Art As A Culture
- In the cave paintings, I believe that each painting was a different theme, but all had the same when it came to mystical animals and trying to bring them to life. The mystical animals are known to have roamed with the people and also have represented people in the lives of others.
- I believe the reason as to why there are more animals then people in the paintings is because there were more animals at the time rather than humans around, so I believe that it was just more natural at the time.
- In many cultures, art is seen as a way of expression so in the Paleolithic era, a majority of the people were hunter-gatherers. Since caves were seen as a place of shelter, this was where many paintings were made out of comfort. Since there was no paper or no media, the caves were seen as that visual form of language to show others their cultures and their beliefs.
- One of the difficulties was the location of the pictures and having to reach to certain lengths and certain widths in order to paint in the spot that they preferred. Another difficulty was deciphering their cultures and beliefs into picture form and also all the materials were hand-made from scratch.
- One function is mainly through communication and depending on the understanding from one another. Another function was a brief history of the different animals that roamed in different areas. The last function was to tell stories of their myths and legends.
- I believe the main difference between the paintings in the Lascaux caves to modern art is all behind reasoning. Back then in the Lascaux caves, the paintings had meaning behind them in the form of their culture, beliefs and stories. Also the paintings were seen as a form of written language and how they changed spoken words to visual words. Among this reason there are similarites as both modern art and Lascaux paintings are telling stories and in the vast majority. Modern art has its differences in form of the stories and the stories being more relevant to today's societies and thoughts which probably were not thought of during the time when the Lascaux caves were painted. So the main differences are mainly the stories and which are more relevant depending on the era.
My favorite expression of art is ceramics, mostly because it reminds me of paintings on a object that you can use to tell a story. I also think that an object can show its beautification through its design and also through the variety knowing that not one piece is the same or has the same meaning. I believe that ceramics have their own culture when it comes to archaeology. Ceramics are known to be able to trace culture, technology and knowledge plus behavior of the people of the past. This is a major part of culture and the description of culture. I believe that this art form benefits society, because it helps in learning about different societies and different cultures through objects. I also believe that all different classes around the globe will benefit in taking one ceramic piece and just studying an entire culture by how it was made and the meaning behind it.
Why are these mystical animals? What evidence is there for that claim? Could these just be stylistic images of real animals, drawn on rough walls that require some adjustment for the surface of the rock? Keep in mind that for these early populations, survival would have been paramount. So anything they did would be for the purpose of survival in some way. It would have to have some type of benefit. So why would they need to convey mystical animals for their survival?
ReplyDeleteYes, by sheer numbers, there were more animals, but the other people of the band of hunter gatherers would have been important members of this population and it bears questioning as to why they aren't included here and the numbers game alone doesn't address this. A couple of possibilities: First, people would only be in the pictures if this were depicting an actual hunt. Perhaps this is just an image of the animals around them? Also, consider the fact that hunter gather populations were highly mobile. It is possible that these paintings were intended to provide information or when the population returned to the site later. Would it be important to understand themselves (i.e., the people)? Or understand the animals that are available in the area?
For part (c), you are talking of function of the art. That isn't the question here. What does the art teach us about this population? This really only tells us about creatures seen when hunting, correct? There are no berries, no mushrooms, no birds, no fish and no eggs, things that would be part of the "gathering" process. So who is painting this pictures, men or women? Does that tell us anything about the gender roles of this culture?
"Another difficulty was deciphering their cultures and beliefs into picture form"
This is difficult for us to interpret, but was this really a difficulty for the people of this culture, assuming that this was part of what they painted, something I'm not actually convinced of.
Think more logistically: What about lighting? Wouldn't that be a key problem? And access to the cave in the first place? If you've ever been spelunking, going into unknown caves and exploring into dark places is unnerving.
Okay on functions, though again I question the contention that these are mythical.
Section 2: You start off this section talking differences but the guidelines ask for you to draw parallels of similarities between the cave art and modern art. You get to this half-way through the section, only getting side-tracked in the first half.
"Also the paintings were seen as a form of written language and how they changed spoken words to visual words."
This is interesting. I'm not sure if we can go so far to say that this is a form of "written" language. "Pictoral" language, yes. That said, I do see the connection from word to image.
Are their any more functional parallels besides story telling? How about recording events (think photography)? Tracking records?
Section 3: Great art form! Good discussion of function and culture. Benefits and detriments are more difficult to discuss. The ceramics themselves are, for the most part, functional, which is the benefit, but you are correct that this certainly benefits archeologists. Can't imagine how the art form might be detrimental, but then again I don't know the culture of this art form. It might have had negative aspects during it's height.