interesting essay
Oliver Gili
A Neuroanthropological Account of Spiritual Symbolism in Traditional and
Modern Art
http://www.sidestreet.org/sitestreet/laughlin/laughlin1.html
well I found it interesting
Oliver
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bab7eu$9sm$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> http://www.sidestreet.org/sitestreet/laughlin/laughlin1.html
>
> well I found it interesting
>
> Oliver
Personally, I thought it was a pretty stupid essay.
Oliver Gili
Right, Bruce, care to expland on why you think that?
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8b07ee35.03052...@posting.google.com...
Well, for one thing, the author is surprised that the So people started
making abstract carvings without first going through a realistic stage. He
assumes that the norm is realism first, then abstraction, and that to miss a
"realistic stage" is unusual. There's nothing in the history of art to
warrant such an assumption, but if he considers ancient Greece, he will see
the opposite: at around 700BC, vase painting is mostly abstract, and it
gradually gets more realistic until around 500BC, when the classical style
reaches full fruition.
And then there's the bit where he says "nearly all traditional art is
abstract". One wonders if, in his 25 years of thinking about art, he's ever
considered the meaning of "traditional". Is traditional European art
abstract? Is Persian traditional painting abstract? Is Indian traditional
art abstract? Or the traditional art of China or Siam? Sure, the traditional
arts of Africa, Australia, Polynesia and the Americas are highly stylized as
a rule, but that is hardly *most*. Only Sunni Islam has a strictly
*abstract* tradition of art, because it takes the Mosaic injunction against
images very seriously.
The bit where he found it necessary to provide a reference for the word
"Lockean" was just one of many signs of pretentiousness in the essay, and
there were lots of philosophical and psychological (or should I say
pseudophilosophical and pseudopsychological?) things said that I thought
were silly, but it would be tedious to explain why here.
Hadley
> "Oliver Gili" <redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8b07ee35.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:<bah4ti$7cf$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > > "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:bab7eu$9sm$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sidestreet.org/sitestreet/laughlin/laughlin1.html
> > > >
> > > > well I found it interesting
> > > >
> > > > Oliver
> > >
> > > Personally, I thought it was a pretty stupid essay.
> >
> > Right, Bruce, care to expland on why you think that?
>
> Well, for one thing, the author is surprised that the So people started
> making abstract carvings without first going through a realistic stage. He
> assumes that the norm is realism first, then abstraction, and that to miss a
> "realistic stage" is unusual. There's nothing in the history of art to
> warrant such an assumption, but if he considers ancient Greece, he will see
> the opposite: at around 700BC, vase painting is mostly abstract, and it
> gradually gets more realistic until around 500BC, when the classical style
> reaches full fruition.
Actually in the essay, the author does not assume that the norm is
realism first then abstraction in regards to the So people. He does
assert that he believes all traditional art is *abstract* however,
which he quotes from another source.
> And then there's the bit where he says "nearly all traditional art is
> abstract". One wonders if, in his 25 years of thinking about art, he's ever
> considered the meaning of "traditional". Is traditional European art
> abstract? Is Persian traditional painting abstract? Is Indian traditional
> art abstract? Or the traditional art of China or Siam? Sure, the traditional
> arts of Africa, Australia, Polynesia and the Americas are highly stylized as
> a rule, but that is hardly *most*. Only Sunni Islam has a strictly
> *abstract* tradition of art, because it takes the Mosaic injunction against
> images very seriously.
Probably *traditional* was a bad choice word; I think the author had
probably meant art created by indigenous people.
> The bit where he found it necessary to provide a reference for the word
> "Lockean" was just one of many signs of pretentiousness in the essay, and
> there were lots of philosophical and psychological (or should I say
> pseudophilosophical and pseudopsychological?) things said that I thought
> were silly, but it would be tedious to explain why here.
I thought that the paper was quite interesting in that it had
attempted to introduce and quantitfy anthropological constructs of art
underpinned by neurocognitive theory. However, it seems obvious that
the author has a particular bias towards abstract art and IMO makes an
unconvincing argument that abstract art is somehow more *spiritually*
evocative than representational art. Also, I thought that the section
on "Sensate, Idealistic and Ideational Cultures" was unnecessary as it
seemed to be a digression from the original topic and made some
statements regarding *mysticism* which I think lacked credibility.
