"History is analysis, art is synthesis" — Oscar Wilde

1. About the theory. If we leave aside the theory of Evolution, a popular theory, linear and very convenient for various kinds of speculation, then only two points of view are more or less suitable for explaining the origin of man - the theory of Creationism and the theory of Intervention. Ancient sources unequivocally consider man to be the result of creation, simply according to one point of view - actions "from scratch", using materials of inorganic origin, such as sand and clay, and according to others - using an existing and suitable genome. The relationship between humans and monkeys is beyond doubt, the degree of this relationship is doubtful, which, in any case, makes the theory of using the animal genome for the experiment preferable. At the same time, the mention in ancient records that something was wrong with the results of the experiment, as well as the presence of unexplained, from the point of view of purely animal origin, human traits, supports this hypothesis, as well as the fact that the history of modern man is inseparable from the history of art.

2. About monkeys. Behavioral reactions and mores of human society differ so little from the mores of a flock of monkeys that these differences could probably be ignored if it were not for the quality of broad altruism, which is absent in monkeys and is the prerogative of man. The type of altruism peculiar to man is not associated with a herd or a species, but is universal in relation to the surrounding world. It should be added that this quality is present in human individuals in a rather hidden state, and the basic instincts and emotions are directed to satisfy the animal goals of saturation and reproduction. It is this dualism of consciousness and behavior that represents the greatest mystery in the origin of man, and it is he who becomes an insurmountable obstacle in the theory of Evolution.

3. About the sources. As for the Testament itself (both Old and New), it seems to be a chronicle, a type of chronicle, of course, with the comments of the chroniclers. The history of mankind, often on the example of one nation, is expressed through the prism of the views of numerous authors, and is an essay in which objective facts are indirectly reflected. The principles of creating such works have been studied well on the examples of recent centuries, including literature and cinema, when reality is adjacent to outright fictions, which are also presented as facts. However, instead of historiographers, who seemed to belong here, countless cohorts of Biblical scholars, priests and rabbis "smear porridge on a clean table", exploring non-existent conjectures.

4. About practice. Humanity now lives, as a whole, in the Greco-Roman cultural canon, however, we see distinct changes in ideas about art and beauty, with a shift of attention from oneself, a loved one, to the world around us. This certainly leads to a change not only of aesthetic concepts, but also of forms, colors and much more – not fully realized, but inexorable tendency to "break" public consciousness. It should be noted that, speaking about the aesthetics of conceptual symbolism in art in the perspective of tomorrow, we use, to a large extent, the attributes of today. Man, in general, lives yesterday, and this is especially noticeable in those areas that distinguish him from the animal, in visual art, in particular. And the elitism of the perception of art depends on many human characteristics, and not at all on art as such, and there is hope that the aesthetics of the art of the future will no longer be associated with such ancient animal instincts as hunger and sex.