In the previous post I wrote about the National Geographic article on Göbekli Tepe (NatGeo June 2011). I used it as evidence for my statement that art today derives its origins from religious rites and activities. In the article, the writer says “What [Göbekli Tepe] suggests, at least to the archeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred – and the human love of a good spectacle – may have given rise to civilization itself” (p. 40). Respect for what is sacred – i.e. the human sense of the sacred – is the etymological definition of the word religion. All observation shows that from his origins, the human being has had this sense, motive, or inclination, an inner urge so to speak, of reverence for something he deems sacred, set apart above him. And that sense prompted the activities we today call the arts – rhythmic chanting, drumming, singing, bodily movements; sites built and decorated with carved and painted objects were transformed into musical forms and instruments, songs, dance, fine art, sculpture, and many others activities familiar to us today.
Can we know more about that sense, that inner urge? Or are we to be resigned with admitting it is there and just dealing with the various ways it exhibits itself in life? I’m not satisfied with that. To me, that would mean missing the very essence of that motive, and risking getting tangled up in unprovable hypotheses. I would like to know more.
Art and the Invisible 