Human Creativity
“The human infant is a wild animal which must be tamed and trained before it is fit for society. To it must be imparted the culture which is artificial in the sense that it has been created by man, and is not a part of his natural inheritance. But there is danger that this artificial culture will take the place and exclude much that is natural and spontaneous. Thus books take the place of experience, art of the enjoyment of nature, conventionalised morality and formal courtesy of humanitarian relations, and institutions of persons.” - Maurice Parmlee, The New Gymnosophy
Do creative arts replace, or supplement, the enjoyment of nature? Whether prehistoric cave paintings or recent academic studies, depiction of people, animals and nature has always been a primary motivating factor for creative expression. It serves as a reflection of its creator's social and religious norms; it conveys cultural value; it is a symbol of beauty; and, may even have practical utility.
The earliest known artworks include decorated caves from the Upper Paleolithic period (c.38,000 - c.12,000 BCE), dozens of which exist in modern France and Spain. Artists from all different times, places, and civilizations have found human and living forms to be especially fascinating subjects of their work. Many of the oldest artifacts that have survived and are today considered to be examples of "art" either show the human form or attest to the existence of humans, and artists have proceeded to wrestle with this topic through postmodernism and even beyond. Because of the power and personal significane of the human image, its depiction in artwork has the ability to offend viewers and has even been made illegal at various points in history. Despite this, society continues to argue over whose image should indeed be memorialized in artwork and how it should be done so.
When it comes to understanding aspects of personality such as race, sexuality, racial and ethnic composition, and the like, the human body plays a key role. People will modify their appearance by making changes to their body, hair, and clothes in order to conform to, rebel against, or send messages to others who are in their immediate environment. A great number of artists investigate gender via figurative depictions of the body as well as by the incorporation of their own bodies into the creative process.
The 1960s as well as 1970s were indeed a time of social unrest in the United States as well as Europe, with one of the most significant movements being the fight for equal rights for women in terms of sexuality, reproductive freedom, the family, as well as the workplace. This movement began in the 1960s and continued through the 1970s. The perpetuation of romanticized notions of the female figure in Western art and culture, which were almost always created by males, became the subject of investigation by artists as well as art historians who started looking into the matter. Artists that identified as feminist recovered the female body but also represented it using a wide range of perspectives.
Around this period, the human body began to play yet another significant role as a resource that artists used in the creation of their work. The actions that an artist performs as part of a piece of performance art are considered to be the most important aspect of the piece itself. The term "performance art" was first coined in the way earlier 1960s, when the artistic subgenre was just beginning to gain popularity. Many artists found that by including their bodies into their performances, they could not only challenge notions of gender but also assert their authority over their own bodies.
A number of theists have held the notion that every living thing is a piece of art, even if they believe that God is the true artist. However, based on how we now conceptualize art, it would be quite challenging to think that the act of giving birth to and raising children is truly the creation of art; it is very normal to find pleasure in one's own child, but every individual has an existence of their own.
Others do not think that any god created existence. In point of fact, the nature and origin of things has been conceptualised in a variety of ways, including some ancient theories which came remarkably close to those of modern physics. The Roman poet and Epicurean philosopher Lucretius, for example, puts an end to genesis narratives: He explains to us that atoms have indeed been perpetually traveling, yet they have also been constantly veering in one direction or another. As a result of this random, disordered motion, the future of events in the universe cannot be predicted. In a similar vein, these atomic detours make it possible for people to escape the cycle of causal occurrences. Lucretius, thus, gives free reign to creativity in nature, “'tis each man's will itself that gives the start, and hence throughout our limbs incipient motions are diffused.” De Reum Natura, Book II, lines 271-273
There have been artists who have created works of art out of their bodies; and, there have been philosophers, such as existentialists, who have theorized that we each can consider our own existence as an artistic creation of which we each are our own artist.
The urge to be creative, like the urge to explore nature, arises at a young age, despite that museums and galleries don't often give much space for displaying works by children so they can be seen by all. Genuine works of art are generally considered to be the property of the artist, as a product of their skills and labour. Perhaps artworks could be distinguished from natural phenomena partly because they seldom have wants of their own, speak back to the people who created them, go to school, and finally move out to live a life of their own? Is art a manufactured disguise to hide the nature of reality; or, is nature a clothing for art?
Blog post authored by Amelia Linda