<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My Theory of Human Evolution (red stained glass edition)</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/07/21/my-theory-of-human-evolution-red-stained-glass-edition/</link>
	<description>Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Karin</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/07/21/my-theory-of-human-evolution-red-stained-glass-edition/#comment-29420</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2007/07/21/my-theory-of-human-evolution-red-stained-glass-edition/#comment-29420</guid>
					<description>Art exists because humans have a drive to create...  relevant art exists because some humans are in touch with universal trends, or what Carl Jung termed the 'collective unconscious.'
Technological, and other scientific advances, can be driven by artists (because of their heightened receptivity to the aforementioned zeitgeist and their need to create media for its expression).  However, I would disagree that art exists solely because artists were inspired by material gain (i.e. payment). Certainly, notable artworks (e.g., Lascaux cave paintings) were created during the human hunter-gatherer period and predate any form of trade economics.
It would make more sense to say that science exists because of art (when art is defined as the product of the human drive to create).
It should be noted that non-secular art, such as stained glass dating from the 7th century and later, had motivations not strictly limited to patronage and profit. Moreover, there is a critical difference between a craftsman and an artist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Art exists because humans have a drive to create&#8230;  relevant art exists because some humans are in touch with universal trends, or what Carl Jung termed the &#8216;collective unconscious.&#8217;<br />
Technological, and other scientific advances, can be driven by artists (because of their heightened receptivity to the aforementioned zeitgeist and their need to create media for its expression).  However, I would disagree that art exists solely because artists were inspired by material gain (i.e. payment). Certainly, notable artworks (e.g., Lascaux cave paintings) were created during the human hunter-gatherer period and predate any form of trade economics.<br />
It would make more sense to say that science exists because of art (when art is defined as the product of the human drive to create).<br />
It should be noted that non-secular art, such as stained glass dating from the 7th century and later, had motivations not strictly limited to patronage and profit. Moreover, there is a critical difference between a craftsman and an artist.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
