characteristics of "sophisticated" art
Martin
I'm hoping that someone can help me with a question relating to art
history. Simply put: What would be the defining characteristics of what
I would call sophisticated art? I'm having trouble expressing this
issue, so maybe a few more words would help. As a species, we have been
doing science some 6500 years. (Indian astronomers were establishing
facts starting 6500 years ago.) However, today, we say that science
began with Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. We call this
"modern" science. It is characterized by the experimental method
and quantitative analysis. What would be the corresponding features for
art? I can't call this "modern art," since this term refers to
something very recent. I'm guessing that "sophisticated" art began
thousands of years ago. (The ancient Greeks were producing very high
quality sculpture.)
My sense is that ancient Egyptian art was naive. I think that the
discovery of perspective was part of what led to sophisticated art,
but this only applies to painting. Is there some general feature(s)
applicable to all /most/some art forms, one that distinguishes between
naive and sophisticated art?
Thanks for any input. This is pretty important to me. I'm preparing a
paper that touches on this subject, and I need to get my facts
straight.
Martin
CB
"sophisticated" as what we do, and "naive" as what earlier/other peoples
did. From your post (& I hope I'm wrong) it does sound rather like you are
trying to fit facts to your thesis, rather than the other way around.
Cheers;
CB
"Martin" <mgc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148425600....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
aest...@hotmail.com
display characteristics that have something to do with complexity,
subtlety and ambiguity?
Erik A. Mattila
I would say that the defining characterestic of sophisticated is
sophistication, Martin. Remember, "sophistication" comes from "sophism"
which means "a clever but fallacious argument." I know, I'm not being
diplomatic, but "diplomatic" means "speaking out of both sides of your
mouth."
I think you're on a "slippery slope" - but that may be ok for your
paper. But I have a suggestion: read some Walter Benjamin. His most
famous paper can be found online here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Benjamin claims the work of art has an "aura" (authenticity, uniqueness,
and so on) but what you have to grasp is that the "aura" is made up of
things outside of the work of art itself - i.e. they are culutral values
that we affix to the work of art. That's why I think you have a
cultural argument to make, not an art history argument. Art historians,
if their worth their salt, stay far away from saying x is better than y,
a is more naive and b is more sophisticated. Think about it.
May O. Naise
mgc...@comcast.net says...
>My sense is that ancient Egyptian art was naive.
Then you haven't done your homework if you don't know
any more than that about the subject.
As for "sophistication" - it differs with each
generation of humans. Primitive artists working
in dark caves created the first "modern art"
in their heyday, and some of those images of
animals are as sophisticated as anything done
in the last century in the so-called "Modern Art
movements. The Venus of Willendorf could just as
easily have been created by a Henry Moore, or
another latter-day sculptor.
Bob C
> I'm hoping that someone can help me with a question relating to art
> history. Simply put: What would be the defining characteristics of what
> began with Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. We call this
> "modern" science. It is characterized by the experimental method
> and quantitative analysis. What would be the corresponding features for
> art?
What I think you seem to be looking for is something along the lines of
"art for art's sake". Art as beauty but not decoration, as expression
but not communication, as an individual statement of the artist rather
than the illustration of an idea imposed upon them.
Sophistication is a bad description because it can easily be interpreted
to refer to the refinement of the skills and techniques used by the
artist, which I think you don't want to be a part of your definition
even if you haven't yet figured that out. Thus you describe Egyptian art
as "naive" not because it wasn't using perspective and other techniques
to create realistic form and space, but because it was created primarily
to serve various functional purposes in a manner dictated by society and
the ruling elite.
Unless, of course, I've just totally misunderstood whatever it is you're
trying to get at...
- Bob C.
Thur
"May O. Naise" <egg...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:QLOdnaJWWv6...@valortelecom.com...
Is this the ultimate in Post Modernism?
If anything can be art, then anything mentioned
in r.a.f can be Modern Art?
How ridiculous it sounds, to assign such a title
to the very first works of art.
--
Thur
Thur
Wrote:-
.........
> What would be the defining characteristics of what
> I would call sophisticated art?
