“Marks are important only if they can be shown to be anthropogenic- that is, made by humans. For markings to have value, they must be artificial” (Malafouris, 185).
Why is the cognitive effort of participating in artificial creation inherently valued by humans? Is the interactive mental process of marking or “scribbling” in some ways, more valuable than the visually symbolic (outcome) representation being produced by that same marking or scribbling? I like to think of all the necessary steps that were required for paleolithic cave painting along with any other form of environmental marking so long ago. There was a concentrated effort needed to gather proper materials and conscious organization in order to make the printed exchange of ideas between mind and environment entirely possible. Recognizing this effort is critical when attempting to distinguish particular symbolic value relevant to a carving, marking, or drawing. The paint, along with the hand that is manipulating it, collaborate in transparency with one another, growing into a dynamic comparable to a performance. The performance alone, can often be the harbinger of personal relief and accomplishment. Witnessing the creative actions and research intensive steps being taken by fellow classmates in preparation for our conclusive 3D production, I can see the similarities in exalting efforts. The creative process is blended with social pressures, personal integrity, and internal representation, all for a single object’s manifestation of interest and theory. Can this established effort be compared to the performance transparency of marking or any other form of symbolic interaction?