oldest art!
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
oldest art!
This is the only image I could find of the "oldest art in the world"
from the Fumane cave in Italy. It is supposed to be 34,000 years old.
It is mentioned (but not pictured) in the article posted yesterday by Michelle:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 31,00.html
Last edited by stan on Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
Bolombos cave art, 70,000 years old.
Very interesting.
I realized after my original post that I forgot to say
oldest "figurative" art...the oldest image of a human! I knew there was some older abstract work.
Do you have any insight into what it means?
Most of the early cave art is of animals.
..it's hard to believe.
What happened in those 35000 years between the two? And why did it take so long for humans to develop the skills to depict humans...accurately.
Weren't they interested? DId they think themselves inferior to wild animals, or what?[/url]
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
I have theories, for what it's worth.
Regarding Blombos, there are two pieces of ochre with the cross-hatching marks. The fact that there is a second indicates, to me anyway, that the cross-hatches were significant enough for the artist(s?) to depict more than once (and if we've found two, there may have been countless more!) What they may have meant, if anything, is purely left to speculation of course; but I find in fascinating that cross-hatching is still a decorative pattern we utilize now. So on what level, exactly, does that pattern work for us? If it could be more than just a decorative impulse, what could it be? Those might be telling questions.
Regarding figurative work: I wonder if maybe social taboos prevented it. Even in all the caves with the fantastically rendered paintings of animals, the humans are generally depicted as stick figures or masked. Even the so-called "venus" figurines have indistinct facial features, though their bodies are carefully depicted. What do you think?
Don't forget - just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean it's not there. Maybe nothing happened in that time. Maybe everything did. Blombos was stumbled upon only a few years ago, and its discovery is of immense significance.stan wrote: What happened in those 35000 years between the two?
Regarding Blombos, there are two pieces of ochre with the cross-hatching marks. The fact that there is a second indicates, to me anyway, that the cross-hatches were significant enough for the artist(s?) to depict more than once (and if we've found two, there may have been countless more!) What they may have meant, if anything, is purely left to speculation of course; but I find in fascinating that cross-hatching is still a decorative pattern we utilize now. So on what level, exactly, does that pattern work for us? If it could be more than just a decorative impulse, what could it be? Those might be telling questions.
Regarding figurative work: I wonder if maybe social taboos prevented it. Even in all the caves with the fantastically rendered paintings of animals, the humans are generally depicted as stick figures or masked. Even the so-called "venus" figurines have indistinct facial features, though their bodies are carefully depicted. What do you think?
I think it could have been some superstition or spiritual thing. You couldn't make a representation of an actual person without condemning that person to some kind of action. The animals they drew and carved were prey to them and by carving or painting them they were "owning" the spirit of the animal. To do that to humans would be scary and wrong in their eyes. IMHO only.
art
Frank wrote that there might be so much powerful magic in the cave pictures that it would be dangerous to depict people. Seems possible, and I think I have heard that idea before somewhere.
About the abstract work,
aurora wrote
A. It seems to me that on one level, these pieces are doodles. Abstractions.
Symbols of order. Were there any rectangles or triangles in the world of these artists? Perhaps primitive 4-sided shelters made of wood?
Lean-tos or peaked roofs?
The engravings point to the sense of symmetry, completeness, repetition, harmony of forms. and the will of the artist to impose his mental stamp
on the world.
B. Specific Symbols. In some decorative arts like weaving, certain patterns
are symbolic, according to their makers. Zig zags may mean rivers, for
example. A triangle might be a cloud.
C. Older anthropologists talked about the "horror vacui" (dreadful emptiness, or fear of the void) , in which "primitive" peoples feel
compelled to cover empty surfaces with patterns...but that has always seemed rather silly to me. I have always thought that highly decorative folk arts were simpley intended to be more beautiful.
D. Do you think that we could know what what these pieces mean by
asking contemporary tribal artists why they do what they do? Or are
all people now too advanced mentally to grasp it any more?
About the abstract work,
aurora wrote
I agree. Here are a few thoughs and questions:I find in fascinating that cross-hatching is still a decorative pattern we utilize now. So on what level, exactly, does that pattern work for us? If it could be more than just a decorative impulse, what could it be? Those might be telling questions.
A. It seems to me that on one level, these pieces are doodles. Abstractions.
Symbols of order. Were there any rectangles or triangles in the world of these artists? Perhaps primitive 4-sided shelters made of wood?
Lean-tos or peaked roofs?
The engravings point to the sense of symmetry, completeness, repetition, harmony of forms. and the will of the artist to impose his mental stamp
on the world.
B. Specific Symbols. In some decorative arts like weaving, certain patterns
are symbolic, according to their makers. Zig zags may mean rivers, for
example. A triangle might be a cloud.
C. Older anthropologists talked about the "horror vacui" (dreadful emptiness, or fear of the void) , in which "primitive" peoples feel
compelled to cover empty surfaces with patterns...but that has always seemed rather silly to me. I have always thought that highly decorative folk arts were simpley intended to be more beautiful.
D. Do you think that we could know what what these pieces mean by
asking contemporary tribal artists why they do what they do? Or are
all people now too advanced mentally to grasp it any more?
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.