Archaeologica.org

It is not a "big jump " on my part . The input from contemporary artists / sculptors in relation to motif making from all periods is something that has been part of rock studies from the early days to the present .I have read, corresponded with , have friends who are artists (also teaching up to degree level ) and regularly discuss the subject ,it is not something new .Initially you could respond to the points raised which were entirely jargon free and clarify why "quality of sketchiness " would be understood by artists but not those of us not in the guild .

What we are looking at is a pattern, to understand the pattern I am looking at the lines that create it, and how those lines are made, By sketchiness, I am not talking about it looking like a sketch of something, or even that the lines are made inexactly, but in using a term that would be said about a students work referring to the lack of concern, in which that the lines are made, when a student does not think about the way they will be viewed. Now to understand that statement you would have to know that a difference can be discerned between a line which is not placed well, say by a student or child, from a line where its creator was not particularly bothered about its placement.
To depict that difference I would have to do a good deal of explanation as stated above, and not use terms as shorthand to mean concepts artists would be used to. As such I not only have to avoid the use of those sort of terms, but also think about how I am going to explain them with reference to these pieces of ochre.
As such the task for me would be not only explain every step of my reasoning in detail, but also translate each concept as if it had not been seen before. Some of these concepts I am so used to using I don't even think about them not being clear, such as a quality of sketchiness, which when I used it I did not even stop to consider might not be clear to everybody.
So do you want to start from the bottom and build things back up from a new beginning?

Your description of sketchiness is pretty much as I read it originally . Have a look at the literature on Paleolithic (or engraving in general from prehistory ) art examples , not just pics of the famous well executed examples , and you will see that the majority were sketchy ,and not as you suggested “If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”

Your original suggestion , which I disagreed with and am unaware of anyone apart from yourself else agreeing with , concerned a possible utilitarian reason for the markings ,i.e. the markings were an aid to application of the pigment , that changed to the markings being a result of producing the pigment . If you have some points to make how the markings were produced or the mentality /intentionality , skill or otherwise of the engravers or anything else about the markings lets hear it .

No you do not understand the difference between loose and what I am talking about. to do that I think we have to start from the ground up are you willing?

Tiompan wrote:
Your original suggestion , which I disagreed with and am unaware of anyone apart from yourself else agreeing with , concerned a possible utilitarian reason for the markings ,i.e. the markings were an aid to application of the pigment , that changed to the markings being a result of producing the pigment .

The ochre is the pigment. Ochre is a pigment. A process is undertaken either way to break the piece of ochre down, either to be applied directly as in my first suggestion, or indirectly so that it can be used as a paint. to undertake that process the prepared piece of ochre that is going to be treated would have the same marks as we find on these two pieces of ochre.

So is you're 'lets hear it,' an agreement to start anew?

Why the concern for starting from the beginning ? I have made various points that you have not addressed . Fine don’t address them if you can't or won't but don’t pretend they don’t exist .

If you have any comments to make , make them , and we / I may respond .

Yes I could have added a “a powdered form of “ in the comment . Ochre in powdered form or solid is the pigment so it was not strictly neccessary . With the addition this produces .
“Your original suggestion , which I disagreed with and am unaware of anyone apart from yourself else agreeing with , concerned a possible utilitarian reason for the markings ,i.e. the markings were an aid to application of the pigment , that changed to the markings being a result of producing a powdered form of the pigment .
The addition /lack “a powdered form of “ of doesn’t change the fact that you changed the reasoning for the presence of the markings .

The marks would be the same for either process. Why I am talking about starting from the beginning is that I am not sure you have any understanding of what I have been saying. In that even a simple term like sketchiness you say- but there were lots of motifs like that, and then as evidence post up images with loose, but beautifully placed lines. So to plow ahead would seem as has happened so far just a way of producing a lack of clarity. I think you may not be understanding the way I am expressing myself so I am suggesting we start from the beginning not to avoid issues that you may have, but to piece together what I am saying without misunderstanding. It will be a big task, you are the only person responding so if I am going to go down that road I want to know you want to travel it and will stick with it. And I will not be wasting my time. Now if my view is proven wrong in that process it will not be a wast because I will have learnt from it. But if our only motives are we are two rutting stags each trying to get their own way, there seems little point.
So I want us to know where we are going and agree to it manifestly.

