new thread
Michael Eisenstadt
I think I see a possible heuristic which I haven't yet
found already discussed in the literature.
In their recent books on the subject, Randall White,
Jean Clottes, David Lewis-Williams, are all, perhaps
unwittingly, politically correct.
White et al correctly point out that we should not export
the modern concepts of art back into our attempts to
understand the Ice Age. This may lead to be overlooking
an interesting fact, that some (not all) of Ice Cave art
is hyperrealistically accurate in a way that was not seen
again until the 6th-5th centuries BC in Greece. In
other words, some of the parietal & mobiliary art of
the European Ice Age was done by artists who had been
able to memorize the anatomy, behavior, look of various
species & reproduce them hyperrealistically. But none
of the rock art of other cultures and times evidences
hyperrealistic accuracy -- with the possible exception
of some of the elands represented in Bushmen art.
Perhaps the belief systems as evolved through the millenia
of the Bushmen, the Australian aborigines, the Amerindians,
got in the way of hyperrealistic art. Their wall art
references various species of animals, birds, insects,
fish but the notion of representing realistically the
form of the animals referenced does not seem to be present.
They might as well have drawn a circle on a blackboard
and written in the name of the species and their ritual
would have been no less efficacious. (I am not denying
the charm and art of non-realistic art in saying this).
The shape, behaviours, fur colors of animals is not a
function of human culture. The often quoted comparison
of the various ways of naming the visible colors by
various cultures is in my mind quite misleading.
Contrariwise, the 270 odd different species of birds
in an area in New Guinea were found to each have a
different name in the local language; the taxonomy of
the various species of birds as understood by the
locals jibed exactly with that of Western
ornithologists.
I ask myself how do the beliefs of surviving rock
art cultures occupy the mind so as to block off
the option of talented artists doing realistic art?
Again, this is not to same as to say that non-realistic
wall art is not art. I am merely saying that it is not
hyperrealistic. As far as belief systems go, 6th-5th
century BC Greece where hyperrealistic 3d art first
flourished in historic times, was a virtually empty
slate, compared to all other historic periods
before post Enlightenment eras in terms of sclerotic
beliefs occupying the mind. Perhaps western European
Ice Age culture(s) started out with a comparably empty
slate as regards their belief system which somehow
some gifted folks to strive for anatomical accuracy in
painting, drawing, and shaping animals.
If the beliefs of the epigonous rock art cultures which
occupy their owners' minds so as to effectively stymie
the impulse to do realistic art could somehow be identified,
we would then know what beliefs NOT to ascribe to Ice Age
cultures that produced hyperrealistic art.
Whadduya think?
Michael Eisenstadt
pete
> But none
> of the rock art of other cultures and times evidences
> hyperrealistic accuracy
The White Autistic Neanderthal Theory, explains that one.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9cc0ho%24d8us2%241%40ID-78319.news.dfncis.de
> -- with the possible exception
> of some of the elands represented in Bushmen art.
Another theory bites the dust.
Do Bushmen have a high incidence of autism ?
--
pete
Anne Gilbert
That's the pet theory of a particularly obsessed netloon with whom I have
unfortunately crossed paths.
Anne G
"pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FFCAE...@mindspring.com...
NA Sides
<mich...@ando.pair.com> wrote:
>As to western European Ice Age parietal & mobiliary art,
>I think I see a possible heuristic which I haven't yet
>found already discussed in the literature.
>
>In their recent books on the subject, Randall White,
>Jean Clottes, David Lewis-Williams, are all, perhaps
>unwittingly, politically correct.
>
>White et al correctly point out that we should not export
>the modern concepts of art back into our attempts to
>understand the Ice Age. This may lead to be overlooking
>an interesting fact, that some (not all) of Ice Cave art
>is hyperrealistically accurate in a way that was not seen
>again until the 6th-5th centuries BC in Greece. In
>other words, some of the parietal & mobiliary art of
>the European Ice Age was done by artists who had been
>able to memorize the anatomy, behavior, look of various
>species & reproduce them hyperrealistically. But none
>of the rock art of other cultures and times evidences
>hyperrealistic accuracy -- with the possible exception
>of some of the elands represented in Bushmen art.
