speaking and reading a mix of English and Japanese, both of which are
cultures that have been influenced, if not created, by other cultures
(French, German, Korean and Chinese) and that would ultimately mean
the extinction of all other cultures.

Wow. Maybe that's what the (mainly Muslim and Arab) terrorists are so
afraid of? Could it be that those of us in the dominent cultures just
mentioned (English, Japanese, French, German, Korean and Chinese) are
really excited about globalisation because it ultimately means that
our memes will be passed on while those in other cultures are
literally terrified of the process and are being encouraged to strike
out against it? I have never thought in those terms before. Am I on
to something here or am I just being a kook?

Martin

Tedd Jacobs

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:46 am

Guest

"Martin Phipps" wrote...

<snip>

Quote:

So we have a group of people with a culture. How do they pass down
their culture? Their culture isn't passed down genetically. The one
way to pass down their culture is to create art and writing that will
be passed on to future generations.

that is one way of passing it on, but not the only way. there are numourous
patterns of social learning including oral tradition and "play" that are used to
teach.

<snip>

Quote:

Of course, the analogy can be extended such that natural selection can
be applied: presumably those cultures that have died out were not "fit
to survive" for whatever reason. I guess this is where I need to ask
another one of my stupid questions. Do cultures die out when they
don't produce enough art? Do cultures thrive when they produce art?

You know, having just asked that question, I would have to say "Yes,
obviously".

there may be an indirrect relation between the two, but survival is not based
solely on production of art, nor is art the sole product of culture.

<snip>

Quote:

Wow. Maybe that's what the (mainly Muslim and Arab) terrorists are so
afraid of? Could it be that those of us in the dominent cultures just
mentioned (English, Japanese, French, German, Korean and Chinese) are
really excited about globalisation because it ultimately means that
our memes will be passed on while those in other cultures are
literally terrified of the process and are being encouraged to strike
out against it? I have never thought in those terms before. Am I on
to something here or am I just being a kook?

LOL, you're being neither. i find yours to be an interesting conclusion and one
that could go even deeper with the issue of dominance, but i feel realistically
you are over extending the analogy a bit.

btw, welcome back martin, nice to see you again. Smile

tedd.

Martin Phipps

Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:08 am

Guest

"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<N6UAb.484$eg3.53199@news.uswest.net>...

Quote:

"Martin Phipps" wrote...

Of course, the analogy can be extended such that natural selection can
be applied: presumably those cultures that have died out were not "fit
to survive" for whatever reason. I guess this is where I need to ask
another one of my stupid questions. Do cultures die out when they
don't produce enough art? Do cultures thrive when they produce art?

You know, having just asked that question, I would have to say "Yes,
obviously".

there may be an indirrect relation between the two, but survival is not based
solely on production of art, nor is art the sole product of culture.

snip

Wow. Maybe that's what the (mainly Muslim and Arab) terrorists are so
afraid of? Could it be that those of us in the dominent cultures just
mentioned (English, Japanese, French, German, Korean and Chinese) are
really excited about globalisation because it ultimately means that
our memes will be passed on while those in other cultures are
literally terrified of the process and are being encouraged to strike
out against it? I have never thought in those terms before. Am I on
to something here or am I just being a kook?

LOL, you're being neither. i find yours to be an interesting conclusion and one
that could go even deeper with the issue of dominance, but i feel realistically
you are over extending the analogy a bit.

Maybe. I know after I posted this, I could have cited Spanish,
Italian and Hindu as successful cultures with Latin pop, opera and
Bollywood. I know it is starting to sound like I am trolling at this
point, doesn't it? Really though, it also occured to me that French
people have been unusually paranoid about their culture being lost,
especially French people in Quebec who admittedly find themselves
surrounded by English speaking people what with the rest of Canada and
the United States, so maybe I spoke too soon when I said that French
people might consider themselves as one of the world's dominent
cultures, although realisticaly with people in thirty countries around
the world speaking French they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