Try finding a separation between art and artists where
nothing was known about style, about the history of art,
and everything centred around function. Somewhere,
and many times this happened and possibly in many places,
people began to demand decoration, and perhaps
attached something more to them than just objects.
Once this happened it was a short step to having a
discerning buyer who selected the best objects using
a set of values. It wasn't only decoration, but their
suitablity to the buyers view of their use. I mean they
might have been used for religious purpose, so the
supposed tastes of the God(s) had to be considered.
Later, they began to be used to display wealth and
power, since the community had put certain monetary
values on them, and they began to be traded in earnest.
I suggest at somewhere around this point, artists and
their products became "sophisticated" in the sense I
understand from your post.
Words such as "Primitive" and "non-Primitive" might be
useable if it had not already been hijacked by the art
community.
--
Thur
Martin
still having trouble finding the right words for this issue.
Nevertheless, an artist who cannot use perspective is in some real
sense naive. (This wouldn't apply to an artist who declines to use it
for some artistic purpose.) I'm GUESSING that art went through some
revolution comparable to the switch from speculative philosophy to
modern science. I don't know this to be a fact, and I'm prepared to be
wrong. It doesn't make much difference to me either way, but I need to
know if it did or didn't.
Martin
you consider the various major components of civilization (art,
science, language, institutions, political structure, theology,
technology, etc.), the concept of the "system" appears to distinguish
between prehuman and human. Consider technology, for example. Other
animals use tools. There is even a wasp that uses a pebble as a hammer.
The distiguishing feature of human technology is that it is a system of
tools. A hammer, for example, consists of two parts, the head and the
handle. Prarie dog language is just a vocabulary (I think), but human
language is a system of vocabulary, syntax and grammar. Is ancient art
in some respect simple, whereas more recent art is SYSTEMATIC?
Martin
struggling to find the right way to express my question. Let me try
again. It used to be that efforts to explain the world were limited to
myths. Later, we used speculative philosophy. Starting with Copernicus
et al, we started subjecting theories to testing. We also starting
relying on mathematic modeling. This is surely a more sophisticated
approach to answering questions about the world (universe). I'm
wondering if art has gone through any similar transition or revolution.
(Incidentally, the concept of the TEST appears to be a kind of
invention, something at least as fundamental as the wheel. We use it
everywhere. Requiring that it be used in "natural philosophy" was a
true revolution.)
Martin
be what I'm after. This transition to art for art's sake would indeed
be revolutionary.
When and where did this change take place?
Were there any other changes of a similar nature? Think also about more
recent history. What was the fundamental change that produced
Impressionism and "modern" art? This may be the same sort of thing you
are describing. I understand that the impressionists rebeled against
the academic salons. Could this have been the consumation in a process
that started thousands of years ago?
Martin
Do you mean to say that the switch to beautiful artifacts, as opposed
to ones that are purely functional, was a revolution? I would say so
also, but I also feel that this might have been so long ago that it
wouldn't be a parallel to the scientifc revolution of the seventeenth
century. This may have been a parallel to the switch from myth to
speculation.
Martin
Bob C
> NO! YOU HAVE NOT "TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD" ME! This comment does seem to
> be what I'm after. This transition to art for art's sake would indeed
> be revolutionary.
>
> When and where did this change take place?
>
The Renaissance, of course. Isn't that really what you're after? There
have been many revolutions in the nature of art, but because of its
proximity and significance, this is the one we consider to have created
the sequence of innovations which have led us to the world of art today.
Along with the many smaller revolutions which came after. So how do you
come up with some defining characteristic for a revolution with so many
different interconnected causes and effects? I don't know, but here's a
few relevant points to ponder which might help...
1. Artists did not begin painting realistically because perspective and
other tools made it possible to do so. It was the other way around.
Perspective was developed because artists wanted to paint realistically.
Artistic revolutions have always been driven by the goals of the
artists, not the techniques (although the availability of techniques and
materials can determine the feasibility of the goals).
We could try to compare sophistication of techniques, for example, by
claiming that multi-point perspective is a more complex and refined
manner of organizing a composition than the hierarchical methods in
Gothic Art, but this requires some specific definition of "complex" and
"refined", requires an in-depth study of each of the techniques being
compared, and probably has very little to do with the ideas you're
trying to work out.