I didn't think the paper had any pseudo-psychological distastes in it
although, I think some psychologists were only referenced in passing
without having developed a strong tie between their theories and the
abstract creative process of the artist. Also, I found the passing
reference to "parapsychology and remote viewing (?) and certain
curious machine-consciousness effects (?)" entirely confusing and
think that the author could've at least explained the particular
connection he was making in the footnotes at least.
Overall, I liked it. Thanks to Oliver for suggesting it.
Regards,
Hadley
Seagull Manager
"Hadley" <hadle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8ec3e2c.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
> Probably *traditional* was a bad choice word; I think the author had
> probably meant art created by indigenous people.
Would that necessarily be any better? Who are more "indigenous", the
Japanese in Japan, the Danes in Denmark, or the Zulus in South Africa?
He's presumably looking for a substitute for "primitive", that being a
prohibited word these days. He's still wrong, though. Nearly all art of
"traditional/indigenous/primitive/whatever-you-want-to-call-them" people
contains representational elements, or is predominantly representational,
even, though stylized.
Erik A. Mattila
Anthros use the term "abstract" correctly, not to be confused with
"non-objective." For example, Olmec art is less abstract than Maya art.
Olmecs regularly used life models, while Mayan used a stylized
"alphabet" of forms. There is a long sequence know on rock painting in
Baja California (800 years) that shows the people originally used models
and changed to using older art as the models, thus "abstracting" their
forms significantly.
As far as art history goes, it's about 50/50: abstract to models, models
to abstract. And that's all art, not just tribal art forms.
Erik
>
>
Linda Hand
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
> Nearly all art of
>"traditional/indigenous/primitive/whatever-you-want-to-call-them" people
>contains representational elements, or is predominantly representational,
>even, though stylized.
You're forgetting about Islamic art,
which is 'predominantly geometrical.'
Linda Hand
> There is a long sequence know on rock painting in
>Baja California (800 years) that shows the people originally used models
>and changed to using older art as the models, thus "abstracting" their
>forms significantly.
I'm always struck by the 'childish' nature of
some of the rock art. But was it made by a child?
Could have been - older children. In any event,
most of the works that I've seen don't evoke the
notion that the person doing the art was using
models. Most is very stylized and takes some
'imagination' on OUR part to equate to known
human/animal forms. And no, I'm unfamiliar with
the Baja art - can you refer me?
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EDBF33B...@oco.net...
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Hadley" <hadle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b8ec3e2c.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
> to abstract. And that's all art, not just tribal art forms.
There's another dodgy term: "tribal" art. It could mean art of people who
live in societies organized as tribes (as opposed to states), or it could
mean art that whose authorship belongs to the whole "tribe", rather than an
individual maker. Where does that place Yoruba art (often called "tribal",
and formally typical of what people think of when they imagine tribal art),
for instance? For several (about ten?) centuries before colonial times, the
top level of Yoruba social organization was not the tribe, but the
kingdom - and those kingdoms were substantial (as big as England, at peak).
Nor do individual Yoruba carvers not wish to claim credit for their work.
How is the term "tribal" appropriate to Yoruba art, then? This can have
legal implications when work by a twentieth-century Yoruba carver is found
in a Western museum under the "tribal" rubric, with the maker not credited.
Besides being inaccurate, this would probably be in contravention of the
Berne convention on copyright.
As for the author's "correct" use of the word "abstract", he hovers between
using it as a synonym for "stylized" and as a synonym for "non-objective",
without clearly signalling any shifts of meaning. Not ideal.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDBF33B...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Hadley" <hadle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b8ec3e2c.03060...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>As far as art history goes, it's about 50/50: abstract to models, models
>>to abstract. And that's all art, not just tribal art forms.
>
>
> There's another dodgy term: "tribal" art. It could mean art of people who
> live in societies organized as tribes (as opposed to states), or it could
> mean art that whose authorship belongs to the whole "tribe", rather than an
> individual maker. Where does that place Yoruba art (often called "tribal",
> and formally typical of what people think of when they imagine tribal art),
> for instance? For several (about ten?) centuries before colonial times, the
> top level of Yoruba social organization was not the tribe, but the
> kingdom - and those kingdoms were substantial (as big as England, at peak).
