marg gurr | 20 Jun 2012 14:20
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: still here

Morning Oscar...well, I’m still here, and you appear to be as well.  I think 
it’s just a quiet time.  I threw out some question of cave artist theories a 
ways back...a bit of tongue in cheek devil’s advocacy which got a few folks 
engaged but not much since.  Saw a great little film on said re: cave in 
France with beautiful horses...not stick-figures or partial figures.  It 
also noted that the handprints on the walls were made by the same  person 
rather than a group of people because of the configuration of the baby 
finger, which I found interesting.  Maybe the heat has lulled folks into low 
gear.
marg 

 
Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall | 20 Jun 2012 20:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: Caves

Marg - just about to revive thoughts about cave art. Your point about stickmen really set me thinking. Give
me a day...Nigel

 		 	   		  

Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall | 21 Jun 2012 08:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: Caves

I've just about finished reading "the Cave Painters" by Gregory Curtis, just a chapter to go. Really
excellent and recommended.  It's really the story of the people who have discovered, excavated or studied
Cave Art and how their theories developed or contradicted each other..

It seems I was about 80 years out of date when I talked about hunting magic. Apparently the animals depicted
are often not the ones forming the main part of palaeolithic diet (which was mostly reindeer in a lot of
cases). And just as out of date is the theory Angela cited about mutilating fingers. Doesn't mean it's
wrong of course, but modern scholars believe the missing fingers effect was achieved by simply tucking
various fingers in and that perhaps it was some sort of code or identifying mark for various clans..

Modern methods of analysis have shown that there was nothing primitive about how the paintings were
conceived, and creating them involved a lot of organisation. There was far more relationship between the
figures than was once thought, sometimes a complex order or composition. The techniques also were
evolved. For a start some sort of work platforms were necessary to get to inaccessible places, perhaps
tree boughs were used. The paint was applied in various ways for different effect and, quite often, the
animal's outline  was first scratched into the calcite surface..

Anyway, that's just some of the stuff I've got from Gregory Curtis' book. But Marg's thoughts on stick men
really got me thinking: why are the human forms generally so basic? Last week, a local art group held a sort
of "show and tell" discussion about the depiction of the human body in history and I took along the image of
the man struck down by a wounded bison fro Lascaux Cave ( 
eg
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://lh5.ggpht.com/-KmTLWJUZy-I/SUIcpT-57DI/AAAAAAAAADM/n5tE3mGgHQw/lascaux_26.JPG&imgrefurl=http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/p
 But google "lascaux bison"). My focus was why was the bison so brilliantly observed when the man was so
rubbish. There are details in the depiction of the bison that could be of use to an artist today - each curve
and angle of the body is wonderfully observed. And there's no doubt it's angry at being disembowelled -
it's "mane" is bristling. But what could an artist learn about anatomy from the man? The overriding
feeling for me is that Man must have felt himself to be in a very different relationship with the Natural
world than we have done in later days. As Curtis mentions, the world belonged to the great animals, not to
man. And the man here with his bird mask is not Rameses or Augustus but Trickster.
(Continue reading)

Angela Treat Lyon | 21 Jun 2012 11:08

Re: still here: Caves

that's great - thanks for that - I'm so glad to be proven wrong! I just can't imagine anyone, much less an
artist! - mutilating his hands in any way!

thanks for the turn on to the book - I'm going to see if I can find it. 

I've often wondered about why the humans are depicted so badly, too. I think you're right - I think we must
have been awed by the sheer hugeness and grandeur of the world at that time - 

I remember going to Tule Lake in northern CA once, and watching the geese come in in the spring time. The sky
was almost black with them - and yet I was told that it was really a fraction of the numbers and varieties of
birds that used to come there. Imagine how rich with life the world was back in neolithic times! To me, it
would have felt easy to feel overwhelmed and small in comparison.  

aloha,
Angela

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Angela Treat Lyon

http://ArtbyLyon.com
http://Lyon-Art.com
http://PrintsbyLyon.com

http://AngelaTreatLyon.com
808-261-0940

--- ratcliffespringall@... wrote:

From: Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall <ratcliffespringall@...>
(Continue reading)

Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall | 21 Jun 2012 12:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: Caves

>
I think we must have been awed by the sheer hugeness and grandeur of the world at that time  (Angela).

Yes whatever the purpose of the paintings, you can't get away from how glorious their vision of life was. One
also has to get away from the impression that palaeolithic art was a short introductory chapter to what has
happened since: they were painting these realistic brilliant animals for 20,000 years - twice as long as
the period since the end of the Ice Age, 3 times as long as the duration of urban civilisation.
Nigel.

 		 	   		  

Martin Smith | 21 Jun 2012 13:40

Re: still here: Caves


>  you can't get away from how glorious their vision of life was. 