One could argue with your claim that Paleolithic cave art
is hyperrealistic in comparison to all art before 6th-5th
centuries B.C. Greece. Some of it was done by accomplished
artists who knew their subject matter, but the same could be
said of three thousand five hundred year old Minoan frescos
containing depictions of dolphins, bulls, cats and other
creatures as well as human beings. In some ways the
Minoan styles seem quite similar to some ice-age cave paintings
and Neolithic Minoan sculptures look similar in some ways to Upper
Paleolithic "Venus" figures.
http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/aegeanhtml/minoanneolithic1.html
The Egyptians and Assyrians also created anatomically
correct and masterful renditions of animals and people but in
more formal and rigidly posed styles. Middle Archaic Greek statuary
(8th to 7th centuries B.C.) was highly influenced by the
Egyptian style and was itself quite stylized. Greek sculptures
didn't begin to break away from this stylization until the
Classical Period.
http://www.tigtail.org/TIG/TVM/E/Ancient/Greek/Greek-art/greek-2.archaic.html
It's true that some Paleolithic artists used foreshortening in
a way that allowed them to depict animals in a naturalistic
manner that wasn't again equaled until nearly the modern era,
but most cave paintings seem to be fairly conventionalized
side-on representations. Bushman rock art was equally
naturalistic and masterful. Perhaps it represents the
persistence into recent times of an ancient style that was
carried by migrants to different regions of Europe.
>Perhaps the belief systems as evolved through the millenia
>of the Bushmen, the Australian aborigines, the Amerindians,
>got in the way of hyperrealistic art. Their wall art
>references various species of animals, birds, insects,
>fish but the notion of representing realistically the
>form of the animals referenced does not seem to be present.
>They might as well have drawn a circle on a blackboard
>and written in the name of the species and their ritual
>would have been no less efficacious. (I am not denying
>the charm and art of non-realistic art in saying this).
Something similar happened, if I'm not mistaken, at the
beginning of the European Mesolithic. The naturalistic cave
art tradition died out and artistic productions (or at least the
ones that have been preserved) became more sparse,
abstract, and perhaps more iconic. Here's a site that has a
photo of some Mesolithic abstractions.
<http://www.stedwards.edu/bss/aflorek/civilization/civartemp.html>
So there doesn't seem to be a correspondence between level of
technology and degree of abstraction. Styles change. The reasons
may be very complex in some cases. I don't think you can draw a
sharp line between "sclerotic" and "hyperrealistic" art. The above
site discusses this briefly in terms of the functions of art and the
differing world views that influence various aesthetic traditions.
This is possible, but Greek art developed in context of
existing art and craft traditions. The developing Greek
worldview would have influenced that development and
been influenced by it. Did this developing view, influenced
by the concept of rational logic and individuality, and also
by traditional beliefs and values, somehow channel artistic
traditions into more naturalistic expressions? And were
upper Paleolithic Europeans similarly breaking free of
ancient "sclerotic" patterns of thought? Hard to say, I guess,
but the new ideas associated with Mesolithic and
Neolithic developments don't seem always to have
resulted in extremely naturalistic and realistic art.
>If the beliefs of the epigonous rock art cultures which
>occupy their owners' minds so as to effectively stymie
>the impulse to do realistic art could somehow be identified,
>we would then know what beliefs NOT to ascribe to Ice Age
>cultures that produced hyperrealistic art.
>
>Whadduya think?
Interesting, but I think your oversimplifying complex issues.
NAS
>
>Michael Eisenstadt
Michael Eisenstadt
NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
(originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
a matched set).
In other words, that those few artists with the requisite talent
to represent accurately the looks, poses, movements of animals
take pleasure in doing so but only in those cultures whose
sets of beliefs do not get in their way. In the case of the
so-called X-ray style of Australian rock art where the outline
of animals as well as their internal bones and organs are
represented, obviously a set of beliefs, religious, ontological,
metaphysical, etc. has imposed a non naturalistic style on
the artist. As this style has survived to the present (cf.
