Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aubri, I like your points about the importance of each piece of prehistoric art to the people creating them. I think a big source of contention on this question is the proper definition of “abstract”. Many people define “abstract art” in the modern sense, as nonsensical or devoid of realism. However, the definition I was pulling from defined “abstract/abstraction” as depicting something non-real in a more general sense, such as a fictional creature. Using different definitions of abstraction, do you think your opinion would change at all? Why or why not?
Hi Maggie, I really like your point about how art may just have been a facet of prehistoric people’s lives an identity without being a separate practice. I would say that while art as a career is its own independent thing, I would also argue that art is still something that is integral to how many people experience the world. For example, all children – both those who do and do not want to become artists – draw pictures describing their lives and loved ones, and want to share these with each other, their families and the world. I think in some ways, people have always been people, including our innate relationship to art.
Many people claim that prehistoric imagery is abstract or abstracted. How do you react to this? Use examples.
Like most things in regards to prehistoric art, I believe it is very difficult to speak in absolutes, especially considering that I lack the context to properly understand the purpose of the art’s creation. While it seems true that some of the art is abstract/abstracted, other pieces within the same medium and category of work don’t seem to be. For example, some of the earliest art pieces found are cave paintings. While some like the paintings in the Chauvet Cave seem almost to function like encyclopedias that could serve to show lifelike representations of local animals, which I would not consider abstraction, others like the Lascaux Cave paintings show what I interpret to be a fictional creature, which could be considered abstract. I draw a similar comparison between the carvings depicting humans in believable poses and scenarios like the Man and Woman from Cernavoda vs. depictions of fictional figures like the Lion-Human. Overall, I believe that without proper context of the culture and time in which a work was created, the abstract nature of prehistoric art can only be speculated.
I think it would be safe to say that the function of most prehistoric art was greatly dependent on the context of its creation, which we as modern humans unfortunately have little to no way of knowing. I personally believe that creativity, imagination and the resulting desire to create and innovate are inherent human characteristics, and have been since the evolution of modern humanity (and perhaps even before that within communities such as the Neanderthals). To me, it seems very likely that some of the works like the Lion Man were used as representations of a character or deity for the purposes of storytelling. I think that these stories could have been spiritual, moral or even purely creative in nature. However, other works such as the bison relief sculptures and illustrative cave paintings could have served as educational tools, perhaps as models to indicate to young hunters what they were hunting and where on the animal to strike, etc.. It is even possible to me that some of the female figurines are not deific or spiritual, but in fact could serve as extremely early examples of pornography. Again, without proper context, it is very difficult for anyone to know for sure.
Hi Maggie!
What sort of stuff do you do at LARS? Do you think you’d like to (or plan on) working with animals in general, or is it more just a job that helps inspire your art?Hey there! I really love the mural work you’ve done. Are you particularly interested in marine biology, or just enjoy scuba diving as a hobby? Both are very cool. 🙂
Hey guys! Here’s my video.
(Hope this works?)Part I: What is Art? Choose a definition that you disagree with and one that you see merit in and tell us why.
One definition I largely agree with defines art as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” I agree very much with this definition, in that it specifies “art” as a general term for skill-based creative works created by humans (though I would argue that some other intelligent creatures such as birds and apes are also capable of making art, but that is a completely different debate).
One definition I find a good bit of fault in defines art as “subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).” This not only discredits the role of creative thinking within scientific fields, but also severely limits the range of what art can be. It also completely discounts the technical skills and aspects that are present and in fact necessary in many forms of art, defining them as non-scientific and non-technical, which is in many ways inaccurate to my understand of art as a field.Part II: What is Art History? Why do we study the history of art? How does it help us understand the world in which we live?
Art history is, in a nutshell, the study of art as a medium and its technical and cultural significance throughout human history. We study art for many reasons. For example, art produced in a specific time period and culture can hold a great deal of information about said time and place. Knowing the history of art helps artists know where we have come from in regards to technical advancements and methods, give references to methods of producing art that would otherwise not exist, and also allows the general public to better grasp where they come from culturally.Part I: What is Art? If you do just a quick internet search you will come up with many definitions of art. None of them are perfect but all make for good discussion. Choose a definition that you disagree with and one that you see merit in and tell us why.
One definition I largely agree with defines art as “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” I agree very much with this definition, in that it specifies “art” as a general term for skill-based creative works created by humans (though I would argue that some other intelligent creatures such as birds and apes are also capable of making art, but that is a completely different debate).
One definition I find a good bit of fault in defines art as “subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).” This not only discredits the role of creative thinking within scientific fields, but also severely limits the range of what art can be. It also completely discounts the technical skills and aspects that are present and in fact necessary in many forms of art, defining them as non-scientific and non-technical, which is in many ways inaccurate to my understand of art as a field.Part II: What is Art History? Why do we study the history of art? How does it help us understand the world in which we live?
Art history is, in a nutshell, the study of art as a medium and its technical and cultural significance throughout human history. We study art for many reasons. For example, art produced in a specific time period and culture can hold a great deal of information about said time and place. Knowing the history of art helps artists know where we have come from in regards to technical advancements and methods, give references to methods of producing art that would otherwise not exist, and also allows the general public to better grasp where they come from culturally.
