Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The first point is that most of the sculptures and paintings were not meant to elicit joy in those viewing them. They were meant to perform a function. As long as a general understanding of what was trying to be represented was gained, an accurate depiction was not needed. Another point is that the carving, drawing, and painting implements that prehistoric artists were using were rudimentary at best. They were not using brushes and chisels. They were using branches and sharp rocks. When using those items, details would not be easily obtained and therefore the final piece was more abstract. A third point is in many of the carvings they wanted to draw attention to different areas such as a large belly and large breasts to show fertility.
I think you are right on the mark with your comments. An unadorned bowl and a decorated one are both fully functional, but the decorated one probably brought someone “extra” to the ceremony. Why live with “drab” when you can live with “fab”!
While some things have changed throughout history, I don’t feel as if basic human nature has. Most, if not all, of early prehistoric art could be deemed as functional, but I feel human nature has not changed dramatically in the several thousand years since then. Humans in the modern age mark their property with their name or decorate their items to make them less plain. I do not think it is much is a reach to think that prehistoric humans might have etched lines such as those on the piece of ocher from the Blombos Cave in South Africa to be able to distinguish their property from someone elses. It could also very well have been a sign of social status to have decorated items versus unadorned items. Religious imagery also played a large role in their art. There lives revolved around animals. They needed them for survival. It would make sense that they would document the main reason for their survival on cave walls.
The first definition of art I found was the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful or appealing. Even though I do feel this describes art, I feel the definition does no fully encompass what art can be. There have been many photographs that have captured images of war that I would not describe as being beautiful or appealing, but should be considered art.
The second definition of art is the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects. I feel that this definition better describes art because art does involve some skill and must also include a certain degree of imagination.
I think one of the most beneficial aspects of art history is it can show a great deal of what was happening at that place and time in history. Art has always been an avenue to show the artist’s thoughts on different topics. It allowed people to show opposition to popular topics without the artist having to risk being opening vocal about it.It is great to see someone else that has an interest in scuba diving. I was certified about 25 years ago, but must admit I haven’t had a chance to go diving since getting to Alaska in 2013. I feel that scuba diving can also give an artist a different perspective on subject matter that others might never get to experience. I look forward to seeing more of your artwork.
Very nice to meet you Bob. I loved seeing your metal work and those knives looked amazing. I’m also into photography and am looking forward to breakup this year so I can get down to Denali Park and take some nature shots. It sure does seem like quite a large majority of the class has included their dogs in the introductory presentations. Maybe there is a link between artists and animal lover.
OK, so I posted this once and it seems to have disappeared so I will try once more. Anyways I am looking forward to enjoying this semester with everyone learning a but more about the early history of art. Here is the link to my introduction video (again):