2. Sophistication in scientific methods works because science has always
had the same goal and we can easily measure the success of these methods
based on our current understanding of that goal. Art, on the other hand,
has had very different goals and purposes in each different society.
What you really seem to be interested in is the sophistication of these
changing goals rather than the sophistication of the techniques used to
accomplish them.
In this case, however, sophistication is a bad word to use because of
the value judgments inherent in it. One could argue that todays goals
are more sophisticated than in the past because todays artist is exposed
to a much greater variety of ideas, cultures, and techniques then any
artist from the past. Nevertheless, unless you intend to make that the
point of your discussion, its probably best just to avoid the argument
entirely by not talking about things like "naive" and "sophisticated",
but rather just trying to understand the changes.
3. There is the idea that the most revolutionary feature of the
Renaissance, from the point of view of painting, was the creation of the
"easel painting". Thus, paintings were no longer decorations on walls,
alter pieces, pottery, or tapestries - they were now objects in and of
themselves whose only purpose was to be a painting. If we accept this,
than it's easy to see how Impression and everything which came after was
just a logical extension of the idea of painting as object taking
priority over painting as image.
> Were there any other changes of a similar nature? Think also about more
> recent history. What was the fundamental change that produced
> Impressionism and "modern" art? This may be the same sort of thing you
> are describing. I understand that the impressionists rebeled against
> the academic salons. Could this have been the consumation in a process
> that started thousands of years ago?
>
Every aspect of modern society is in some way the consummation of a
process started thousands of years ago. As has been stated before,
however, if all art can be described as modern art, then the description
ceases to have any meaning. Be prepared for the fact that any
description you come up with to define art since the Renaissance will
necessarily contain gray areas which can be twisted to allow it to
describe virtually any art. This shouldn't stop you, however, from
trying to come up with a description which can be used by reasonable
people to try to better understand how and why art has developed the way
it has.
- Bob C.
Martin
like what I'm after.
Erik A. Mattila
> OK. I have downloaded that item. I'll read it. Keep in mind that I'm
> struggling to find the right way to express my question.
That's good, Martin. The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory abandoned
the scholarly quest for "answers" in favor of a quest for more
meaningful questions.
Let me try
> again. It used to be that efforts to explain the world were limited to
> myths.
I don't think that's true at all. Myth doesn't seek to explain the
world. Myth seeks to present the "already known" as if it were fresh
and new, which creates a sense of pleasure in the listener, who feels
that s/he "already new that." Try Roland Barthes "Mythologies", or even
Claude Levi-Strauss' work on mythology.
Later, we used speculative philosophy. Starting with Copernicus
> et al, we started subjecting theories to testing. We also starting
> relying on mathematic modeling. This is surely a more sophisticated
> approach to answering questions about the world (universe). I'm
> wondering if art has gone through any similar transition or revolution.
I hope you realize that you are mapping out world history along a
Darwinian trajectory of gradual evolution - which has been challenged
much in modern scholarship. It was popular in the 19th century to
propose a trajectory from savagery to civilization to explain human
history. It's not surprising that this was also applied to the history
of art. But it really didn't work that way. Art has instead followed a
very erratic course bouncing between idealism and naturalism since it
was institutionalized in human culture. For example, there's a known
long sequence (800 years) of rock painting in Baja California - very
rare...a record of art production during a stable political and cultural
sequence that long - which shows that the artists began with
representing the things of their world with careful observation of the
things themselves (naturalism), and changing toward abstractions as the
representations became formalized through constant repetition. The
artist were probably drawing from pictures of fishes rather than the
fishes themselves, or drawing from their memory of seeing pictures of
fishes, or drawing from formulae they learned. The older drawings show
much more "scientific" detail, and the younger drawings show much more
idealization. The development of Olmec/Maya art is the same way. The
Olmec art reflects in situ observation, but appears more "clunky" to us
today compared with the idealized Maya art which is quite "designie" and
maybe even "sophisticated." The transition between early Greek
idealization to naturalism (as in Phidias) is an example of an opposite
trend. Middle Roman to Late Roman reverses again.
