I think if someone does not consider rock -or any other form of music, take world music or whatever- not to be art, he or she is argumenting from outside of academia. Notwithstanding if we like some kind of art or not, that does not change its characteristic of being art.
Although my first instinct was to understand the question the same way Philipp did, I believe the person who created this question is refering to 'Rock Art' as 'human-made markings placed on natural stone' and not as a form of 'Rock 'n' Roll'.
And, actually, looking at it from that perspective, if find the question quite interesting. I would be tempted to say yes because the people who drew or carved rocks to represent animals, or whatever else could qualify as early days artists in my mind. However, if some of the rock art only had a practical use like keeping track of resources (I'm purely speculating here, this is far from my field of expertise), then, there's no higher purpose, message or personal expression and I could understand how some would not consider that to be art.
I supose it depends on the context in which the rock art were made and to what end. Are we able to have any clue about that? I have no idea but I an still inclined to believe there was an artistic dimension in most cases.
Goulven, I think you're right - that happens if you don't have any concept of what people are talking about.
But even so - art should be defined as something accepted as art by artists (which would be systems theory perspective). So, rock as rock'n'roll or as painted rock - it is art if accepted as such by a certain part of art system.
I find Alica Colson´s conclusions very interesting and I must agree with all of them, after all I work with similar thesis. In the first place I would like to point out some useful theorists. At first, It´s important to say, that my answer is strictly motivated by research in the field of aesthetics and after that by fine art and archeology also.
In the notorious known publication Story Art, E. H. Gombrich writes about prehistoric art, and he comes with conclusions: (I am not citing) 1. If we would like to find some sorts of art comparing to ours age, that are collected and represented in the Galleries or Museums, we would definitely not find any, and we could say, that prehistory was without art. 2. But if we thing about some decorated clothes, sculptures or other cult paintings as a Works of Art, than we could speak about prehistoric art. So there is the point.
It´s look like it is on recipient choice how he chose, but that´s not entirely correct. We must consider the role and place of “Rock Art” (or “Cave art” – which is not entirely correct after all because of the exterior engravings) in the History of Fine Art, which are already accepted. This though is not any conclusion, but just short side branch to think about. (Generally I work with artifacts of younger prehistory and protohistory, so my answer is limited by this research)
On the second place, already mention notion “art” is not clearly defined, what is thanks to God not even possible, because it would limited the future works of Art. Interesting application of aesthetic, concrete of analytic aesthetic could be done with M. Weitz (inspired by Wittgenstein´s gender similarity) speaks about open and closed terms, e. g. the art is understood as open, because we can endless add some new features. On the other hand, he speaks about descriptive and evaluating usage of given term. We must also consider the original function of given “rock art” and change of they and understand it as a main factor in their evaluating. Also needed, I think, should be understanding of real intention and secondly (by recipient) implemented intention in the “rock art”. In this case, it could be not definitely say either if the prehistory artifacts are works of art, or are not and we should give main accent on the concrete context of creating and origin of the work. In this field is suitable and interesting work of W. Dawis analyzing (also using Wittgenstein´s thoughts) paintings and in general Paleolithic art from the view of used “signs”.
Very interesting thoughts about “art” gives D. Lewis – Williams in the book Mind in the cave and speak about “West origin” of this notion (as A. Colson already mention). So in the end, there is no final answer, to the question of the status of prehistory art but there is still possibility to speak about understanding of art in the prehistory.
Although it is not my specific field I think that prehistoric cave paintings and engravings are forms of human expression that have been reported and interpreted by archaeologists through their filter of the 21st century. In addition,when direct dating and correlations with prehistoric remains are not provided it becomes difficult to contextualize rock art. In my opinion, the question is not whether we consider prehistoric cave paintings and engravings as a work of "art", but to consider it as an archaeological fact.
