When I say 'artistic abilities', I'm including any group of creative endeavors that we would normally call artistic (musical instruments, song, dance, etc.). I'm not just referring to visual art. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

840 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 14 years ago by MelLowStar

Which do you think appeared first in humans: language or artistic abilities?
When I say `artistic abilities`, I`m including any group of creative endeavors that we would normally call artistic (musical instruments, song, dance, etc.). I`m not just referring to visual art.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 27)

Bottom Last Post

14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 2:55:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
To be honest, I can't bring myself to answer this question. Either answer makes sense.

Did art come first? It doesn't take verbal-language communication for one to look around and take stock of his/her environment; the creation of visual art is a step away from that, I'd think. All you need for visual art is the resources and a "something" to reproduce or represent.

Did music come first? How hard is it to clap out a basic, evenly-spaced "one, two, three, four" rhythm? Surely the first humans understood the concept of rhythm--it's integral to biological processes, and it occurs in nature constantly. If early humans were to clap one-two-three-four and move to it, that clapping would have become humanly-organized sound with attached social significance, which is one of many ways one could define "music."

(cont.)

14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 2:58:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
You do not need language in order to appreciate music.

However, language could have come first. Assuming that the first music was not rhythm alone--that it was sung--it could be argued that language would have had to predate the first humanly-organized, socially-significant "music."

I hope my non-answer is clear.

14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 3:01:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think that artistic abilities came first because language is too complex to suddenly develop and music/art can be quite immediate to the brain
14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 3:06:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
Art, i think. Because art is a way to express ourselves. But it doesn't always have a clear meaning enough to communicate with other people. So human race had to come up with another solution: language.
14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 7:40:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'd say that the artistic abilities came first.
14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 8:55:03 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's hard to say, but maybe a way of communication came first.
14 yrs ago - Monday 6/4/07 - 9:08:59 PM EST (GMT-5)
i think it depends on what constitutes "language," early humans were surely able to communicate to a greater extent than our fellow apes, but that is not to say that they do not. At what point do various grunts and noises, that are understood to have meaning, become language?
14 yrs ago - Wednesday 6/13/07 - 5:08:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 9:09:00 PM raisinman wrote:
i think it depends on what constitutes "language," early humans were surely able to communicate to a greater extent than our fellow apes, but that is not to say that they do not. At what point do various grunts and noises, that are understood to have meaning, become language?

I think any system of communication is a language no matter how simple.

14 yrs ago - Wednesday 6/13/07 - 5:12:49 AM EST (GMT-5)
Only an anthropoligist can answer this question. What is the point in speculating on something I know nothing about?
14 yrs ago - Friday 6/15/07 - 4:23:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/13/2007 5:12:49 AM Expectations wrote:
Only an anthropoligist can answer this question.

Neither language nor art leave a definite record behind that tells anyone with absolute, undeniable certainty which came first. If language came first, how would we know? We can find artifacts with recorded language (stone tablets, scrolls, etc.) and date them, but it doesn't tell us when language first appeared. We'd obviously have to have language before having a written system to represent that language, and words themselves don't leave any physical mark behind them that we can date. Unless someone invents a time machine, we have no way of knowing when dead languages that pre-date writing systems began.

14 yrs ago - Friday 6/15/07 - 4:26:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
Similarly, if art came first, how would we know? Visual art usually leaves its mark (cave paintings, sculpture, etc.), but this isn't necessarily true for performance arts like dance or music.
There can also be a confusion between language and art. If we find a cave or stone tablet with indecipherable scribblings on it, is it art or written language? How can we know?

On 6/13/2007 5:12:49 AM Expectations wrote:
What is the point in speculating on something I know nothing about?

You know, it *is* possible to give a properly thought-out opinion on this question without being an anthropologist, as you'd see if you read the other posts. By your own admission, though, you have nothing intelligent to add. Why post?

14 yrs ago - Friday 6/15/07 - 4:41:11 AM EST (GMT-5)
so I can see how many people have nothing better to do than get self rightous about it.
13 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Monday 7/2/07 - 6:37:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
Language came first. Art was initially (and still is mostly today) a form of communication, and therefore language whereas language isn't always artistic.
13 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Monday 7/2/07 - 6:40:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
Generally the presence of cave paintings etc is treated as an indication of the presence of language, as language itself wouldn't leave much of a record. Art gives an indication of some notion of cultural communication, so I would imagine that that ability came before the intention to do so.
13 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Tuesday 7/3/07 - 2:21:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
depends on the definitions really, vervet monkeys are thought to have some form of language in that a certain sounds refers to snakes, one for eagles and one for leopards and they all act accordingly when the sounds are played on a tape.