> Nor do individual Yoruba carvers not wish to claim credit for their work.
> How is the term "tribal" appropriate to Yoruba art, then? This can have
> legal implications when work by a twentieth-century Yoruba carver is found
> in a Western museum under the "tribal" rubric, with the maker not credited.
> Besides being inaccurate, this would probably be in contravention of the
> Berne convention on copyright.
Yes, I suppose so...but is it significant? "Tribal art" was just a term
coined to avoid "primitive" art. I believe it gained popularity during
the debate over MoMa's "Elective Affinities" show. And West African's
generally don't accept the term "tribe," preferring "ethnic group."
> As for the author's "correct" use of the word "abstract", he hovers between
> using it as a synonym for "stylized" and as a synonym for "non-objective",
> without clearly signalling any shifts of meaning. Not ideal.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I wrote that "anthros"
(anthropologists) use "abstract" correctly, and never as "non-objective".
Erik
>
>
Seagull Manager
"Linda Hand" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3edc...@news.zianet.com...
I didn't forget it, though I understand why you may have thought so. I
actually did mention Islamic a couple of posts back, but there I was
pointing out that the author of the essay was misusing the word
"traditional" (a misuse which gets repeated here, for effect).
Seagull Manager
>
> Yes, I suppose so...but is it significant? "Tribal art" was just a term
> coined to avoid "primitive" art. I believe it gained popularity during
> the debate over MoMa's "Elective Affinities" show. And West African's
> generally don't accept the term "tribe," preferring "ethnic group."
Well, it's a bit tragic that in all the contortions involved in avoiding the
word "primitive", no-one seems to be able to come up with a term that is
accurate and neutral, and indeed some manage to use terms that are
potentially equally offensive, or even more so, so some of the people
referred to by them.
"Non-literate" or "non-machine" would probably be fair descriptions of the
societies whose art is currently considered under the rubric of "tribal".
> I wrote that "anthros" (anthropologists) use "abstract" correctly, and
never as "non-objective".
Fine.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDCCFFD...@oco.net...
>
>>Yes, I suppose so...but is it significant? "Tribal art" was just a term
>>coined to avoid "primitive" art. I believe it gained popularity during
>>the debate over MoMa's "Elective Affinities" show. And West African's
>>generally don't accept the term "tribe," preferring "ethnic group."
>
>
> Well, it's a bit tragic that in all the contortions involved in avoiding the
> word "primitive", no-one seems to be able to come up with a term that is
> accurate and neutral, and indeed some manage to use terms that are
> potentially equally offensive, or even more so, so some of the people
> referred to by them.
What's tragic is the perceived need to invent totalizing terms, in my
opinion. What's wrong with "Yoruba art" or "Achomawi art" or "Mung
art"? The problem with any totalizing terminology is the implication of
affinities where none exist, ethnically, tribally or culturally. The
Americas, for example...there's no unifying element in American art,
nothing you can say is typically "Indian", "Native American" or
"Indigenous." Nevertheless, sometimes it's handy to have a broad term,
like "European Art" even though it is as diverse as any other continent.
But I think it's good that "primitive" has been erased - too many
colonial connotations and assumptions of cultural superiority. However,
"Primitivism" should be retained, by all means. Since it refers to
European and Euroamerican artist's treatment of the idea of the
primitive. It would be a distortion to call it something else.
> "Non-literate" or "non-machine" would probably be fair descriptions of the
> societies whose art is currently considered under the rubric of "tribal".
The old PC term from anthropology was "Preliterate" - but many who fell
under that class were in fact literate, so it sort of went by the wayside.
The other aspect of this deals with the assumed need for classification
- taxa and so on. Why is there "Art" and it's subcategories women's
art, african art, asian art, gay art and so on? And if we fill in all
the subart categories with actual human beings who fit the bill, what
and who are we left with to fill the bill of just plain "Art." White,
European Males. What's this all about?