The "petroglyphs" that I have studied I believe are all inter-related as a visual and 'permanent' representation of native spiritual themes: the spirit of ancestors, etc. Plus, "rock Art" is not only what is DRAWN or Chiseled into the stone, but it is also in the arrangement of the stones; how the stones are placed, what relations they have to each other. They must be seen as a totality if their referents are all part of a corpus of sacred narratives. We cannot treat one beautifully sculpted or painted rock face as somehow dis-engaged with all other 'rocks' in the vicinity both in the narrow and the broad senses. Even 'rubble' may not be 'just rubble' in that sense; it may be significant if we know the story that goes along with it….
I know the question is provocative. That’s the intention of making it public. The problems involved in rock art interpretation are complex. Rock art is always embedded in a specific cultural tradition. That’s why it is difficult, and in some cases inconvenient to generalize. Throughout twelve years of research in this field I have found out that rock art can have several different social functions: 1) mnemonic: a visual aid to remember oral traditions, mainly mythical; 2) territorial: used to define a territory belonging to a tribe, community or secret society; 3) ritual: it is part of a complex ceremony and it is produced in a sacred place; 4) documental: it’s aim is to represent a special social event that needs to be remembered; 5) cognitive: it is a means of preserving and transmitting specialized knowledge.
Nonetheless, almost all objects made by traditional or archaic cultural traditions that, from a modern western point of view, can be defined as artistic, have three interdependent qualities: they are useful, they have a religious symbolic meaning and they have an aesthetic component. Although in many languages the word art doesn’t exist, there are many other words to describe beauty, or what is well and beautifully done, or what is precious or what is good enough to be praised.
On the other hand, world known specialists like Jean Clottes, Ignacio Barandiarán and David Whitley have demonstrated the sophisticated painting and engraving methods that are present in the first known rock art expressions (32,000 BP) at Chauvet and other caves. As Whitley says since arte appeared for the first time it was fully developed and sophisticated: in form and content. Doesn’t that mean an aesthetic intention?
First, it depends on how one defines art. For example, is grafitti a form of art? What about abstract art and other modern/postmodern art forms?
Secondly, when looking at the beautiful cave art of France, keep in mind that most of the figures are of animals. The few humans which are depicted can best be described as stick figures.
Whether the rock art is dated to the Palaeolithic, Iron Age, or more recent times, it is important to take into account that the human brain is the same for all modern men; according to physical anthropologists, 1/10 persons now are left-handed, and the same percentage was also the case then. We can see this in rock art by the handprints (mostly right hands) and hand stencils (mostly left hands, since the artist held the blowing instrument with the right hand).
What do YOU think?
Another point which should be considered is that there are no rules in art. Artists are free to break rules, to push the limits. Innovation is actually valued in modern art (although some might say new art forms are not always appreciated when first introduced--e.g. grafitti).
If we refer to paintings and carvings (pictographs and petroglyphs) doesn't that mean we are talking about art? While, in most cases, we don't really understand the contextual meanings, intentions, significance for the artists and their societies, we can recognize the creative impulse. Consider how ancient Egyptians would measure the value of this kind of early Christian art from a Catholic church in Finland: http://chain.eu/userpics/1285099195.jpg.
I think, considered all you said, if we speak about art it’s not entirely objects which we can described with aesthetic category of "beauty". There are far more artifacts and objects in the universe of art, so try to analyze something with criterion of beauty I think discriminates all others works of art. We need to have in mind, as already N. Goodman, E. H. Gombrich, W. Dawis and among others also G. Dorles said, that if something seems like to depicted something we know, the probability of our misjudgment is still present. Or rather, as N. Goodman said in the reaction of searching of realistic depictions, it’s always a consensus of imaging of each period. So if the humans were not so rich and various depicted as animals, it could be still the outcome of depiction agreement, and also the outcome of importance of the animals in the lives of prehistoric men. But I understand your opinion because Eddy M. Zemach in his No identification Without Evaluation said, that if we would like to define (identify) something we choose an exemplary object, not some degraded one.