It is also true that from what I've read in the popular press, I've
never had a satisfactory explanation for why certain terrorists hate
Westerners so much. Indeed, the argument in the popular press is
usually that governments subtlely encourage people to hate the West so
that people have something other than their local leaders to blame for
their misfortunes in life but it makes more sense (to me anyway) if
these people were seriously afraid that Western culture would come to
dominate their own and that that would ultimately mean the end of
their language, their religion, their way of life, etc. For whatever
reason, these issues do seem to matter a lot to people and it would
seem to be a more realistic motivation than the subtle propaganda
theory. It would explain why some people hate not only Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

Martin

Teres

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:05 am

Guest

quote:

Quote:

It would explain why some people hate not only >Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying >to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more >constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

First of all I just want you all to excuse my English. It's really bad but I
just hope you'll at least understand the basic ideas I'd like to share with
you.

Martin: You're right! It IS far more constructive to understand than to
invade, murder and rape! Are you a US citizen? I've never been to the US but
I'm really curious of how a government with one of the most imperialistic
foregin policies nowadays legitimate their actions to their own citizens.

Believe me: It's not hard to hate the US, nor Europe. (I'm not talking about
individuals here...). The US is the only superpower nowadays. That means
"they" are the only ones able to invade whatever country "they" want,
whenever they want. Unfortunately "they" often DO and when they don't they
just support paramilitary groups in the country to do the dirty work.

Here in Europe we often say that the US think they are the police of the
word. The US seem to have monopoly on "good" and "necessary" violence. Why?

Well, here we're back at your interesting discussion of cultural imperialism
and the power of identity politics (although you didn't use those words).
"The west" (US and Europe) seem to have complete monopoly in defining words:

WE (and only we) know what "democracy", "human rights", "the human nature",
"justice", "peace" etc. is.
AND we know EVERYBODY wants our "democracy", "human rights" and so on...

Now: our verison of the world and of "the good life" is only one of many
possible. It is (like every other) historically, culturally and socially
specific. The only problem is that we act as if it was a universal (basic,
human, natural) fact. That is - in my words - called cultural imperialism
and is in the case of the US mixed with armed imperialism.

Sometimes imperialistic attempts meet resistance.
Sometimes people adapt and create something new. Sometimes people just
assimilate.

The resistance, adaptation and/or assimilation can be made in very different
ways depending (of course) on context. Some have the power, will and
knowledge to make armed resistance. That is what happened 11/9.

I do NOT want to justify terrorist attacs. Neither US invasions (certainly a
very powerful form of terrorism) nor other smaller group's violence. I just
want you to note that what happened 11/9 usually happens in countries that
have other definitions of "justice" and "democracy" than the US. For example
Chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan. And that the ones dropping the bombs
usually are US soldiers.

I know my English is bad and that it's difficult to write good in this
reduced time and space. I'd like to recommend you some books though:

Cowan, Jane et.al. (eds.) "Culture and Rights: anthropological persectives"
2001 Cambridge University Press [Examines so called "human rights"]

Lewellen, Ted C. "The Anthropology of Globalization" 2002 Bergin & Garvey
[cultures getting in contact in a not-so-equal world]

Gutman, Amy "Identity in Politics" 2003 Princeton University Press [I'm
reading it now I can't tell you anything about it yet, seems good though.]

Wolf, Eric R. "Europe and the People Without History" 1982 University of
California Press [a real classic: globalization in the 15'th century!
identity, resistance, adaptation, assimilation in world history. one of the
best books in the world!]

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland has written a book about what happened 11/9 and the
picture of islam in the west. Extremely interesting but i doubt is has been
translated to English and I don't think it will ever be published in the US
(you have your censorship too you know...). Anyways, in English the title
would be "Behind the image of the Enemy" Read it if you find it:
anthropology goes useful in making politics!

Well, Martin, hope you understood at least part of my English.

Martin Phipps

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:28 am

Guest

"Teres" <nyabingui@yahoo.es> wrote in message news:<EhhCb.37835$mU6.134955@newsb.telia.net>...

Quote:

quote:
It would explain why some people hate not only >Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying >to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more >constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

Martin: You're right! It IS far more constructive to understand than to
invade, murder and rape!