The marks would be the same for either process but it is telling that you have changed your mind in what that process may have been , regardless of the fact that what is most obvious is that neither is likely .

I have responded to your points and understood what you have said , on the other hand you have failed to respond to my points and are obviously only aware of an incredibly limited amount of Paleolithic and later engravings hence the erroneous comment “If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it ” . Without an appreciation of that very quality and until such time that you can get an appreciation of that sketchiness by investigating examples in the literature (the web has little ) there is little common ground for discussion .
The links I have provided are related to motifs from different periods and on different media that are the same as that found on the Blombos ochre .
By it's nature the poorer quality stuff is rarely noted in preference to the the more accomplished examples which seems to be the only examples you are aware of . You were happy enough to come up with your initial suggestion in the first place , there is nothing stopping you adding any other ideas even if you don't respond to earlier comments , and I will happily read them .

Yes I understand you have made an assertion that a number of disparate images are the same. However there is no quality that you have pointed to that there is any commonality.
You have made an assertion,what evidence is there for it, other than these are marks made by people?
It seem s to me you just want to argue for the sake of it, I have offed to explain in depth how to analyse an image as people in my field are taught, but all it seems you want to do is draw us back to your unfounded assertions.

So if you have a means of depicting a commonality between these disparate images show it! Back up this assertion they are the same.

PS
What is the difference between a poor quality line, and a good one? How would you analyse that?

There was much than than similarities of designs that had not been addressed I listed them earlier here are your comments with my responses .

"How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."

 “I think that the object is not a rock with an image on it “
It’s an intentional  design / motif .

“I would also point out it is not the sort of image a human would first make.”
Humans have made similar images from the Paleolithic to the present .

 “All children across the world develop drawing skills in the same way. They first learn to make marks which are identifiable as objects or people, it is only later they become interested in pattern. “  More like . Up to the age of two they scribble then comes phosphene shapes as is commonly found in paleolithic “art” these are often given names , then humans etc appear .
 
“If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”
 You have clearly no idea about what the quality of “so called primitive art “
 the majority  of it is simply sketchy .
 
“On the ochre the lines have no relationship to each other each diagonal is interdependent.” Look at examples of paleolithic art  repetition of diagonals are just the same as is found on the Blombos ochre .
But then “the maker of the fragment was more interested in getting the angle of the lines on that pigment right “ interdependent yet an interest in getting the angle right .

If you cannot see the commonality in designs that involve triangles and lozenges then there is nothing I can do apart from suggest , as earlier , get someone to point it out .
Highlighting problems is not arguing for the sake of it .
If you have something else to add about the markings , please do so , it might be interesting .

Tiompan wrote:There was much than than similarities of designs that had not been addressed I listed them earlier here are your comments with my responses .

"How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."

Since I am used to examining designs made for display, I have found that the period they were made in is less important than the mindset which motivates their creation. and the evidence produced by the making of those marks.

Tiompan wrote:“I think that the object is not a rock with an image on it “
It’s an intentional design / motif .

The marks are intentional, I do not think there is any disputing that, The dispute is that I think these patterns are not intended for display, but for a utilitarian purpose.

Tiompan wrote: “I would also point out it is not the sort of image a human would first make.”
Humans have made similar images from the Paleolithic to the present .

There my be similar designs, but that does not make it a design that would be first made.

Tiompan wrote: “All children across the world develop drawing skills in the same way. They first learn to make marks which are identifiable as objects or people, it is only later they become interested in pattern. “ More like . Up to the age of two they scribble then comes phosphene shapes as is commonly found in paleolithic “art” these are often given names , then humans etc appear .

Your description of development does not fit with, the usual understanding of human development, In speaking to a child they are at a very early stage identifying marks as being a person, enough parents across the world have a fridge door with a picture of a circle with two dots in it that is identified as uncle Fred. If you wish to learn about how the child's drawing of the face develops into anatomically correct drawings I suggest you read a book on the subject.

Tiompan wrote:“If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”
You have clearly no idea about what the quality of “so called primitive art “
the majority of it is simply sketchy .