Another great book to read that attacks the Darwinian model is
Levi-Strauss' "The Savage Mind." As I recall, the first two chapters
are organized under the rubric "The Science or the Concrete." At the
time of the writing, Levi-Strauss was attacking a school of thought
popular in Europe about "primitivism." Carl Jung, for example, proposed
that "primitive man lived in a twilight state of consciousness."
Levi-Strauss thought that was bunk. So his two chapters are long lists
of examples of hard-core rational thought structures employed by ethnic
groups world-wide - those same groups who had been labeled "primitive"
by the Darwinists. For example, he cited a group in the jungles of the
Phillipines whose average adults had a functional vocabulary of 500 or
so terms which identified parts of plants. How many do we sophisticates
have? Root, bark, twig, leaf and so on. Maybe 50 or 60 for the average
adult who likes to garden.
Perspective? A remarkable invention, for sure. But when placed in the
context of hundreds of other identifyable innovations in the history of
art, it's just another innovation. We can look at European cave art and
distinguish between thousands of example "good stuff" from from
"not-so-good" stuff, according to the measure of our taste. Is the
exquisite design of a Mimbres pot any less "sophisticated" than, say, a
Greek vase or the best that Tiffany has to offer? I think not. Art
Historians don't do that, anyway. Art Historians are, however,
definitely inclined to study how designs of an older technology
(basketry) were transferred to a newer technology (pottery). It's
because there's something there to study - you can make a solid argument
that a form used in pottery evolved from a form that was generated under
the restrictions of a particular weaving pattern.
>
>
> (Incidentally, the concept of the TEST appears to be a kind of
> invention, something at least as fundamental as the wheel. We use it
> everywhere. Requiring that it be used in "natural philosophy" was a
> true revolution.)
Yes, and the "test" is likely to be very ancient and not supported by
the Darwinian model. Look at manioc, the food staple of Amazonia's
indigenous people. The old model of trial & error can't apply. If you
dig up manioc and eat it it tastes horrible and will make you vomit. So
how did primitivos get from that to processing manioc into a staple
under the trial & error model? They didn't - the trial and error model
is just something that anthropologists invented - rather simplistic,
too. But they didn't think primitives had the mental capacity to do
anything else. Yet logic dictates that these people understood, in a
concrete manner, that if you manipulated substances you could change
their properties. Just like we understand that today. So they were
obviously employing a theoretical model, just like scientists do today.
And of course this process involved testing. Testing is probably at
least 350,000 years old.
>
Erik A. Mattila
That's a terrific idea, Bob (easel painting). I'd never given it much
thought. But now I'm playing it out in my mind. Looks to me like it
goes hand and hand with the great shift of capital taking place in
Europe at the time. In other words, easel painting made art
collectable, even tradeable. As investment collateral art almost has to
be portable. Remember, the Circle of the Medici was a circle of a
banker! And also, I think the Wunderkammern (Wonder Cabinet)- precurser
to the art museum- plays in there also. But it goes back to collecting,
which goes back to capital. Fascinating.
BTW, these thoughts are influenced by a Bill Moyer's special I saw once
on PBS - "Bill Moyers in Florence". After interviewing quite a few of
the thousands of Art Historians crawling around the city about the
kozmic magic of Ren. Art, Moyers interviews Umberto Eco. Eco says
"nonsense! The only thing invented during the Renaissance was capitalism!"
May O. Naise
>The Renaissance, of course. Isn't that really what you're after? There
>have been many revolutions in the nature of art, but because of its
>proximity and significance, this is the one we consider to have created
>the sequence of innovations which have led us to the world of art today.
This is ONLY true if one is confining the conversation to a
discussion of European art. There is an entire world of art
out there that must be considered when speaking of "revolutions"
resulting from invention. The making of paper and the weaving
of silk are two distinct inventions that revolutionized art
long before the European Renaissance. Painting on silk is
known to have occurred in the 8th century in China, as just
one example of "cloth" usage for paintings, which didn't
occur in Europe until the 16th century.