More interesting in this discussion, as Alice and Karen already stated are the notion "art" and "rock art" itself. What is an Art? Maybe silly question, but discourse of last periods shows us, that the answer is not so silly and simple and that in the context of the whole history of art, there’s no answer at all. Better say, no one answer applicable on whole history of art. Better question should look like: „What´s the difference between traditional, present and prehistoric or even ethnic art?” In this comparison we could gain some answer but still, it would be not sufficient. Why could we not define art in general? The answer is simple. Because the art is so complicated process and structure of different artifacts, and the notion of art was created by the western civilization. In the antique, the notion art was used in even on sport and even on gardening. So we can see, that the art itself is responsible for not to be defined. As Wittgenstein and Weitz said, it´s about use of the term, how is it correctly used and according to it, we should try to define it. But Monroe C. Bradley stated that the main problem in the last decades definitions of art is in this linguistic premises and we must agree (or least I agree), till there would be humanity there would be also wrong uses of the notion Art. And if we would try to analyze who should say how to use the terms, we are again in the Institutionalism.
Other side of this problem, as Karen said: “there are no rules in art”. But is this principle of anarchy in art really the main cause of problem? J. Mukařovský (Czech esthetician and structuralist) try to define aesthetic norm and he come to conclusion, that the aesthetic norm is a dynamic process not a static dogma, or complex of used rules. In the eternal violations of norm we can see the main cause of endless development of the art and creating of new art. According to this, there is possibility, that we could never define art, but we could try to define art of closed and past historic periods. It´s a closed process and we could make some pattern of what is and what is not an art anymore. And if some new discoveries would be made, there would be still this pattern to consider where to define new objects. Other possibility is to distinguish beetwen art and artistic value of “rock art.”
On the other hand, is this really necessary? Do we need strictly to define and violently apply the notion of Art? It´s just question to think about, not my answer, but there are possible two ways why not to use notion Art.
1. The term is very narrow: according to history of art and to Dubufet, what we know and understand as the work of Art are only a small amount of artifacts of each period;
2. The term is very vide, if we look on today’s art, and today´s understanding of art.
What is really important in my opinion is also already mentioned: contextual meaning of each “rock art” and original function of them. Why is it, that every single time, when is examined “rock art” we decline to ask of their origin or rather of their original meaning. There´s still possibility that we would not gain any answer but we need and we must to ask again and again. Because the function of object is that, what really defines him. If the use and function of “rock art” is already gone and the actual meaning and context is unknown, then it is no longer an live of prehistoric objects, but an live of prehistoric objects in present, and there´s a big difference.
The meaning of the original makers of this 'rock art' can be found in the sacred narratives frequently associated with the images. Each piece of design, when seen and interpreted within the context of the whole specific site, makes sense; we may treat them as 'cultural texts' to be read and understood by those who live near these sites (not necessarily the same as those who made the images in the first place). Then, their meanings must be related to the spirit language in chants, orations. Their meanings refer to both a primordial past (a cultural memory), and a contemporary cosmo-political statement (the images refer to abodes of the spirits with whom sorcerers and shamans may make alliances.). They are sometimes markers of the trails over which the primordials walked and left their mark - demarcating their presence.
So is it art ?the words the natives use to refer to these paintings or petroglyphs are attributes of what they consider to be well-made: symmetrical, beautiful, harmonious, -
But they are a 'cultural memory' and, just like the stories and the songs, the ways in which they are presented are valued by certain criteria. That's what differentiates them from , say, 'graffiti, left by those who no longer believe in their meaning
The fact is, ALL archaeological research depends on interpretation, not only studies of prehistoric art. Whether studying a stone tool, a pot, or a burial, archaeologists seek meaning, even though, as Alicia points out, there is much we may never know.
Those interpretations are naturally going to be based on our own perceptions and value systems, as much as we would like to establish the original intent of the artist. (Try looking at the art in the Louvre and see that it is not so easy to do this, and no 2 persons will experience the art in the same way!)
On the other hand, we are able to appreciate artistic works. Without the explanations written out for us. That is because we are human, and we share that humanness with the people who lived then.
