4 ms·
To me the more interesting question is: did Neanderthals value art? Could argue all day about what is and isn't art and if they created artifacts that fit the
by protonimitate 4y ago
To me the more interesting question is: did Neanderthals value art?
Could argue all day about what is and isn't art and if they created artifacts that fit the definition, but what I'd really like to know is "did they appreciate things purely for aesthetics and cultural relevance, and not utility?"
- nautilius 4y ago> "did they appreciate things purely for aesthetics and cultural relevance, and not utility?" Many animals do, even sharing their sense of aesthetics with human taste. Just look at how flowers evolved to some form even we find pleasing without any skin in the game, or how animals that live in total dark (deep sea, for example) are atrociously ugly.
- darkerside 4y agoWhy do you say they evolved with our taste? Isn't it just as likely we have tastes that suit what happened to evolve naturally?
- nautilius 4y agoI didn't say that at all. I said they evolved to their current form, which we happen to enjoy.
- the_af 4y agoI think "create art" and "value art" are essentially equivalent in the context of the question we are pondering. You cannot argue they made art if there was none to appreciate it as art; art doesn't exist without an observer.
- dendrite9 4y agoThere was an episode of In Our Time about cave art that features a discussion about the art not being solely for utility. Unfortunately I cannot find a transcript and I can't remember when the discussion came up. Still, if you are interested you might want to listen or look at some of the further reading links. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mqn7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000mqn7