Martin
I want to try again to express my problem. I need to identify the times
of origin for the major features of civilization: the individual,
language, institutions, political structures, art, science, theology,
technology and law. For most of these, it is a simple matter to
determine times of origin. The first law came from Urakagina (ruler of
Lagash). The first political structure is said to be Egypt (or Jericho,
perhaps). For some of these categories, however, things get a bit
confused. Consider science. One could maintain that the experiment is a
contrived observation and, therefore, the essence of science is
observation. This began long before the time of Copernicus.
Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus among the experts that
science began during the seventeenth century, and this is based on
arguments relating to a special kind of observation (the experiment)
and mathematical modeling. Language provides another confusing example.
The origin of language goes back to some 40,000 to two million years
ago. But there was a defining event relating to language during the
emergence of civilization: writing. We have been using tools for at
least one hundred thousand years, but the defining event for technology
during historic times has been the first "complex machine" (China, ~
2550 years ago).
Now, cave paintings date back some 40,000 years, but during the
historic period, what was the defining event(s) for art? Bob cites the
appearance of art for art's sake during the Renaissance. This sounds
like the defining event, although, if it happened earlier somewhere
else, then I will have to think in terms of that date and that culture.
May, the silk paintings from China, were these art for art's sake, or
was the silk worn as clothing or used as drapes or some such thing?
Also, it has been my impression that ancient Greek statuary was art for
art's sake. Is that a mistake?
BTW, thanks to all of you for the feedback here. Some of you have put
more than a little bit of time into this (especially Bob and Erik).
Martin
Lauri Levanto
between idealism and naturalism since it was institutionalized in human
The snip above reveals the "sytem" in art. The art institution as we
know it is an elaborate system with schools , galleries, curators,
critics and brands. Especially brand is a concept that thelps to
understand why and how some artists are success.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Erik. What was the cultural position of "collectibles" in the
Chinese civilisation?
-lauri
May O. Naise
mgc...@comcast.net says...
>
>May, Yes! I (we) need to consider the world as a whole.
>
>I want to try again to express my problem.
What you need to do is study history of civilation
a LOT more than you already have, and correct some
misconceptions you've already assumed. The questions
you're asking have less to do with art than with
History and Civics 101.
Martin
An important part of my problem, folks, is that I find that I have been
asking an insufficiently precise question. I find that I need to keep
recasting it as I learn more about the answer. I have been thinking for
a long time that I needed to identify the times of organ for these
various civil phenomena. During this exchange, I have come to see that
I need to identify the defining events during the historic period. I am
now very close to resolving a problem that I have been working on for
years.
May, you are embarrassing yourself, but carry on, if you enjoy that.
Thanks to all of you for the feedback.
CB
I don't think he is embarrassing himself. There's good arguments made that
art making - or more generally, aesthetic activity - is an integral part of
being human, not something layered on later. We are hampered in our
understanding of that by a lack of artefacts from prehistory, but there are
enough tantalizing hints - from some of the incongruities in cave paintings
to the bone flutes that apparently pre-date language - as well as what
appears to be an inborn drive to non-verbal expression - to seriously
question any true linearity in human artistic development over anything but
the shortest of time frames, and in restricted locales. Certainly you can
derive such, say from the Renaissance to now, in mainstream Western European
culture, but there seems to be really little evidence that this generalizes
to any great extent; and it would appear that even that trajectory is
reaching completion.
Further, I would suggest that as you are now reducing your search in the
attempt to make it more precise, you are coming perilously close to simply
defining your question in terms of the answer you would like to receive.
Tread carefully :)
Cheers;
CB
Bob C
> Bob C wrote:
>> 3. There is the idea that the most revolutionary feature of the
>> Renaissance, from the point of view of painting, was the creation of
>> the "easel painting".
> That's a terrific idea, Bob (easel painting). I'd never given it much
> thought. But now I'm playing it out in my mind. Looks to me like it
> goes hand and hand with the great shift of capital taking place in
> Europe at the time. In other words, easel painting made art
> collectable, even tradeable.
Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. I don't remember where I read
it, but I immediately realized that I understood what the author was
trying to get across even if the words don't completely describe it. I
don't remember if the capitalist connection was described, but if it was
I'd long since forgotten it. In any case, it's an excellent point which
shows just how interconnected are the many different aspects of human
society.