I thing, there are always some boundaries of interpretation as already among others U. Eco stated. We need to think about it whenever we interpret something and always work with this conclusion. Other, hermeneutic, opinions says that there´s no limits in the process of interpretation. R. Shusterman wrote in reaction of this so cold “hermeneutic holism” very interesting paper “Beneath Interpretation: Against hermeneutic Holism” where he strictly criticizes the fact (or rather I should say opinion of most hermeneutists) that whenever a recipient interact with some artifact or reality, he interprets it. I must say, that I agree whit hermeneutic, but I still thing, there are limits and boundaries of interpretation. Because if we interpret something, that doesn´t mean, we interpret it correctly and in the line with needed context, but still the interpretation of recipient is present. I worked with similar thesis, when I try to interpret traco-scythian artifacts from Slovakia and later, when I try to identify communicative competencies of prehistoric artifacts, and I come to conclusions, that there are (I named it) two boundaries models of interpretation. Although the term model is not very correct in this use. I should say, there are two boundaries, which delimits the interpretation of prehistoric artifacts (and now I thing, the rock and prehistoric art also). These limits are:
1. (already mentioned) context of original creating, interpret and understanding of “rock art”/artifacts,
2. today´s optic implicated on interpreted artifacts/ “rock art”.
So, why I spoke about boundaries interpretative models? I think in the actual interpretation, we always moved amid these two points. It doesn´t matter how great effort we make to interpret something according to context and so to make successful and correct interpretation, we would be never able to step in the first boundary and also in the second. I explain. If we try to interpret a prehistoric artifact/ “rock art” etc. from today´s point of view, or better telling entirely from our view (if trying to distinguish some errors in interpretation) we couldn´t remove knowledge somebody trying to interpret original meaning from our interpretation. So what I mean: If we try to interpret something correctly, we could never interpret something entirely according to context, without our viewpoint and vice – versa. So what I am trying to say, and what I realize, the shift of function in different context is something that change the meaning of artifacts, but still, in actual understanding and interpretation, there are a small amount of original meaning which we must consider.
Mr. Makky's boundary models are very interesting, especially his idea of a two-way process between contextual meaning and our own interpretation.
It got me to think about how 'today's point of view' is changing. Neither our frameworks nor our methodologies are static, both in the archaeological community as a whole and on the personal level, and many very different ways of studying / seeing prehistoric art are present at any time. This is what enriches our studies and makes our research worthwhile.
Going a bit deeper, it's possible that these past images and artifacts meant different things to different community members in the past, and that these meanings were not static (hence sites have been abandoned, new technologies introduced, and so on).
Thank you, Julio, for such a thought-provoking question!
REGARDING THE INVENTION OF TRADITIONS, AND THE ATTRIBUTION OF MEANING TO THE ROCK INSCRIPTIONS AND / OR PETROGLYPHS.
I have worked with the indigenous peoples of the Northwest Amazon for 3 and a half decades. They have a rich tradition of petroglyphs which, I've learned, all have to do with their oral traditions, i.e., their "myths" (I prefer the term sacred narratives). Each place where there is a rock inscription or a set of them, there is a story told that explains the meaning of that inscription. More, the whole set of rock sites are arranged in such a way as to reproduce the principal episodes of the entire creation story. Thus, the principal sites in this - what I call - 'mythscape' are ordered along an axis from west to east, beginning with the site where shamans received their knowledge and power, followed by the site where the world came into being, then the first initiation rite, and finally the place where death came into the world. Each site is a complex arrangement of rock inscriptions and a seemingly ordered arrangement of the rocks and boulders.
So, in all of this, where is the 'art' ? The discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/) leaves no doubt that these petroglyphs are Art. Insofar as all are linked to the native understanding of what is sacred, the meaning attributed to them enhances their beauty. More than this, the ordered arrangement of these sites coincide with the indigenous understanding of their territory (lands), their world, the limits of their cosmos. As in native North America, where you have whole regions such as the Black Hills constituting a sacred territory for the Lakota and other peoples, the peoples of the Northwest Amazon believe that the entire set of sacred places (where the petroglyphs are) constitute their 'story'. Since stories, as told, are an art form for the native peoples, it is reasonable to conclude that the rock inscriptions, seen as a whole, likewise constitute a purposeful composition and not simply a disconnected set. This is reflected in the telling of the creation story as well, which is an art, and the meanings attached to each of the stories.