Well, perhaps. But I'd guess life then was a constant struggle against hunger, predators (animal and
human) and disease - nasty, brutish and short, in the Hobbesian phrase. There are still places in the world
where it's more or less true, though the predators do now tend to be all human. 
Norman Watts | 21 Jun 2012 13:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: Caves

But their life can't have been bad all the time. They did have inclination and time to make the art we find.
So-called primitives in the recent past have had art, stories, and dance. Their life can't have been all  or
mostly brutal and nasty either. Also, look at many wild animals, some parts of their lives are grim, some aren't.

n

 
Bill Knight | 21 Jun 2012 15:06
Picon
Gravatar

Re: still here: Caves

Just saw an interesting bit, pushing back the "anthropocene" into the
millions of years ago, in proportion to the age of the stone hunting
cultures of 1,000,000+ years ago, such as the Oldowan.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/04/25/rise-of-humans-two-million-years-ago-doomed-large-carnivores/

 
Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall | 21 Jun 2012 15:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: Caves

>nasty, brutish and short  (Martin quoting Hobbes)..

OK Martin, perhaps my cup did runneth over a bit but yours seems to be half empty rather than half full. These
were fantastic creations and the harsh lives of the times only make them the more wonderful..

I've never had the good fortune to visit a painted cave but people who have seem to be absolutely astonished
by the physical power and splendour of them... and that's people who have watched moon landings, have
email and all sorts of other modern miracles. What was the effect on palaeolithic people, who possessed
none of these things, when they entered the caves with their weird distorted echoes? The painting of the
figures required so much social organisation that one cannot get away from there being a religious
element, and that Wonder played a big part. Quite possibly Terror did as well, but they're pretty linked
aren't they? The lives of mediaeval people were also nasty, brutish and short so maybe the effect on them of
the great wonders of the cathedrals of their age - with their visions of Heaven and Hell - might be a useful comparison.Nigel.

 		 	   		  

Bill Knight | 21 Jun 2012 15:28
Picon
Gravatar

Re: still here: Caves

In Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, set in recent, but traditional
Nigeria, there is a cave, which is indeed a terror, frightening,
smothering, inhuman, and entrance into death, but a source of knowledge,
divination rather, for the community as brought back by the shaman, who is
elected by a visitation of madness. The novel does a great job of making
the entire business matter of fact and everyday.

 
Martin Smith | 21 Jun 2012 16:25

Re: still here: Caves


>> nasty, brutish and short  (Martin quoting Hobbes)..
> 
> OK Martin, perhaps my cup did runneth over a bit but yours seems to be half empty rather than half full. These
were fantastic creations and the harsh lives of the times only make them the more wonderful..

I agree the paintings are amazing and moving. I've only seen a few, rather less spectacular, cave
paintings, and they moved me, across the millennia, demonstrating that mentally their creators are not
so far removed from us. I just thought that we were in danger of accepting an extreme romanticised view of
the lives of our distant ancestors. It was no golden age. 
Greg Fladager | 22 Jun 2012 21:55
Picon

Re: still here: Caves

Late picking up on this thread, but still like to give it a little tug...speculation aside, the
paintings/drawings at places like Lascaux, show an artistic refinement that matches most anything done
today. We seem surprised at that, but why? It just gives indication people have been conscious and aware
for what, 15,000 -40,00 years or whatever...seems so.
   I think some of problem lies in trying to make human consciousness fit into the evolutionary theory...we
are not simply physical creatures, it is a somewhat different experience.

On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:08 AM, "Angela Treat Lyon" <atlyon@...> wrote:

> 

marg gurr | 21 Jun 2012 16:34
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: still here: caves

I guess I’m missing something.  What kind of social organization are you 
referring to regarding the paintings Nigel, and what’s the basis for the 
link to a religious component?  Angela, I’m less inclined to endow these 
people with a sense of wonderment of their environment I guess, largely 
because they appear to have known no other.  We are the ones that have the 
best seat for perspective on this it would appear.  The other curiosity is 
that one of the interesting aspects of being human is our darned egos.  We 
seem to have that streak of omnipotence, however who knows how far back that 
goes.  In any event, any degree of social order would imply a hierarchy of 
some sort, which could be regarded as proof of a strong sense of self and at 
least some degree of omnipotence.
I’m more inclined to think that they were going about their days pretty much 
the only way they knew how, survival first, community somewhere along the 
line and beautification and/or cultural aspects as opportunities presented 
themselves.
marg 

 
Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall | 21 Jun 2012 17:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: still here: caves