I don't wan't to get into a political discussion. I just wonder if
those of you who study anthropology professionally have applied
darwinism (ie natural selection) to explain the development of
cultures as opposed to species. I wondered if the "survival of the
fittest" would be a valid way to look at the collision of
globalisation vs. terrorism.

Quote:

Are you a US citizen?

No. I am Canadian. Does it matter? I get most of my news from CNN.
Theyt aren't exactly unbiased when it comes to the issue of
globalisation. AOL-Time-Warner would be the world's formost advocate
of globalisation. So if terrorism is a response to globalisation, I
certainly didn't get that idea from watching CNN.

Martin

Crwydryn

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:07 am

Guest

On 13 Dec 2003 02:28:19 -0800, phippsmartin@hotmail.com (Martin
Phipps) wrote:

Quote:

"Teres" <nyabingui@yahoo.es> wrote in message news:<EhhCb.37835$mU6.134955@newsb.telia.net>...
quote:
It would explain why some people hate not only >Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying >to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more >constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

Martin: You're right! It IS far more constructive to understand than to
invade, murder and rape!

I don't wan't to get into a political discussion. I just wonder if
those of you who study anthropology professionally have applied
darwinism (ie natural selection) to explain the development of
cultures as opposed to species. I wondered if the "survival of the
fittest" would be a valid way to look at the collision of
globalisation vs. terrorism.

The short answer to your question is: yes, there are types of
anthropology that rely on the concepts of evolution to explain
cultures. Functionalism comes to mind, for example.

However, I'm afraid the conception of evolution you used in your
original post was a bit off the mark; the kind of inter-cultural
conflict you're talking about isn't really consistent with it in my
opinion.

However, you might find this book interesting:
Huntington, Samuel P. "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order" London: Simon & Schuster. 1996

ISBN 0-684-81987-2

Quote:

Are you a US citizen?

No. I am Canadian. Does it matter? I get most of my news from CNN.
Theyt aren't exactly unbiased when it comes to the issue of
globalisation. AOL-Time-Warner would be the world's formost advocate
of globalisation. So if terrorism is a response to globalisation, I
certainly didn't get that idea from watching CNN.

The anthropology of globalization, and the responses to this process
in various parts of the world, is quite a complex area. You should be
able to find all manner of reading materials on it. By the sounds of
it, you'll be wanting to focus on the political economy dimension
rather than the ethnographic.

--
Kevyn Winkless kevyn at the-winkless.net

Fidel Castro was elected to a sixth term as Cuban president Thursday. He is
greatly loved there. Sure he's a brutal dictator, but thanks to Fidel
Castro, ninety miles of shark-infested waters separate Elian Gonzalez from
Michael Jackson.
- Argus Hamilton

Tedd Jacobs

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:05 pm

Guest

"Martin Phipps" wrote...

Quote:

"Teres" <nyabingui@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:<EhhCb.37835$mU6.134955@newsb.telia.net>...
quote:
It would explain why some people hate not only >Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying >to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more >constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

Martin: You're right! It IS far more constructive to understand than to
invade, murder and rape!

I don't wan't to get into a political discussion. I just wonder if
those of you who study anthropology professionally have applied
darwinism (ie natural selection) to explain the development of
cultures as opposed to species. I wondered if the "survival of the
fittest" would be a valid way to look at the collision of
globalisation vs. terrorism.

yes.
herbert spencer discussed social evolution years before darwin published. after
'origin of species', it later came to be known as 'social darwinism' and/or
'spencerism'.

there is also 'evolutionary ecology', 'unilineal' and 'multilineal evolution',
developmental stage models, and a few others used by varying aproaches.

Martin Phipps

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:59 am

Guest

"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message news:<xeJCb.28$Wt5.41456@news.uswest.net>...

Quote:

"Martin Phipps" wrote...
"Teres" <nyabingui@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:<EhhCb.37835$mU6.134955@newsb.telia.net>...
quote:
It would explain why some people hate not only >Americans but
also everything that America stands for. Maybe trying >to understand
why people come to feel the way they do is a more >constructive
approach than invading yet another country.