Shamans are masters of world-making (see N. Goodman, J. Overing); indeed, every journey they make to the Other World is an artful reconstruction with a purpose. The petroglyph sites are This Worldly representations of the 'Before- World' (primordial world) which was alive at one time and left images of themselves in stone.
It's a wonderful work that you have done. That is the best way to understand the meaning of rock art: after a very long and careful ethnogrphic work. I would like to read what you have published. Please write back: [email protected]
Did you notice that "art" and "artefact / artifact" share the same origin ?
Lat: arte, abl. of ars/ art + factum, neut. pa. pple. of facere to make.
Therefore, from an archaeological point of view, "art" is nothing else than an "artefact".
In 2003 I initiated a research project titled "Rock Art on the State of Hidalgo, Mexico ", in those days I was following the traditional concept of a type of art on the rocks. Nevertheless, along the project I was discovering that was not possible to use the concept art for this kind of cultural products. "Art" is a western concept delimited temporarily by Renaissance and Avant Garde. "Art history" is a discipline that arose under the protection of the above-mentioned concept whose application to previous or not western cultures is a manifestation of colonialist thought. In synthesis it is much better to speak of "rock images". In fact I changed the title of that research project.
Jean-Löic has an excellent point about the origin of the word art. As Manuel points out, 'art' as a western concept is a loaded term, implying -- amongst other things -- colonialist thought. 'Rock images' is a suitable term in this case. ('Rock paintings/petroglyphs/pictographs' would also do.)
On the other hand, why not consider how human societies (including our own) interact with art as a form of visual communication? There are of course differences through history and geography, but I think it is valuable to raise awareness of human responses to visual imagery in different contexts.
In referenc to Jean-Loic Le Quelec's answer. I think that with your proposition, the definition of rock art becomes much more ambiguous. As an artifact it loses its specific identity. I do not agree. Rock art integrates three dimensions: religious symbolism, practical usefulness and aesthetic elaboration. We can not say the same thing about all artifacts.
Julio
Dear Julio Amador: I fully agree with you, as in fact EVERY artefact integrates these three dimensions (symbolism, functionality and aesthetic elaboration), so rock art is no exception.
Dear Jean-Loïc Le Quellec: I’m sorry, but I still do not agree with you. I think that you’re walking in circles and we’re getting nowhere. From your point of view rock art would be the same as any other artifact and that is not true. Although many artifacts of Premodern or traditional societies have the three dimensions we defined: usefulness, religious symbolism and an aesthetic value, the important question for anthropology is understanding the differential and specific meaning of each kind of artifact for each particular social group. From my point of view, it is evident that the Paleolithic marvelous paintings of caves like Chauvet (32,000 to 26,000 BP) or from Altamira or Lascaux cannot be treated, theoretically in the same manner as a spear point. We need to know that there are different accents in their symbolic meaning and aesthetic quality. In these cases, as well as in the case I study of the rock art in the Sonoran Desert, or, for example, in the case of the Freemont rock art of Utah, or of the Barrier Canyon rock art of North America: there is a very important aesthetic component, associated directly with their religious function that cannot be denied.
Although in many languages we do not find the word art, we still can find words that make direct references to the beauty and perfection in the elaboration of things, especially referred to poetry, painting or sculpture. For example, in the Nahuatl language of ancient Mexico we find the word yectli used by the king and poet Netzahualcóyotl to refer to “the beautiful chants” of the poet Tezozomoctizin; the poet Tlaltecatzin uses the word: yectla to speak about “the precious jade objects that were created with art”. In the Nahuatl language yecti or yectli are used to describe things that are done with excellence; yectencualoni: things that have a quality that should be praised.