Randal White, Prehistoric Art, p. 191, "1964 rock painting by
the Aborigine Najombolmi"), it might be useful to interview
Mr Najombolmi as to his set of beliefs about representing
animals, insects, humans if he is still alive. Or others if
there are others doing rock paintings in Australia or Africa.
We know with great exactness the set of beliefs of 6th/5th
century Greece where naturalistic/realistic sculpture first
arose in historical times. It is safe to say that this set
of beliefs in no way impeded but rather provided the intellectual
freedom for some few talented artists to throw off the various
conventions of prior art and freely strive for realistic accuracy
following their natural impulse to take pleasure in their talent.
Perhaps Ice Age art too at the dawn of truly human endeavor
also provided a kind of intellectual freedom for talented
artists, a freedom which was soon lost in the accretion of
primitive beliefs and its strictures and trammels.
With these 2 poles of the heuristic I have been trying to
describe above, a re-examination of the most realistic examples
of Ice Age art in their various contexts with attention also
directed towards the non-naturalist representations of human
figures, if there are any in the same contexts, might advance
our understanding of its culture.
Michael Eisenstadt
NA Sides
<mich...@ando.pair.com> wrote:
>I am advancing the argument that realistic/naturalistic art is
>NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
>strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
>impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
>sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
>(originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
>origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
>a matched set).
Greek styles and methods were appropriated by Roman sculptures. In
fact Greek artisans often worked for Roman employers. The extremely
realistic Roman portrait busts were the product of mostly Greek
techniques and stylistic conventions employed to convey Roman
gravitas.
>In other words, that those few artists with the requisite talent
>to represent accurately the looks, poses, movements of animals
>take pleasure in doing so but only in those cultures whose
>sets of beliefs do not get in their way. In the case of the
>so-called X-ray style of Australian rock art where the outline
>of animals as well as their internal bones and organs are
>represented, obviously a set of beliefs, religious, ontological,
>metaphysical, etc. has imposed a non naturalistic style on
>the artist. As this style has survived to the present (cf.
>Randal White, Prehistoric Art, p. 191, "1964 rock painting by
>the Aborigine Najombolmi"), it might be useful to interview
>Mr Najombolmi as to his set of beliefs about representing
>animals, insects, humans if he is still alive. Or others if
>there are others doing rock paintings in Australia or Africa.
Picasso was an accomplished draughtsman. He progressed from realistic
early work to later abstraction. What beliefs prevented him from
realistically representing the looks, poses and movements of animals?
If such representation necessarily brings maximum pleasure to the
accomplished naturalistic artist, why did he relinquish it?
>We know with great exactness the set of beliefs of 6th/5th
>century Greece where naturalistic/realistic sculpture first
>arose in historical times. It is safe to say that this set
>of beliefs in no way impeded but rather provided the intellectual
>freedom for some few talented artists to throw off the various
>conventions of prior art and freely strive for realistic accuracy
>following their natural impulse to take pleasure in their talent.
You haven't dealt with the fact that extremely realistic and
naturalistic artworks have been produced by highly regimented and
traditionally oriented cultures ("sclerotic" cultures in your
terminology) prior to the 6th/5th century B.C.
>Perhaps Ice Age art too at the dawn of truly human endeavor
>also provided a kind of intellectual freedom for talented
>artists, a freedom which was soon lost in the accretion of
>primitive beliefs and its strictures and trammels.
Intellectual freedom contributed both to the development of Classical
Greek art and to modern abstract art. There's no simple relationship
between intellectual freedom (however that might be defined) and
hyperrealistic art. At any rate some folks would say that the most
free, naturalistic and hyperrealistic art didn't develop until the
Hellenistic period. The 6th/5th century stuff was still being done
mostly to the rules of an established canon. New rules, such as the
contrapposto, had been established, but everything was still more or
less governed by traditional stylistic conventions.
