Adam, I find it amusing that you point to Neanderthals to support your claim. This crudely sculpted face points to only the most obvious evidence of Neanderthal art. Neanderthals buried their dead after painting their bodies with red ochre and laying them on beds of flower petals. Of course, the earliest art leaves no archaeological trace—songs, stories, etc.—but considering the complex material art they left behind, we have no reason to doubt that they had such things.

But I think your argument, like Zerzan’s, misses the mark entirely because of its common conflation of our interpretations of art, with the interpretation of art. The idea that art has a symbolic nature does not even monopolize our own, civilized interpretations; indeed, modern art defines itself by the appreciation of art as an object in itself, without any symbolism whatsoever. But more to the point, has anyone ever considered van Gogh’s Starry Night a fitting substitute for a night of star-gazing? Van Gogh himself said, “The feeling of the things themselves, for reality, is more important than the feeling for pictures.”

Yet every extant primitive culture (and, from the available archaeological evidence, every past human culture as well, including those of Homo neandertalensis) deeply values their art. But not as symbolism. They never look to their art as a symbol for their interactions with the world around them, much less as a symbolic substitution for them. Rather, they look to their art as one of the primary means they have to participate in that world. Human songs, music and dance allow them to harmonize with the rhythms of the world around them. They live in a world shot through with artists: bird sing their songs, deer leave their tracks, wolves howl up a symphony at the moon, insects carve sinuous designs into leaves. More than symbolism, more than imitation, human art simply offers a human mode of participation with the world, just as bird art, deer art, wolf art and insect art give those other-than-human persons the means by which they participate with the world.

To deny art means denying the example of every functional human culture; it means denying the example of other-than-human cultures around us; it means plucking out our eyes, ripping out our tongues, chopping off our hands, renouncing our humanity, renouncing our participation with the world, and resigning ourselves to some wretched corner of eternal isolation.

How about adding that to your list of quotes, eh?

And

“All we need is love…1969…isn’t that annoying?”

sorry i just couldn’t resist

To quote a gangsta: “…the extent to which thought and emotion are tied to symbolism is the measure by which absence fills the inner world and destroys the outer world.”

And

Shreeve: “Neandertals did not paint their caves with the images of animals. But perhaps they had no need to distill life into representations, because its essences were already revealed to their senses. The sign of a running herd was enough to inspire a surging sense of beauty. They had no drums or bone flutes, but they could listen to the booming rhythms of the wind, the earth, and each other’s heartbeats, and be transported.”

And

“When people see some things as beautiful other things become ugly. When people see some things as good other things become bad.” (Tao te Ching)

And

“Original nature has no opposites. Speech and words are not necessary. Without thinking, all things are exactly as they are. The truth is just like this.”

And of course

“The extent to which thought and emotion are tied to symbolism is the measure by which absence fills the inner world and destroys the outer world.”

At this point in my life, I couldn’t disdain art more. I absolutely hate it. What’s needed isn’t a half-assed philosophy of art, but a full-assed sociology of art. Zerzan hit that nail right on the head when he said that the extent to which thought and emotion are tied to symbolism is the measure by which absence fills the inner world. Why art? Express what? Erich Fromm said that primitivist religions didn’t address “the existential split.” That’s because they dont need to. Word.

So, we might lose film, movies, and video games … and gain other, new artforms. Do they balance? That’s difficult to assess, since there are so many subjective questions involved, but my intuition is, yes, we’re probably gaining more on that question than we’re losing.

There is one other (and, I think, more legitimate) critique of this claim: Certain artforms (media) are only be possible with in the context of civilization. In other words, privative cultures have no movies, video games, etc.

I’m not making the judgment that those art-forms are better than non-technological art, but I don’t think the loss of those art-forms as an option is negligible.