Marg,  Hunting and the fight to survive the harsh climate surely nurtured co-operation and society. In the
book I 've quoted, Gregory Curtis shows how painting these images in the difficult conditions of the caves
required forethought, planning, many days work, provisions, the preparation of the materials: a
collaboration of several people, not just a solitary artist... just as they did for a Renaissance artist -
they weren't just grabbing the first things to hand and doodling in a spare moment. There are even repeated
motives, such as the wounded man, which recur through several caves and a long duration. I was wrong about
hunting magic - and way out of date! - and am open to any theory about why they created these realistic images
for over 20,000 years. No, it does not have to be religious  but theories that connect the works with
religious motive make sense to me whereas any purely secular ones do not. I 'm more with Bill in thinking of
shamanistic purposes.
Perhaps a sense of wonder is inappropriate terminology, but they observed the animals with an acuteness
and intensity that would not have been necessary if the World did not loom large in their imaginations.
Otherwise they could just have painted blobs to represent the bison and mammoths. If one goes for a secular
explanation - that the artists were showing off their talents - this would still suggest a social
organisation to make this necessary... especially if life was such a grim struggle.
 Martin rightly warned against over-romanticisation (though that's no reason why WE as artists shouldn't
be bowled over by this stuff) but we need to remember that the people were a success story in survival,
whereas the Neanderthals seem to have failed. I think it's probably undervaluing their achievement to
think they simply clung on to existence for all those tens of thousands of years. . Not a golden age but not
necessarily grim throughout. Does the Willendorf Venus represent an ideal of Plenty or the shape a woman
aimed for as the best defence against the winter?

Martin, I envy  you having actually seen some of this art - my knowledge is entirely 2nd hand.
Nigel.

 		 	   		  

Angela Treat Lyon | 22 Jun 2012 00:40

Re: still here: Caves

> they were painting these realistic brilliant animals for 20,000 years

great point! never thought of that, really - the art was just...there. to think that the tradition and the
act of painting in caves like that lasted that long is pretty astounding. we're just a flash in the pan, compared!

aloha,
Angela

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Angela Treat Lyon

http://ArtbyLyon.com
http://Lyon-Art.com
http://PrintsbyLyon.com

http://AngelaTreatLyon.com
808-261-0940

--- ratcliffespringall@... wrote:

From: Nigel Ratcliffe-Springall <ratcliffespringall@...>
To: <stone@...>
Subject: [stone] Re: still here: Caves
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:29:28 +0100

>
I think we must have been awed by the sheer hugeness and grandeur of the world at that time  (Angela).

Yes whatever the purpose of the paintings, you can't get away from how glorious their vision of life was. One
(Continue reading)

Angela Treat Lyon | 22 Jun 2012 00:44

Re: still here: Caves

I agree. Couldn't have been bad ALl the time.

I think Jean Auel's representation of cave people is pretty fanciful in a lot of ways, but she opens the eye to
how people really could have lived back then. I loved her first book, "Clan of the Cave Bear," because of the
incredible research she did on plants and healing methods. 

Again, life really was short, hard and probably quite brutal, but isn't it just amazing that they spent so
much time drawing on walls and making such beauty? who cares if it was ritual, religious, whatever - it's beautiful.

aloha,
Angela

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Angela Treat Lyon

http://ArtbyLyon.com
http://Lyon-Art.com
http://PrintsbyLyon.com

http://AngelaTreatLyon.com
808-261-0940

--- norman_watts@... wrote:

From: Norman Watts <norman_watts@...>
To: "stone@..." <stone@...>
Subject: [stone] Re: still here: Caves
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:59:03 -0400

(Continue reading)

Angela Treat Lyon | 22 Jun 2012 00:55

Re: still here: Caves

thx, Bill - that's interesting to think about. not sure I agree that it was bcz the human shooed the
competitors away - I think maybe it was that they killed them - just as we almost eliminated the wolf in
Yellowstone, etc.

and...speaking of the hand-prints:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/06/14/oldest-cave-paintings-may-be-creations-of-neandertals-not-modern-humans/

aloha,
Angela

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Angela Treat Lyon

http://ArtbyLyon.com
http://Lyon-Art.com
http://PrintsbyLyon.com

http://AngelaTreatLyon.com
808-261-0940

--- wfmknight@... wrote:

From: Bill Knight <wfmknight@...>
To: stone@...
Subject: [stone] Re: still here: Caves
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:06:45 -0500

Just saw an interesting bit, pushing back the "anthropocene" into the
millions of years ago, in proportion to the age of the stone hunting
(Continue reading)

Angela Treat Lyon | 22 Jun 2012 01:13

Re: still here: caves

> less inclined to endow these 
people with a sense of wonderment
I understand what you say, Marg, and I agree - life in general must have been hard and harsh - but who doesn't
enjoy a lovely sunset? who would stand in awe of a sky blackened with millions of birds in spring? who
wouldn't be moved by a massive thunder and lightning storm over one's cave? why would they not stand in
wonderment at the sheer size and power of a huge heard of mammoth? that's what I meant.

and I also imagine that those times when they could look up from skinning a bison or gathering firewood and
see these things must have been proportionately even more beautiful for them, since they couldn't take
anything for granted.

aloha,
Angela

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Angela Treat Lyon

http://ArtbyLyon.com
http://Lyon-Art.com
http://PrintsbyLyon.com

http://AngelaTreatLyon.com
808-261-0940

--- marggurr@... wrote:

From: marg gurr <marggurr@...>
To: <stone@...>
Subject: [stone] Re: still here: caves
(Continue reading)


Gmane