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/g/greek.html
>With these 2 poles of the heuristic I have been trying to
>describe above, a re-examination of the most realistic examples
>of Ice Age art in their various contexts with attention also
>directed towards the non-naturalist representations of human
>figures, if there are any in the same contexts, might advance
>our understanding of its culture.
You're still oversimplifying.
NAS
>Michael Eisenstadt
Michael Eisenstadt
I had written:
> I am advancing the argument that realistic/naturalistic art is
> NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
> strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
> impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
> sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
> (originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
> origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
> a matched set).
You wrote:
> Greek styles and methods were appropriated by Roman sculptures.
What Greek styles? After the florescence of naturalistic/realistic
sculptures in 6th/5th century Greece, there are no styles; only the
realistic "style" if you insist on using the word.
You also wrote:
> In fact Greek artisans often worked for Roman employers.
So what?
You then wrote:
> The extremely realistic Roman portrait busts were the product
> of mostly Greek techniques and stylistic conventions employed
> to convey Roman gravitas.
Techniques vary. The stylistic conventions you speak of is an
imaginary plural. Thus I would ask you to name more than one
stylistic convention other than the naturalistic/realistic
"style". The Roman portrait sculptures are, as you say, extremely
realistic and indeed convey the gravitas of real aristocrats
who affected gravity, just as sculptures of horses in this "style"
convey horsiness.
You also wrote:
> Picasso was an accomplished draughtsman. He progressed from realistic
> early work to later abstraction. What beliefs prevented him from
> realistically representing the looks, poses and movements of animals?
> If such representation necessarily brings maximum pleasure to the
> accomplished naturalistic artist, why did he relinquish it?
I spoke nowhere of maximum pleasure. Picasso lived in recent
times and was a free thinking painter in the post Renaissance
masterpiece tradition. To ask why he relinquished the pleasure
of being a 19th century academic painter in a moribund tradition
is ridiculous.
Michael Eisenstadt
NA Sides
<mich...@ando.pair.com> wrote:
>Thanks, NA Sides, for your prompt reply.
>
>I had written:
>
>> I am advancing the argument that realistic/naturalistic art is
>> NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
>> strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
>> impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
>> sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
>> (originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
>> origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
>> a matched set).
>
>You wrote:
>
>> Greek styles and methods were appropriated by Roman sculptures.
>
>What Greek styles? After the florescence of naturalistic/realistic
>sculptures in 6th/5th century Greece, there are no styles; only the
>realistic "style" if you insist on using the word.
I previously provided you with a URL to a site that outlines
the development of Greek sculpture from the period of the Hellidac
Dark Ages (1200 to 900 BC) all the way through the Hellenistic period
(350 BC to 100 AD). The overall stylistic trends are fairly clear.
Here's the URL once again:
<http://www.tigtail.org/TIG/TVM/E/Ancient/Greek/Greek-art/greek-2.archaic.html>
You can click on the links and proceed through all the periods. Here's
a very broad synopsis of the various major styles:
The Archaic style was heavily influenced by Egyptian models and was
distinguished by stiff posture derived from Egyptian models,
geometrically stylized hair, the "archaic smile," anatomy defined by
incised lines with little modeling of volumes, straight lines and
simple curves, an even distribution of weight and closed outlines.
The Early Classical featured contrapposto: a more naturalistic
treatment of posture in which the weight is shifted to one foot and
the body is slightly twisted to produce a more relaxed and realistic
stance. The hair is treated more naturalistically and the musculature
rendered with more modeling of volumes, The Archaic smile gives way to
a greater variety of expressions. This period is probably where you
think "hyperrealism" emerged, but Classical Greek art developed from
the preceding Archaic period and incorporated various stylistic
elements and influences from Minoan, Mycenian, Egyptian and other
traditions.
During the High Classical period a canon, or standardization of
proportions, is applied. The poses are opened up, as with heel raised
contrapposto. Drapery is often treated with in the "wet style" which
tends to follow body contours.
