All cultures have their creation myths. Our
current equivalent is the theory of evolution. According to this narrative everything
started with a big bang, followed by accidental chemical reactions congealing
into life. The rest is due to competition and to the survival of the
fittest.
There is something impressively unifying about
this theory, but also something depressively limiting. Can we really reduce Rembrandt’s
self portraits, salmon returning to their breeding grounds, the Cathedral of
Chartres, a poem by Keats, a mother looking into the eyes of her newborn, the
dialogues of Plato, the homing of pigeons and the sermons of Buddha to vagaries
of chemical change? How do we explain the gap between the survival of the
fittest and Beethoven’s Ninth?
From one perspective the theory that
reduces everything to accidental changes is an understandable conclusion to
reach. What if we change the perspective and look at the same facts through a
different lens? What if we examine evolution from the perspective of
creativity? What if, as a thought experiment, we assume that creation is an
artwork rather than a chemical chain reaction?
If we do, the first artworks to meet us are
single-celled creatures of bewildering variety and form: the semifluid amoeba,
the Proteus of early life; radiolaria encased in finely chiseled silica
calques, looking like elaborate helmets, complicated crowns, utopian minarets
and intricate flasks; dynamically curled foraminifera with their porous casing
of chalk, floating like organic sculptures in the primal sea.
The artist earth explores every possible expression
of form and experiments with extravagant shapes. Haeckel, who investigated
these early manifestations of life, aptly called them ‘Art Forms in Nature’.
Variety is matched by abundance. Though
these early productions are invisible to the naked eye, we owe mountain ranges
to their unbridled productivity.
The single cell style is followed by more
complex creations such as two layered sea anemones and sponges. Then
multi-layered starfish and sea urchins emerge. Complexity increases with
mollusks such as jellyfish and snails with their soft body and hard shells.
Millipedes, centipedes, insects, spiders and crabs also belong to this oeuvre.
These early works lack an interior skeleton
and thus they have no solid backbone that centralize the nervous system.
Without this unifying agency their nervous system remains peripheral, spread
out on the surface of the body.
The next productions of the evolutionary artist
are fish. Fish achieve what invertebrates lack: an interior skeleton, a solid
backbone that centralizes the nervous system and supports the brain. What
remained external with invertebrates becomes internal with fish. This ‘taking
into the body’ what was previously outside it is the working method of the
artist earth, her style.
When amphibians follow, they internalize
what for fish remains peripheral: breathing. Fish do not fully breathe. They
take air from water passing through
their gills on the body surface. Frogs and toads internalize this peripheral
breathing by developing lungs.
Able to breathe air, amphibians venture on
land. Yet their landfall is not complete. Their moist skin remains dependent on
water. They must stay close to the pond.
This changes with the next production of
the artist earth. Reptiles seal their skin and thus overcome the amphibian
dependence on water. The body of a frog relies on the body of water around it.
A lizard carries his pond inside his skin. His circulatory system is
independent. Again an exterior function becomes an interior one.
Now the artist is ready for flights of
fancy. Birds take to the air. This time it is warmth that becomes integrated.
Reptilian warmth still relies on external warmth. In winter snakes become cold
and listless. Birds lift themselves from this clammy condition. They carry
their own summer inside their feathered coat. Think of the Arctic tern keeping
an even temperature while flying from pole to pole; or of penguins surviving in
the ice-swept deserts of Antarctica.
When mammals appear another step of
integration follows. This time it is the reproductive system. Birds have no
uterus and therefore cannot complete the maturation of their offspring inside
their body. They help themselves by constructing an external substitute: the
nest. Mammals take childbirth into themselves. They develop a uterus and ‘nest’
the egg cell inside it. The outer has again become the inner.
With regard to reproduction, mammals have
freed themselves from their surroundings. Not so in other respects to their
behavior. Their responses are fixed and
closely tied to their environment. This is clearly expressed in their limbs
which are highly specialized. A horse can run, a bat fly, a dolphin dive, and a
squirrel perform gracefully in trees. Their hooves, wings, fins and claws fit
tightly into the world they inhabit.