I doubt that they have any form of art so I will say language.

13 yrs ago, 11 mos ago - Friday 7/6/07 - 5:19:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
humans could talk since the day they were created by God.
13 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Monday 8/13/07 - 11:11:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
Language is a form of art, however.
13 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Monday 8/13/07 - 11:17:42 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 7/6/2007 5:19:54 PM woot45 wrote:
humans could talk since the day they were created by God.

are you serious?

13 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Monday 8/13/07 - 11:27:39 AM EST (GMT-5)
Ohhh tricky, Chimpanzees are known to have their own verbal language (this was first demonstrated by giving a chimp different pieces of fruit and recording the sounds it made. These were then played back to another chimp while showing them a pictures of a variety of foods, the Chimps would indicate the correct fruit 100% of the time), at least one chimp was taught to speak english (but it was found that the Chimp voice box just isn't made for human vocalizations) and many have been taught sign language and communication through the use of keyboards. But they don't have art so.....
13 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Friday 8/17/07 - 2:15:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 8/13/2007 11:17:42 AM glennh70 wrote:
On 7/6/2007 5:19:54 PM woot45 wrote: humans could talk since the day they were created by God. are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious, the evidence pointing to God is undeniable, and most of the evidence for evolution is faked, and the rest is impossible. And atheism is just stupid.
13 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Friday 8/17/07 - 2:17:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
And glennh said the 'are you serious' part.
13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 9/22/07 - 8:25:58 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 8/17/2007 2:15:21 AM woot45 wrote:
On 8/13/2007 11:17:42 AM glennh70 wrote: On 7/6/2007 5:19:54 PM woot45 wrote: humans could talk since the day they were created by God. are you serious? Yes, I'm serious, the evidence pointing to God is undeniable, and most of the evidence for evolution is faked, and the rest is impossible. And atheism is just stupid.

And your proof/arguement that evolution is fake is...?

You're saying atheism is stupid. So now you can't complain if someone says christianity is stupid because they're basically saying the same thing as you.

A lot of evidence pointing to God is deniable - People who believe in him believe in him through FAITH ALONE. Evidence of God'e existence COULD be seen as blasphemy. Technically.

If god created humans then he was pretty damn stupid. (J/K)

13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 9/22/07 - 9:59:36 AM EST (GMT-5)
the funny thing is that people on these threads seem to assume that we choose to be atheists and then start researching the subject to look for reasons.

I know that I for a fact try to look at every argument about the existence of God from a neutral perspective and atheism is simply where that process led me.

13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 9/22/07 - 12:34:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 6/4/2007 2:55:31 PM MoltoAgitato wrote:
To be honest, I can't bring myself to answer this question. Either answer makes sense.

I agree with this, and I don't understand how this thread, in less than 25 posts, has become another in a long line of evolution debates.
Fellow Christains, please heed my advice. Stop pushing the Christian agenda on every thread on here. Haven't you figured out that most non-believer lump us all into the same category of nut because people like you have to bring religion into every thread. There is no more strong eveidence regarding the existance of God than there is supporting Darwin's theory. Stop ramming The Bible down people's throats.
I am a believer, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore educated scientific research. I have faith that God exists, but I don't claim to have any proof.
Let the athiests and agnostics have their beliefs. They are just as entitled to their beliefs as we are to ours.
13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Saturday 9/22/07 - 1:23:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 7/6/2007 5:19:54 PM woot45 wrote:
humans could talk since the day they were created by God.

So why have I never heard a new born baby speak?


Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 27)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Do you find it easy to accept help when you need it?

2 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

3 Are you a feminist?

4 Should athletes be required to stand for the National Anthem while playing for their national team?

5 Are mass shootings an acceptable by-product of the right to bear arms?

6 Do you believe in free will?

7 Did you purchase a gun during covid?

8 Should advocating self harm or suicide result in a permanent ban?

9 Would you make love with your clone?

10 How do you view dead baby jokes?

More Questions
 
Edit