You have not understood the term/s I have used. It would be worthwhile to start again if you are genuine.

Tiompan wrote:“On the ochre the lines have no relationship to each other each diagonal is interdependent.” Look at examples of paleolithic art repetition of diagonals are just the same as is found on the Blombos ochre .
But then “the maker of the fragment was more interested in getting the angle of the lines on that pigment right “ interdependent yet an interest in getting the angle right .

Firstly, we are not disputing, it was made, we are not disputing it was intended to be made. It is what it is intended for.
Secondly, there are very good reasons that the lines are parallel, that show the actual placement was not important.

Tiompan wrote:If you cannot see the commonality in designs that involve triangles and lozenges then there is nothing I can do apart from suggest , as earlier , get someone to point it out.

From the examples you have given, and your definition of 'designs that involve triangles and lozenges' I cannot think of a pattern that would not be included in that definition. Show me something that does not fit that definition, it seems to me from your text any mark where two lines cross each other fits your definition, or even just parallel lines that do not even touch. How on earth are we to use such a definition? Would it not be better to throw it away and just say marks made by people. Since we both think these marks are made by people, I don't understand why you seem so fixated by this useless definition.

Tiompan wrote: Highlighting problems is not arguing for the sake of it .
If you have something else to add about the markings , please do so , it might be interesting .

I have actually quite a bit, But if we are wrapped up in misunderstanding because it is clear, you have not understood what I have meant and still do not understand the difference in terms I have used such as sketchiness, as being something different than loose, then I think it would be better to start again and I will try to phrase in a way you can understand, and make illustrations to explain, but that will involve time and work on my part, and all I am asking for is that you also commit your self to it with a positive yes, so that I know I am not wasting my time.

I’ll number the points as I don’t how to use the quoting method .

1)I am also used to examining prehistoric designs in many cases there is no certainty as to expected audience ,if any . You didn’t answer "How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ?

2) I think there is a very good case been forwarded against the utilitarian argument , whilst it is a possibility it seems very unlikely .

3) I don’t understand what you mean by “ first made “ .There are plenty of examples of the design found from all over the world and in different periods it is a typical phosphene form and as such the basis for much of Paleolithic designs .

4) I disagree . It looks like you have not read the literature . I said “ “All children across the world develop drawing skills in the same way. They first learn to make marks which are identifiable as objects or people, it is only later they become interested in pattern. “ More like . Up to the age of two they scribble then comes phosphene shapes as is commonly found in paleolithic “art” these are often given names , then humans etc appear . “ Where in the literature is that contradicted ?
As a simple example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_art .

5) Genuine ? You have defined ”sketchiness “ and the comment “If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”
Is simply wrong , probably due to the basic problem noted in 1) i.e. you have little knowledge of the corpus .

6) As has been noted a few times parallel lines are a feature of early designs and most are not are in context where utilitarian use is even more unlikely that in the blombos ochre example .

7) I have said it many times ,if you have something to say about the markings other than what has already been replied to , feel free , it might be interesting .

So what do you want me to do reply to your assertions, or move on to talking about the possible utility of the ochre as I have implied it would be impossible to do both.

Whatever suits .
I thought the original point was the utility of the markings in relation to the ochre , although later changed from an aid to application to a means of producing the powdered form .

If ochre is rubbed directly onto a surface what do you get on the surface?
My only proviso is that for the striations in the pigment to be useful in the grinding, then it would not be a dry activity. the striations serve a use when the substance is sticky. Which is why if you look at neolithic grinding stones they are smooth, because you grind dry flower not wet which presumably was their primary use.
I do have I think some useful information, which I think may affect your opinion so I will not get on and draw up a few illustrations. so I will post them up in a few days.

As a last reference to usage among artists, I will mention this-
I think actually 'So called primitive art' is itself the definition in the arts community now, if you say 'primitive art', an artist would tend to think about, a naive European painter such as Henri Julien Félix Rousseau. As such 'so called primitive art' is a PC way of saying tribal art, which to an extent includes prehistoric art.
I will have to think hard not to use definitions which are so natural to me, but others outside my field will find at odds with their understanding.