It's been an enduring endeavour. To bridge the yawning chasm that separates the two cultures-that of art and science. The Human Genome Project's recent success could be a shot in the arm for such bridge-builders because it could renew the search for that elusive thing-the genetics of creativity.
Are there specific genes for artistic talents and creative faculties? A good example would be that of a painter. His artistic faculty would depend on his brain's ability to perform spatial tasks efficiently. This ability, although nothing is known for certain, could in British cognitive scientist Margaret Boden's opinion, depend on a host of factors-from the size of the brain to the size of its various lobes and the configuration of nerve cells. Each one of these functional traits will, in turn, be the end result of many genes. So, it's an immensely complex process.
The Mozart family case is the most celebrated of all in tracing the pedigree of Wolfgang Amadeus' musical talents. It's often argued that there are genes for various faculties like mathematics or music. But these abilities are cultural. It's got to do with being part of a certain cultural tradition. But yes, one definitely has to have the predisposition to see the possibilities within one's given mathematical or musical space in order to create. Therefore, if Mozart's location, instead of Vienna would have been among a Papua New Guinea tribe, his disposition to deal creatively with spaces would have probably seen him as a good maker of animal traps. He could also have been brilliant tribal musician. But alas, cultural relativism has only recently started looking at the church organ and the tribal horn with the same interest.
