Genetic Transformation based on environmental influences

The connections continue. This morning I was watching the first section of Zeitgeist III: Moving Forward. The section began by covering the affects of human society and human nature. What actually defines and promotes are nature was fascinatingly described in the scientific analysis. The connection arises from the book I am currently reading and a little of my own upbringing. The book being "How to do better creative work".

Not all of the book is pertinent to the discourse of what Zeitgeist was saying, but there was a passage in which the author tells of his own aspirations to be a good designer. One of these procedures he created to make himself better was in fact to pin a good example of design or art (in his opinion) in front of him in his work area. So that when he was feeling uninspired or down he could look up and have something in his environment make him feel more aesthetically motivated. He also adds that one of the great processes of being more creative, is to be surrounded and influenced by your profession: That visiting galleries, reading art magazines, art blogs and even discussing with like minded people, was a method by which you could become more creative.

Zeitgeist was inferring in the third instalment of their truth series is that environment and society can in fact evolve the natural state of your gene structure. That socio-reflective nature was not just about the environment that you live in, but the absorption of that environment into your physical state. That it was not a simple case that hanging around artists will make you more artistic, but that the repeated living in that environmental influence type will eventually genetically change your DNA code to become more susceptible to the promise that you can be more creative. It is not a guaranteed method by which to make a career choice into the world of art. This is where my own determination became more of a connection. As a child I drew; most children draw. However, my environment was not set up to allow me to be influenced by creative aspects. In retrospect I remember my dislike to my parent's taste in music, art and all aesthetic concerns. It was only when I met a friend who's family was a group of artists, was it that I enjoyed the idea of becoming more creative. I would spend days there, and even changed the things that I listened too, and explored. From that point on it seemed that I was awoken to the possibilities that I now do as a living.

Anything to do with genetics is hard to determine as the science cannot be a definitive marker, but the indication shown in Zeitgeist seems to give rise to the notion that if one wants to change one's life, one aspect is to immerse yourself in an environment and social interaction associated with that. You do see this in college environments. Students do, over time, get better at their creativity. This is when they intensify their concerns about their aesthetic environment. If the is a gene that can determine this creative role then it can not do any harm in helping it evolve. As Steve Harrison states; reading more, going to galleries and general saturation in artistic things can only help promote better creativity in oneself. And if, as most people believe, that you are born with such talent, it was indicated in Zeitgeist that even if that gene does exist and the talent be embedded there within, there is still a great deal of what happens there after that makes a person into a creative person. Food for thought!