Human behavior is not determined by the
environment. This too is reflected in the limbs. The hand cannot dig like an
echidna, tear like a lion, or beat the air like a bat. It cannot compete with
fins or wings. In fact it cannot do anything particularly well, but everything
a little. The function of the hand remains universal rather than specialized.
The same applies to human behavior. It is not
predetermined, but remains open.
The animal is compelled by the outside. The
dog must eat the bone when hungry and an elephant bull mate when in musth.
Human beings can modify their behavior, even change it. They have a measure of freedom and with this
measure of freedom the possibility to create.
At this point the earth produces for the
first time an artwork that is itself productive: the human being. This step
relocates the field of creative action. Nature only reproduces from this point
in time, but does not create anything new. From now on no new species are
brought forth. New works emerge exclusively through the medium of the human
mind.
How the creativity of nature gradually
turns into the creativity of the human being can be studied in the stages of
ice age art and beyond. At first the whole of humanity shares one style of
artistic expression. This early style remains the same for seven millennia and
extends over vast areas of the inhabited earth. Gradually the pace accelerates.
Styles start to last five, three and eventually two thousand years. As the pace
quickens, styles become more diversified and restricted to particular areas.
Eventually local cultures such as Sumeria,
Egypt and China arise. Artistic expression becomes particular to a people.
Styles are markedly distinct. We can easily distinguish Chinese from Egyptian
artifacts made at the same time. The life span of styles lessens. Now they last
centuries rather than millennia.
In Greek times this process accelerates
further. The style of Greek sculpture changes about very thirty years. In the
Renaissance the speed of development intensifies even more. An exemplary artist
like Michelangelo contributes much to the style of his time. But he does not
stop there. In his ‘Slaves’ he begins to outgrow his age. His ‘Laurentian
Library’ already announces Mannerism, the next style to come. His monumental
execution of ‘The Last Judgment’ is baroque long before baroque. In his final
works he completely transcended his age. His ‘Pieta Rondanini’ could be easily
placed among twentieth-century artworks.
A Greek sculptor like Phidias created one
style and stuck to it. Michelangelo produced many. What began in the
Renaissance has evolved since. It would be easy to fill a gallery with ten
artworks of Picasso and convince a layman that they are by different painters.
There is little similarity between the poetic melancholy of his blue period,
the staccato of the cubistic phase and the furious intensity of his later
works.
Creativity however is not restricted to
artists. They only exemplify the trend. Today everyone is creative. Throughout
our lives we learn, change, and reinvent ourselves. Our biographies are
inevitable artworks. Whatever we do (or don’t do) leaves its trace on the
canvas of the world. We are global artists by default.
I think we can safely predict the next
step. At this point in time we utilize creativity without fully experiencing
it. If we do, it is a brief event. We speak of the proverbial lightning flash,
that short bright moment when we see in an instant what may take a long time to
formulate.
In other words our experience of creativity
remains peripheral: sensed, felt, and sometimes seen in a timeless moment, but
never encountered in full. The conscious experience of creativity is still
external to us.
To integrate this capacity, to experience
it in its reality rather than in its effects, is the next evolutionary step. It
is what T. S. Eliot must have meant when he wrote:
‘We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.‘
To ‘know the place for the first time’
means to fully experience the source from which nature as well as we derive. In
nature this source has ceased to create. In us it is still alive as the
unobserved, active dimension of our thinking, the extraordinary part of our
ordinary consciousness.
To collaborate with this dimension is
crucial for all who want to contribute constructively to the future. It will
change the way we see the world and deal with it. Above all it will provide us
with a different story about evolution than the one we currently have, a story
that can encompass both the workings of nature and Beethoven’s Ninth.
For my views on evolution I am deeply indebted
to the work of the German biologists Wolfgang Schad and Friedrich Kipp (see
below).
Wolfgang Schad ‘Säugetier und Mensch’
Verlag Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart, 2012
Friedrich Kipp, ‘Childhood and Human
Evolution’ Adonis Press, Ghent, New York, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment