Functions of Early Art:
What were the cave artists trying to say?
My first inclination is that the cave artists were making these paintings to show reverence for their natural environment and as a way of documenting who they were and how they lived. However, upon further research, these paintings may have been an early writing system, acted as a lunar calendar, and a means of capturing and calculating herd migrations and even the reproductive cycles of the animals depicted.
Why do you think that there were so many animals and not as many people in the paintings?
As stated above, these paintings were centric on the migrations of the animals depicted and were possibly more critical to hunting than a form of human documentation. Though reindeer may have been the primary animal they hunted, no reindeer are depicted in the paintings.
What can the paintings tell us about other aspects of the life of cave dwellers or Paleolithic people?
The paintings show that the painters' lives were very much in tune with their environment. I also discovered that they were nomadic people and may not have lived in the caves; instead, the caves were predominantly used as canvas for their paintings.
What difficulties did these early humans navigate in order to paint these pictures?
Many paintings were done in elevated positions and inaccessible locations within the caves. To complete these paintings, they would have had to construct some form of scaffolding, not to mention use rope to descend into the lower regions of the caves. They would also have been required to bring the tools and have an adequate light source.
Speculate as to three (3) possible functions of this art to early humans.
1) As a form of artistic expression, such as artwork within a
cathedral.
2) As a possible calendar and tracker of animal migration.
3) A way of documenting historical events of the environment of
the previous generation for future generations.
Commonalities in Function: Compare the possible functions of the art from the Lascaux Caves to modern art, in all of its various forms. What are some commonalities in function you can find in how the art of early humans and modern humans?
The commonalities would be using the medium of paint to outwardly express to others how another sees their environment through the eyes of the one creating the artwork. However, it is on the assumption that the creators of the cave paintings were making the paintings as a form of art. Was art even a concept to them, or is art an invention based on a more pragmatic intention of the cave paintings? Much as food preparation evolved from mere subsistence to what, in some cases, is considered a form of art.
Introduce Us to Your Favorite Art:
My favorite form of art is classic Greek sculpture.
,_found_in_Pompeii,_Moi,_Auguste,_Empereur_de_Rome_exhibition,_Grand_Palais,_Paris.jpg)
For those who practice this form of artistic expression,
what function does it serve? What are they trying to communicate?
Classic Greek sculpture is a form of art designed to capture the human physique in its most optimal visual appeal. It tries to communicate a reverence for the human form and its capabilities.
Is there a complete culture surrounding this art form, i.e., a language, a set of behaviors, form of dress, etc.? Describe and identify the features of this culture.
Classic Greek sculpture is a form of art created around the early 6th century BCE. The Greek people and their culture still exist today, as does their language, though I do not know to what extent their language remains the same today as it was then. The culture's identity was Greek, and one feature of the culture, as it relates to art, was an appreciation of the human form.
How does this art form (and its culture) benefit society? Are there any detrimental affects?
This art form and the culture surrounding it benefited our society by visually manifesting the human body's potential. I cannot think of any detrimental effects this art form or culture poses to society then or today.
Section 1:
ReplyDeleteRe: Message... I'm glad you took a second look! Remember that this population of early humans spent their days battling the elements and other threats for survival. These paintings were costly in terms of effort and time and would have needed some sort of concrete benefit to balance that cost. I agree with your identification of the information they were trying to communicate, but who was their target audience? Themselves? Future generations of this population? Other human groups? It is easier to figure out what they are saying when you figure out who they are talking to.
Re: Animals... Yes, that explains the emphasis on animals but not really the complete lack of humans, nor the way they are depicted. The humans are essentially stick figures, where the animals are depicted in detail and color. Could it simply be that they knew what humans looked like already? ;-) It was the animals that they needed to record for future information?
Re: Aspects of culture... Good on the issue of being nomadic. Does it give us any other information on the culture? It clues us into the animals they hunted (or perhaps avoided?) and some information on their hunting tools. And sometimes (like with the absence of people), what is missing tells us as much as what is actually there. Seems like the information in the paintings is solely about hunting. Considering hunting is traditionally a male practice, with women doing the gathering, does this tell you anything about who was doing these paintings? Would the paintings have been different if women were doing the painting?
Re: Difficulties... Good, but where did they get the tools? They would have had to create their own tools AND their own pigments, correct?
Re: Functions... Good!
Google limited the length of my comment so I will finish it here:
Delete______________________________________________________________
Section 2: " Was art even a concept to them, or is art an invention based on a more pragmatic intention of the cave paintings? "
That is a very astute observation. We often think of "art" as an "extra" in our culture that results form extra time or resources and not something that is necessary for survival. And what if this wasn't an ephemeral example of "art" but actually a *tool* for these early humans, the provided a definitive function for them? Great point.
But for that matter, is our own art always ephemeral nature? Art functions as far more than self-expression. It is can communicate information and ideas or record events for future populations. It can generate anger or support or passion. It can inspire others to act or bolster a person's courage. It can teach and inform and make people aware of important issues or concerns. One great example of this is photography, which is used to communicate and inform people of events, positive or negative, and can be used to inspire people to act or warn of impending horrific events.
So what defines "art"? I don't think it is "function" as that can take on multiple roles. The cave images can certainly be "art" as much modern forms even with a concrete function.
Section 3:
Image/Video: Good.
Function: Can we get a little deeper here? Sculpture was a very early form of art and allowed the artist to create a more permanent depiction of a person or object that carried importance for them. The creation of these Greek sculptures are remarkable in that they allow us to actually visualize what actual people looked like. Yes, it was the artist's rendition, but still... more information than we can get from paintings.
I just saw on Twitter/X yesterday a series of images from ancient sculptures and the remarkable work of artists like Michelangelo, who has such incredible knowledge of anatomy that he would be careful to include a specific extensor muscle in the forearm that is responsible for lifting just the pinky finger! You could basically take an anatomy class form one of his sculptures. To an anatomist like myself, this provides an incredible view into the ancient world of humans.
https://www.latamarte.com/en/articles/3WG8/
Culture: Good.
Costs/Benefits: Okay. While I cannot think of a cost either, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Given that these were created so long ago, we don't have a clear window into the culture which blocks our access to any possible costs. One might be the fact that only wealthy people could commission art work, so we don't see what "commoners" would have looked like. I also wonder if a wealthy patron might have used money to alter sculptures to remove flaws or other things they didn't like about themselves. :-)
Hi! I studied Latin for 7 years in middle/high school, a lot of which was spent learning about Greek & Roman art and how important the art was to their cultures. To answer a question you brought up, ancient Greek shares some similarities with modern Greek, but the language has evolved so much over 2000+ years that they would not be able to properly communicate. From what I remember, it would be similar to the similarities seen in Romance languages and how a speaker could understand a few words in sentences, but would overall not be able to understand other Romance languages.
ReplyDelete