As an atheist I do not accept there is such a thing as a metaphysical soul but think that human beings have a psyche
which is the psychological and philosophical foundation of who they essentially are. And that is what I mean by soul
The metaphysical soul we are talking about here has nothing to do with theism.
This thread should not be about the question where the soul comes from; and if it came from nature, it would have a non-metaphysical origin, if it came from god/s, it would have a metaphysical origin, if it came from nature as god/s, it would have both a non-metaphysical and a metaphysical origin (see: pantheism).
But this thread is about the question where art comes from.
So let’s have a talk without mentioning the origin of the soul.
Or is that question that important to you?
lol That’s fine with me.
Personally when I speak of soul I mean the human psyche.
I only mentioned the soul in passing because clarification was required
So have no desire to derail the thread by talking about something else
Well, at least the two of us are on the same page, surreptitious75.
No problem.
But you are right, it would mean derailing this thread, if we started talking about the origin of the soul. Also, such a topic would be too extensive for this thread.
Maybe one of us will soon open a thread with the topic: “Where does the soul come from?”. 
The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ (“thing at itself” / “thing as such”), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ (“will”) …
what is art?
First, define “art”. What art is may give you a clue.
Art originally comes from skill, but took on a different meaning when technology, which originally also meant “just” art, supplanted it. Later, art became roughly synonymous with aesthetics. In addition, it is often understood as the antithesis of nature. But with that, art touches the meaning of culture, and culture is more than “just” art. In any case, art is a part of culture. The art is a language, and the language I understand very generally as something which reaches from semiotics to linguistics and philosophy or logic to mathematics, thus as everything that is sign, and, if one disregards the fact that each thing has its being-in-itself, everything is sign. Art is thus the aesthetic of signs, the aesthetic of everything.
_
Where does art come from?
The mind.
…every brush stroke/pencil chalk or pen mark, is a visual representation of a thought, sometimes with and sometimes without an end vision… ergo Art.
Yes, one can say that art comes from the mind. But the mind is also a very general concept and one-sided when it comes to the question of the origin of art, because the things with which one makes art must also be there. Or are these things also only a creation of the mind?
The mind controls the body, as a means to a specific end, which in this case is art… the first art being wall carvings, depicting the ancient way of ritual and life that was being lived at the time.
The wise, disseminating knowledge to the people…
Art comes from language, in terms of tools it comes from the tool called the hand and the tool called language. Without language, what the hand accomplishes is not yet art. But the hand and the language challenged and encouraged each other so much that the IQ increased enormously, especially where the landscape, its climatic conditions, was favorable for it, and this is especially the case on our planet Earth in Europe, very especially in North-West Europe - the North Atlantic Current, which is fed by the Gulf Stream, provides climatic conditions that are unique: for the latitudes at which Northwest Europe is located, it is never too cold and never too warm, the demands are still high, but easy to cope with because of the climate.
Language is art.
Two types of art:
1-representing perceptions
2-representing reactions to perceptions
Language is art, is technology, science and much more, but without language the others are not possible. And that is why language can also promote what is generally accepted as art. Not everything that is or is not art is accepted or not accepted as art.
Animals have not a linguistic and a semiotic language, but only a semiotic one.
Art like all ideas come from the collective unconscious that everything is attached to, that is why they come to us and not us to them.
While it is true that language and manual dexterity (the ability to use the hands skilfully) are often considered crucial in the development of art, the exact relationship between these factors and intelligence is complex and multifaceted and leads to various forms of expression.
Visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, can convey meaning without the use of language, and we have many examples of primordial humans using colours to depict their surroundings. Language began in many places with pictorial images, and Chinese is an example where that has remained in use.
Language can enhance the interpretation and understanding of art, and artists may use language to communicate their intentions or provide context for their work, but the act of artistry, especially of drawing and painting, has a lot to do with reproducing an impression, a shape, a colour, a shadow, a beam of light and so on, and with language we may later try to explain what we were doing, but I don’t think that it normally precedes the art.
The co-evolution of language and tool use has been a factor in the development of human cognitive abilities, but language was for a long time restricted to lists, measurements, and the like, and building seems to have been a form of expression that was later superseded by written depictions of imagination.
The idea that climatic conditions, such as those in Northwest Europe, may have influenced cultural and intellectual development is a hypothesis that I can’t agree with, considering the structures, writing and images that have been found all over the world.