Jane Ellen Harrison talks about the "common human impulse" that brings rise to art and ritual. This impulse finds its existence in early man's "manifold occupations, hunting, fishing, fighting, later ploughing and sowing...."
What I find interesting about this idea is the insistence that the impulse is common to all mankind. Not everything is into artistic expression anymore. Does this mean that certain impulses have been repressed through different activities in individuals? Are they not aware of this common impulse? This is almost a border line scientific question. But it is clear that not everybody in antiquity was "into" the arts. Plato definitely did not have much respect for them and set his gaze on other activities.
While I do believe that a common human impulse exists, I think it would be interesting to learn about the philosophy of art for those who really do not enjoy art. Can they still grow to appreciate why art exists without ever really growing to appreciate the art itself? If the art is fulfilling for the artist a certain impulse, what are they using to fulfill that impulse? Is it equal to art or somehow less adequate? Ultimately, what I am asking is about the perceptions of those around us. What makes us properly human, if art fails to be the connecting factor.
No comments:
Post a Comment