- Bob C.
Bob C
> I want to try again to express my problem. I need to identify the times
> of origin for the major features of civilization: the individual,
> language, institutions, political structures, art, science, theology,
> technology and law....
For most of these, it is a simple matter to
> determine times of origin. The first law came from Urakagina (ruler of
> Lagash). The first political structure is said to be Egypt (or Jericho,
> perhaps). For some of these categories, however, things get a bit
> confused. Consider science. One could maintain that the experiment is a
> contrived observation and, therefore, the essence of science is
> observation. This began long before the time of Copernicus.
> Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus among the experts that
> science began during the seventeenth century, and this is based on
> arguments relating to a special kind of observation (the experiment)
> and mathematical modeling. Language provides another confusing example.
> The origin of language goes back to some 40,000 to two million years
> ago. But there was a defining event relating to language during the
> emergence of civilization: writing. We have been using tools for at
> least one hundred thousand years, but the defining event for technology
> during historic times has been the first "complex machine" (China, ~
> 2550 years ago).
>
>
> Now, cave paintings date back some 40,000 years, but during the
> historic period, what was the defining event(s) for art? Bob cites the
> appearance of art for art's sake during the Renaissance.
Well, remember that I always put the "art for art's sake" in quotes
because it really isn't a good description of what I'm after but it does
seem to get the point across quickly and simply. And even then it's not
like it was something which was invented or first came into existence
during the Renaissance, it was just something which experienced a
relatively sudden and significant increase in extent, influence and
importance.
Given the full context of your question, however, I'd lean towards
selecting that 40,000 year old cave art. This would be based on an
assumption, however, that the people who created it thought about it
much the same way we would today. And there-in lies the problem - as a
matter of civilization, I think it's the goals and intent of art which
matter, not the results, but the goals and intent of art change
continually and sometimes drastically between different times and
cultures, and for anything more than several hundred years old all we
can do is guess at the intent and purpose based on the surviving
artifacts. Nobody really knows why people painted animals in caves or
what they were thinking when they did it, and therefore we don't really
know whether or not it has anything to do with the role art plays in
civilization today.
- Bob C.
Erik A. Mattila
Carry on, Martin. This is the best discussion I've seen on RAF in quite
a while. Thanks
Erik A. Mattila
Wait a minute, Chris. Isn't "being human" something that was layered on
hominids? Hmmmm. Desmond Morris had his "Naked Ape." Maybe we have a
"Creative Ape" theory going here.
May O. Naise
mgc...@comcast.net says...
>May, you are embarrassing yourself, but carry on, if you enjoy that.
I have no reason for embarrassment. You began this thread by
asking for the defining moment when "art" (whatever that is)
transitioned from being "naive" to being "sophisticated."
Now you're asking for people in this newsgroup, supposedly
dealing with "fine art" issues, to educate you on the major
developments throughout human history - or at least in
"historical times" - whenever that began. What you apparently
need is something like this:
http://www.lukemastin.com/history/by_date_1.html
It's been my impression that Sumeria is "generally"
considered the beginning of the "historical era" by virtue
of being the only culture to date where there is substantial
agreement today on the origins of writing - ie: recording history.
Erik A. Mattila
Unfortunately archaeology, which tends to try to be "scientific," stays
mute on the problem of meaning in its interpretation of cave art.
Nevertheless, three distinct categories have been identified - since it
is something that is measurable. 1. shamanistic renderings; 2.
instructional renderings; 3. representations. Shamanistic renderings
are typically non-objective, and shows no aesthetic concern (although
some of the forms are quite intriguing to our eyes.) Instructional
renderings are typically organized like our scientific art - the flayed
animal form, which was likely to have been used to teach butchering.
Representations are what we are most familiar - the animals. But I did
find an essay in an Anthro journal where the author argued that the
artists were engaged in an "art for art's sake" activity with this
category. The "magic" or "hunting magic" argument is a bit poverty
stricken, I think. It doesn't explain the obvious aesthetic flourish of
the examples. There are enough known examples among the compendium of
cave art to see the development of style and fashion movements over
time, which is the sort of thing that develops with aesthetic activity.