During the Late Classical the canon changes, with somewhat smaller
heads, sinuous and elegant poses, the first female nudes, more varied
stances, facial expressions which convey a degree of emotion, subtly
modeled and softer musculature and naturalistic hair.
Hellenistic sculpture has undercutting to create pockets of shadow.
Drama and emotion are expressed. Poses are dynamic and varied with
flowing drapery and hair. Highly accomplished modeling produces
complex compositions with turbulent forms and lines.
In some ways Hellenistic art is unsurpassed in realism, but in other
ways it sometimes might be considered less realistic than Late Archaic
and Early Classical works. You seem to be simply lumping everything
together into your category of "hyperrealistic art." That's a
completely inadequate classification. And once again you have clipped
without comment the section of my post which points out that
anatomically correct and naturalistic animal depictions were produced
by "sclerotic" societies thousands of years before the 6th/5th
centuries B.C. Why don't you consider such works hyperrealistic?
>You also wrote:
>
>> In fact Greek artisans often worked for Roman employers.
>
>So what?
I was responding to your assertion that some undefined quality of
"hyperrealism" accounts for difficulties in determining whether those
equestrian statues were Greek or Roman. Many Roman statues
are outright copies of earlier Greek works, but more significantly,
Roman art was stylistically influenced in profound and often subtle
ways by Greek art. Early Roman artisans were initially trained by
Greeks and the Roman sculptural tradition was in some respects a
continuation of the Greek tradition.
>You then wrote:
>
>> The extremely realistic Roman portrait busts were the product
>> of mostly Greek techniques and stylistic conventions employed
>> to convey Roman gravitas.
>
>Techniques vary. The stylistic conventions you speak of is an
>imaginary plural. Thus I would ask you to name more than one
>stylistic convention other than the naturalistic/realistic
>"style". The Roman portrait sculptures are, as you say, extremely
>realistic and indeed convey the gravitas of real aristocrats
>who affected gravity, just as sculptures of horses in this "style"
>convey horsiness.
You may need to take a course in European art history. *Every*
artistic style incorporates its own set of techniques and stylistic
conventions. It's always plural. Techniques affect, and partly
determine style but style also partly determines what sorts of
techniques will be used. New styles can foster the development of new
or modified techniques. These may range from the basic approach to
posing the figure and blocking out the shape to such matters as the
facial expression.
Here's the Late Archaic or early Classical Herakles from Aphaia:
It's masterfully done, realistic, powerful and direct, but scroll down
the page and see how the style evolves over just a few decades.
Modeling of volumes becomes more assured, the poses less rigid and the
treatment of draperies more supple.
Then, by the Hellenistic period sculptors have attained an unequaled
technical mastery, as in the battle between giants and gods from the
Frieze of the Alter of Zeus from Pergamon.
<http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Cheatham/Pergamon.html>
<http://www.norwichfreeacademy.com/slater_museum/shows/cast/120_gigantomachy_frieze.html>
Or The Laocoon:
<http://www.sculpture.net/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=299>
Is the Laocoon group hyperrealistic? It's modeled *more* realistically
than the Aphaia Herakles, and during the 19th century was regarded as
the epitome of Greek artistic expression. Nowadays many people, while
recognizing its technical mastery, would regard it as an expression of
contrived bathos which is less convincing and real than the simple
direct presence conveyed by the Herakles.
>You also wrote:
>
>> Picasso was an accomplished draughtsman. He progressed from realistic
>> early work to later abstraction. What beliefs prevented him from
>> realistically representing the looks, poses and movements of animals?
>> If such representation necessarily brings maximum pleasure to the
>> accomplished naturalistic artist, why did he relinquish it?
>
>I spoke nowhere of maximum pleasure. Picasso lived in recent
>times and was a free thinking painter in the post Renaissance
>masterpiece tradition. To ask why he relinquished the pleasure
>of being a 19th century academic painter in a moribund tradition
>is ridiculous.
