As an Art Historian, the subject of Art Appreciation is
always there, part of the consideration for any creative construct. Of course,
in order to appreciate art we have to have art and a great deal of nonsense is
presented about how rock art is not really art. I have addressed that question
numerous times and will not rehash my previous arguments. Instead, I will quote
from the great anthropologist Ashley Montagu, whose 1957 book “Man: His First Million Years” addressed
the question beautifully. “Those pursuits
in which the imagination is chiefly engaged, in giving form and meaning to
materials with which one works, are known as arts. In this sense arts are
probably very old. There is no known people that is without them – drawing,
painting, carving, sculpture, music, poetry, storytelling, and the dance.”
(Montagu 1957: 215)
As for the motives behind the creation of the images,
Montagu agreed with the prevailing theories of the day, that hunting magic of
some sort would have been the primary reason the imagery was produced. “Why did these people of Aurignacian culture
make the wall paintings in uninhabitable caves, and in the darkest and most
inaccessible recesses of these? The most likely answer is that they made them
for magical purposes and not in order to decorate the caves. The animals shown
on the roofs and walls of these caves are often represented as pierced by
spears and arrows. One makes as naturalistic a model as one can of the animal
one hopes to kill, and then kills it in effigy; as one does to the drawing of
the animal – accompanied by the proper incantations – so one will do in fact to
the real animal. One has but to wish in the ritually acceptable manner and one
will succeed. Hunting scenes abound in these cave drawings and paintings, and
there can be very little doubt that this art, at any rate, was devoted
principally to the practical purpose of securing success in the hunt. This does
not mean that the artist did not obtain some esthetic pleasure from his
achievement, but it does mean that love of beauty was not the principal
purpose.” (Montagu 1957:217)
“That
the artist took pride in his accomplishment and was encouraged to do so is
indicated by several facts. In the first place, the skill exhibited by these
artists takes a certain amount of training. That such training was available
from different centers is testified to by the fact that preliminary sketches on
stone of certain animals have been found several hundred miles away from the
caves in which the finished polychromes occur. In 1926 an engraving on
limestone was found in the half-cave at Geniere in France. This was immediately
recognized to be the sketch for the very individually painted polychrome of an
old bison on the wall of the cave at Font-de-Gaume, in the Dordogne, some two
hundred miles away.” (Montagu 1957: 217-219)
Although Montagu does not mention it, this practicing
quite possibly implies instruction in the art form. One does not start with a Masterpiece,
there is a learning process, usually through previous practice, or possibly a
period of training such as apprenticeship. I have argued in the past that
evidence for apprenticeship can be found in rock art images found in high
locations that display perspective anamorphosis (elongation to make the image
look correct when viewed from an angle – see “anamorphosis” in the RockArtBlog index at the bottom of the
column). I do not believe that one goes to these lengths of practice and
training to not seek the approval, indeed appreciation, of their results from
their reference group, tribe or clan. This anamorphosis may be either the
result of someone (the apprentice) up on a scaffold taking directions from
someone (the master) down below who is looking up at some extreme angle, or a
purposeful design feature meant to make the proportions look correct from the
viewpoint of an audience down below and looking up (I do admit the possibility
that the proportion of the image could be done that way purposefully without
anamorphosis being the aim). But the key concept here is that there was an
audience – appreciating the art.
“Obviously
artists who could paint as well as Aurignacian and Magdalenian cave artists
must have taken great esthetic pleasure in accomplishing their work, whether
inside or outside a cave. It is therefore unnecessary, as some have done, to
argue that the first drawings and paintings were made only for magical
purposes, only for a practical purpose, and not from the sheer pleasure derived
from doing something for its own sake – and doing it as well as possible.”
(Montagu 1957:219-220) Indeed, the personal satisfaction of creating something
is very compelling, but as I said above, I believe that the creators were also
seeking the approval of their peers. This is, by definition, Art Appreciation.
Now I certainly do not believe that the images were produced as “art for art’s sake,” just to entertain
others. But I do believe that appreciating the images was a part of the
experience that accompanied the primary motive for their creation whether “hunting magic” or something else.