In other words, a Soultrean painter working in cave x is influenced by
the work of a colleague in cave z. There may even have been
master/apprentice arrangements. What is certain is that style movements
traveled across considerable distances. Of course this reflects in
general culture - economics, mobility, trade etc.
But Clement Greenberg's "art for art's sake" was pointing to the total
abandonment of representational activity in the plastic arts. It's an
acknowledge that non-representational art only stands for itself - there
is no other meaning outside the work itself. In other words,
non-represental art became an explicit agenda - whereas earlier examples
of "art for art's sake" are implicit - i.e. elements of pure
non-objective design are used to enhance the representatonal work's
aesthetic standing. So you have to be careful with the term, it could
be misleading.
3G
are and that would help. Sophistication in art involves the artist
understanding concepts beyond basic visual translations.
CB
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:iM2dnd6AZbyiaOjZ...@adelphia.com...
> CB wrote:
>
>
> Wait a minute, Chris. Isn't "being human" something that was layered on
> hominids? Hmmmm. Desmond Morris had his "Naked Ape." Maybe we have a
> "Creative Ape" theory going here.
Or perhaps "Creative Amoeba of Many Cells?" . Of course, after we agree on a
definition of "creative"...I just wonder if it is at al possible/reasonable
to draw strong lines, rather than to look at it as a continuum....
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Wait a minute, Chris. Isn't "being human" something that was layered on
>>hominids? Hmmmm. Desmond Morris had his "Naked Ape." Maybe we have a
>>"Creative Ape" theory going here.
>
>
> VERY interesting idea, Erik. Could you elaborate?
OK - it was a joke, but I guess there's some other merit in it. Let's
say that art making was the essential element if defining Homo sapiens
sapiens. It's not too far fetched, come to think of it. The ability to
construct symbolic space and time seems to be an essentially human trait
- even though it's a matter of degrees (I've just read that dolphins
call out each other by names).
Have you ever read Ernst Cassirer's "The Philosophy of Symbolic Form"?
It's a chore - three or four volumes of dense theory. But it's very
provocative - explaining how "reality" is something in our heads, and
the nature of that reality is determined by our language ability (more
generally, our symbols). In Cassirer's explanation, art making would be
one among all our symbolic activity (which includes empiracism,
according to Cassirer). Now, all we have to do is locate the art making
impulse in this scheme. But I'm only on my second cup of coffee.
CB
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:Sc-dndf08vO...@adelphia.com...
I hate to bail just when this is getting interesting (piano lesson...) but
certainly reality is very much an intellectual construct, from our weak
perception of colours and that our ability to differentiate them is tied to
our linguistic ability to categorize them - to the fact we still think in at
most 3 or 4 dimensions (given that science seems to indicate there may be
eleven or more...and who knows, is there even a reason other than
practicality to have discreet, integral ones? the jury is still out on
that..)
I'm on my second pot....
Chris
Thur
> Bob C wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
In regard to your three possibles for the purpose or otherwise
of the earliest cave paintings.
Ther is a place, I cannot remember where, where someone painted
over a hand. Just some more data to ponder.
Finally, some things in history will never be understood or even
known about. Where there are just a few examples, the first
question that springs to my mind is how common was the practice?
We can never know, since at least some must be assumed to be
lost to age.
http://www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Press_Releases.html
(There are other excavations, but this one sounds like
the one I saw in a film)
There have been a cave excavations (Southern Africa) which appear
to have confirmed ancient people painted their bodies with ochre.
slid into cracks in rocks were found partly worn pieces.
Elsewhere there has been a suggestion that Neanderthals laid flowers
on the body of one of their own, but some have questioned this.
We know that uneducated people are superstitious.
As soon as man found the time and the intellect to
regard himself,(sentience) then surely he began to
look for ways to ease his fear of dying. When the herds
fail to show up for example, or the winter prevents hunting
for long periods, or hunting grounds are disputed,
or the beasts being hunted are dangerous or difficult to
catch.
Once someone began to scratch patterns, they may well
have been given a religious significance, and thus gave
power. Best reason to continue.
--
Thur