So freethinking emancipation from moribund and sclerotic tradition can
yield either "hyperrealism" (which you still haven't defined) or it
can cause artists to abandon realism and embrace abstraction. I'm not
denying that both Upper Paleolithic and Greek artists may have been
influenced by new ideas to create new types of artwork, but you seem
to be ignoring data that don't fit your idea. Were the naturalistic
bushman rock artists breaking free of old and sclerotic thinking? It
seems possible that they, and perhaps also Paleolithic European
artists, were working within an older and well established
naturalistic tradition. It appears, after all, that even the earlier
European cave paintings were done with considerable skill and
assurance. They don't appear to be fumbling first attempts.
NAS
>Michael Eisenstadt
Michael Eisenstadt
message are correct as regards art history viewed from
close up. I was trying to paint a picture with a broader
brush.
Your advice that I go back to school to get up to speed
in art history didn't really help your argument all that
much though.
Michael Eisenstadt
MIB529
> Pete and all:
>
> That's the pet theory of a particularly obsessed netloon with whom I have
> unfortunately crossed paths.
So's everything Eisenstadt said.
I wouldn't call Greek art 'hyperrealistic', personally. I mean, women have
no pubic hair and men look like adolescents. And then there are all their
hybrid species: Satyrs, centaurs, minotaurs, gorgons...About as
hyperrealistic as unicorns. LOL
Neil Ross
>
> I wouldn't call Greek art 'hyperrealistic', personally. I mean, women have
> no pubic hair and men look like adolescents. And then there are all their
> hybrid species: Satyrs, centaurs, minotaurs, gorgons...About as
> hyperrealistic as unicorns. LOL
Eisenstadt I think was talking about realistic or naturalistic
art which strives for fidelity to nature. This can include
bearded horse men or bearded goat footed satyrs, that kind of
scupture is imaginative but realistic like the kritters in
Star Wars.
You're a nitwit not to have understood this.
Neil Ross
deowll
"Michael Eisenstadt" <mich...@ando.pair.com> wrote in message
news:8b15bf6bf984848b...@news.teranews.com...
> I am advancing the argument that realistic/naturalistic art is
> NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
> strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
> impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
> sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
> (originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
> origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
> a matched set).
>
with the big toe longest. All or almost all Greek art shows the second toe
longest as my foot is. The guy that published that claim said it worked over
90% of the time though one coupy had one foot one way and the other the
other way.
pete
>
> "Michael Eisenstadt" <mich...@ando.pair.com> wrote in message
> news:8b15bf6bf984848b...@news.teranews.com...
> > I am advancing the argument that realistic/naturalistic art is
> > NOT one of the various styles of world art, rather it is,
> > strictly speaking, not a style at all. That is why it is
> > impossible to establish, for example, whether the 4 equestrian
> > sculptures that used to adorn the San Marco cathedral in Venice
> > (originally looted from Constantinope) are Greek or Roman in
> > origin or date (considered individually of course as they are not
> > a matched set).
> >
> I've read you can usually do that very fast.
> Almost all Roman art shows men with the big toe longest.
> All or almost all Greek art shows the second toe longest
> as my foot is.
It's called Morton's Toe.
A lot of people have, a lot of people don't.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Morton%27s+Toe%22
--
pete
Michael Eisenstadt
> with the big toe longest. All or almost all Greek art shows the second toe
> longest as my foot is. The guy that published that claim said it worked over
> 90% of the time though one coupy had one foot one way and the other the
> other way.
It's very true that visually the difference often just jumps out
at you. Usually Helenistic (4th century BC till ~400 AD) sculpture
is identified by its somewhat decadent change of subject matter
and handling from that of high Classical Greek sculpture (6-5th
century BC).
But not always. I was lucky enough to see the traveling show of
Ancient Equestrian sculpture in 1979. It included one of the San Marco
horses. Some were from Greece, others from Italy, the experts
according to the catalogue of the show were at a loss as to many
of the pieces' various provenances and eras.
Michael Eisenstadt