Coincidentally, while I was writing this my May/June
2022 issue of Current World Archaeology
magazine arrived with an op/ed by Neil Faulkner (who I am sorry to say is
deceased) on “Interpreting Art.” In
this, Faulkner, was expressing
concern with the use of terms from Art History or Art Appreciation in
describing objects instead of using phraseology that he seemingly believes have
“real” meaning (archaeological
terminology no doubt).
“Art
can be hugely important in offering insight into the thought worlds of past
people. So we have to take interpretation seriously. And that requires us to
try to situate the art in the context of contemporary belief and ritual. So
this – an example taken at random – will not do: ‘Cave painting is considered
one of the first expressions of the human animal’s appreciation of beauty and a
representation of a mystic or sacred side to life.’ I have no idea what is
meant by an ‘appreciation of beauty.’ It is one of those trite phrases you find
repeated a million times in art books. As for a ‘representation of a mystic or
sacred side to life,’ does this not beg the question: what is this side of
life, and why bother to represent it at all? Cave art can attract nonsense –
nonsense which dissolves as soon as one thinks about it critically. One example
is the claim that paintings of animals were teaching aids for apprentice
hunters. The best way to learn practical skills – as we all know – is to
practice on the real thing. You learn how to hunt – probably from a very early
age – by joining older family members on a real hunt. It used to be said that
when archaeologists cannot explain something, they claim ‘ritual use.’ So
perhaps it has become too tame and unimaginative to say that a prehistoric
painting of a bison, or a Greek sculpture of a goddess, or a medieval religious
fresco were for ritual use. But they were.” (Faulkner 2022:65)
And again:“Archaeologists
should beware of lazy and pretentious interpretations of art derived from
modern and highly misleading concept of ‘fine art.’” (Faulkner 2022:65) For
the record I have never said that rock art represented “fine art” in Faulkner’s use of the term.
If I correctly interpret the intent of Faulkner’s
editorial, it is to express the feeling that art historians sometimes try to
hide a lack of real knowledge with the use of grand phraseology. On February
22, 2020, I wrote an editorial on RockArtBlog titled “A Case of Hypervocabulitis – Using Big Words to Sound Impressive.” In
this I described the recent experience of reading a book by an archaeologist
which was crammed full of exactly this type of terminology, and I coined the
phrase hypervocabulitis to describe it. The examples I gave from that volume
off of a handful of pages included “Androcentrism,
Commodification, Decontextualization, Emic/Etic, Hegemonic masculinity,
Indeterminancy, Intersectionality, Polysemy and Semiotic.” Now, admittedly,
these words do have meanings, but there are much easier and clearer ways to
phrase those meanings, and I, as an Art Historian, pointed that out in the
context of a book written by an Archaeologist. So back at you Faulkner!
In the words of the great Mark Twain referring to
commentators on research into the civilizations of Pre-Columbian America, “The researches of many commentators have
already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that, if they
continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it.” (www.jimpoz.com) I
believe we know exactly what he was talking about.
So to sum up, yes there was Art Appreciation in the
history of rock art, from Cave Painting right on down to historic times. I have
admired certain rock art panels, you have too. Whenever someone said, or even
thought, that the creator of an image did a good job on it, that was by
definition Art Appreciation. And I will bet that they managed to do it without
the hypervocabulitis that too many modern commentators, including archaeologists,
employ to impress their audiences. Montagu did not, my favorite writers do not,
and I don’t either.
NOTE: Images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.
REFERENCES:
Faris,
Peter, 2020, A Case of
Hypervocabulitis – Using Big Words to Sound Impressive, 22 February 2020,
https://rockartblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/
Faulkner,
Neil,
2022, Culture Thinking Aloud: On Interpreting Art, Current World Archaeology, Issue 112, April/May 2022, Vol. 10, No.
4, p. 65
Jim’s
Favorite Famous Quote, Quip, Axiom and Maxim Repository, https://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/Speaker:Mark_Twain,
accessioned 20 February 2020.
Montagu,
Ashley, 1957, Man: His
First Million Years, The World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment