Again the definition of art expands. This is why we can't have a conversation. It's like trying to grab hold of a live fish. This is what happens when you collapse categories into each other & eschew the rule of non-contradiction. Reasoned discussion becomes impossible.https://twitter.com/Luke_Turner/status/948297759718891526 …
-
-
Might be an interesting rabbit hole to dive down. And I guess the definition of art *is* slippery
-
Language came well before anything we would recognise as art, at least based on all known historical evidence. To say without art there is no language is both wrong in fact and meaningless even as a metaphor or provocation.
-
Interesting. Do you have citations for that?
-
Sorry, no single source at hand but any general search on evolution of language (spoken, signs obviously much earlier) and history of art gives the relevant time lines. Lang believed to have evolved least 100,000 yrs ago (method still unclear) known art much more recent.
-
The 100,000 year mark doesn’t seem to have consensus, but cave paintings (those they have been found/lasted) have a solid date of about 40,000. Earliest written language goes back to about 3,000 b.c. http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/oldest.cfm …
-
Thanks for the share Helen! Gonna be down this rabbit hole all night now
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
