Response to Natalie

I do not think that animals can produce art because as far as I know animals do not have a concept of art and produce objects with specific goals in mind and not for the pleasure of creating them or having others view them. If animals developed a concept of art and used it, then they would be creating art. If they created something purely for the emotional pleasure it brought and it did not have a practical use that would also be art even though it lacks the understanding of the concept. That being said I do not think a soul is a necessary component for the creation of art. I do think that the possession of emotions and the desire to express these emotions in a physical representation is necessary. If the soul is necessary to produce art, then to produce art one needs to have a spark of the divine and it becomes a god given talent instead of a naturally developed one. I am not inclined to say that art is a form of divine experience although it is a strongly emotional one. I think that if people lack souls, they can still conceptualize art and as long as they can do so they can create it. A question that develops then is why people choose to create art. I think that people probably create art as a way to express things they do not know how to express in language. This can be in Tolstoy’s sense where art is its own language of communication of emotions or in Freud’s where it is wants and needs that go unrealized in the person’s conscious mind. Art is an expression of people’s feelings and with so few ways to express emotions in a way that is accepted and appreciated by society, producing art may feel like a compelling need for certain people. If people connect the soul to deeply felt emotions then I can see why people would describe the soul as a necessary component of art. People do seem to connect the soul with emotions. One of the definitions of soul on dictionary.reference.com is “the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments”. They have another definition that seems even more fitting for art, “deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.” The problem I have with saying that a soul is necessary for art is the religious component where the soul is an immortal aspect of a person given to them by God.   I also do not know why people would possess souls and animals would not, but that is a religious question and this may not be the best venue for it.

If people stopped creating art what would the consequences be for individuals and society?