Martin: You're right! It IS far more constructive to understand than to
invade, murder and rape!

I don't wan't to get into a political discussion. I just wonder if
those of you who study anthropology professionally have applied
darwinism (ie natural selection) to explain the development of
cultures as opposed to species. I wondered if the "survival of the
fittest" would be a valid way to look at the collision of
globalisation vs. terrorism.

yes.
herbert spencer discussed social evolution years before darwin published. after
'origin of species', it later came to be known as 'social darwinism' and/or
'spencerism'.

there is also 'evolutionary ecology', 'unilineal' and 'multilineal evolution',
developmental stage models, and a few others used by varying aproaches.

ok

You know, after reading Teres post, I realise that the analogy I made
might not be that useful after all. I mean, certainly Americans talk
about "preserving their way of life" so why wouldn't other people feel
the same way? Maybe I don't really need to develop a "theory" to
explain something that people in the West should be able to figure out
for themselves, namely that people in other parts of the world have
their own "way of life" and might not see how the American way of life
is so much better. I suppose darwinism could be used as an argument
that the American way of life is better: American (and Japanese)
culture is taking over the world so it must be somehow more "fit" to
survive. I wonder if anybody tried making the same argument about
communism back in the fifties!

Martin

Tedd Jacobs

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:03 pm

Guest

"Martin Phipps" wrote...

Quote:

"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<xeJCb.28$Wt5.41456@news.uswest.net>...
"Martin Phipps" wrote...
"Teres" <nyabingui@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:<EhhCb.37835$mU6.134955@newsb.telia.net>...

You know, after reading Teres post, I realise that the analogy I made
might not be that useful after all. I mean, certainly Americans talk
about "preserving their way of life" so why wouldn't other people feel
the same way? Maybe I don't really need to develop a "theory" to
explain something that people in the West should be able to figure out
for themselves, namely that people in other parts of the world have
their own "way of life" and might not see how the American way of life
is so much better. I suppose darwinism could be used as an argument
that the American way of life is better: American (and Japanese)
culture is taking over the world so it must be somehow more "fit" to
survive. I wonder if anybody tried making the same argument about
communism back in the fifties!

this may be a stretch here because i'm shooting off the top of my head, so
someone correct me if i am wrong, or elaborate if i am close. i seem to remember
something about marx referring to dawinian principles, though i think it was
more as a reversal. (help here).

granted it wasnt in the 50's, i am sure there was someone out there arguing for
it being dawinian (or "evolutionary"). there always is. marvin harris argued for
it at one point i think.

sorry i'm not of much help,... it's sunday and i'm scatter-brained prepping for
finals this week. Smile

darth_versive

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:59 pm

Guest

phippsmartin@hotmail.com (Martin Phipps) wrote in message news:<df8f4cb4.0312070121.1d4bd139@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

I agree. Art is one aspect of culture in the modern sense, and the
fact that our species is capable of using culture in the modern sense
set us apart, I believe, from other hominid species which lacked this
ability. This was a trait upon which natural selection operated.

So, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, art is important, and
it *did* help us to pass on our genes, since it's part of a cultural
web that binds us into a more tightly-organized social network than is
possible for those species which lacked this behavior pattern, and
this type of social organization gave us competitive advantages over
other hominid species which lacked it, I believe.

DV

Chesapean

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:16 pm

Guest

Hi Martin,

May I offer an idea on why people produce art?

Perhaps it is not so complicated as "transmitting culture," a process
that would have dubious economic value for survival, as you point out.
Maybe the econonic value of art lies in its potential for transmitting
technical knowlege across generations when other means (like books and
libraries) do not exist.

For example, hunting stories can describe the skills needed to be
successful at hunting. If they are embelished to make them
entertaining, they will be retold, and the internal message about the
necessary skills will be passed along.

Thus, the people with the best "art" can become those with greater
economic success in nature, potentially displacing or absorbing their
human competitors whose "art" is not so good.

Just a thought....

Regards,
Chesapean

Page 1 of 1 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:14 am Science Forum Index