We can find many other examples all over the world. Robert Layton in his famous book: The Anthropology of Art, presents many examples: “The attitude of the Kalabari towards their sculptures does not imply that this culture has no art forms. According to Horton they put their aesthetic creativity and expressive skills into the dances which form another aspect of the spirit cult” (1991:8). As well, between the Lega of Zaire the owners and users of masks claim that they are Busoga, good and beautiful (1991:10). Also referred to the Lega tradition: “[…] the lega have words which express the aesthetic appeal of the finest carvings. Some of these terms associate beauty with order; kukonga: to produce harmony and unison in singing together; kwengia: to be shinny like a well-polished chair or statue; kwanga: to be good in order to like a country that shrives; kuswaga: to be at peace” [1991:13).
If you compare these terms to those used by the artists and theorists of art of the Italian Renaissance, like Alberti, da Vinci, Lucca Paccioli or Albretch Durer, when they refer to the composition of a painting or to the design of a sculpture or a building: they have a lot in common.
Best,
Julio
I agree with Julio on this as I work in the Valley of Oaxaca. This is all about getting in touch with yourself-it's meditative. Through this process we/they can express anything we experience. Anything and everything is acceptable. It goes beyond the boundaries that many of you talk about.
It is the creative process that opens up critical thinking and problem solving skills that link into those functional ideas some of you are talking about. It is a holistic approach to life as it gives us/those who came before- a sense of time, space and culture ON AN INDIVIDUAL level.
Doesn't it all depend on what was in the mind of the person who originally placed the expression onto the rock ... what was the purpose for the expression? Certainly not all that has been seen painted or carved on rock surfaces in the past and so cavalierly defined as rock "art" by archaeologists, or artists, was meant to be art. Some was simply communication ... signposts, if you will, whether to real-world destinations, or in the case of the Huichols' mescaline-enhanced psychedelic guidebooks, signposts to other planes of existence. Certainly, shouldn't our purpose for studying "rock art" be about trying to understand the behavior of the people who created these expressions, and isn't that process inhibited IF we insist on projecting onto the site of these expressions our prejudicial 21st-century mind-stage-setting of a panel in the back of a rock-shelter being tantamount to a wall in the Louvre ... and here WE stand with the perfidy to, in our minds-eye, grasp the ancients' brush, and re-think their thoughts ... about WHAT ... brush-stroke techniques ??? I believe art and artistic expression was an extremely rare occurrence in the hard-scrabble existence of the people where so-called rock-art is usually found. Oh, it DID exist, but I do not believe that artistic expression was the DEFAULT purpose that brought into existence the vast majority of the pictographs and petroglyphs seen in the southwestern U.S. and adjacent areas of Mexico.
Dear Markovic, what you say is mathematically true, yet, we perhaps, give too much credit to artists, as much as we love the Rolling Stones, for THINKING, in the creation of their art. I am more inclined to think (and NOT just based upon supposition, but upon statements made by Mick Jagger and others during many interviews over a half century) that these artists were simply responding more to animalistic impulses, to "raging hormones," to ... in one lyrical sense, whatever will "get satisfaction" ... in short, avoiding what gives the feeling/response from peers of "I can't get NO satisfaction!" These artists are trying to fulfill basic urges, they are not thinking abstract or mathematical thoughts ... not even the modern cubists like Picasso ... he, too, was just trying to "get off!" My point is so much more forcefully understood when one projects oneself backward into the simpler uncomplicated times of a pre-technological age ... where ones range of daily thoughts had more realistic constraints ... like those BASIC INSTINCTS of survival ... food, sex ... and, yes, OK, Markovic, it wasn't long until even the crudest of civilizations got their hands on drugs and invented some form of ROCK-AND-ROLL (music) ... so, as I did acknowledge in my previous statement, certainly, artistic expression DID occur, even in these dismal, forlorn rock-shelters at the end-of-the-earth, perhaps even by accident, if not by cultural design or religious practice ... where, for example, one's very existence depended on whether a small and very thirty lizard made the mistake of sticking his head out from underneath his rock to search for water that day, and even though that tiny lizard's tiny mistake made your first tiny meal in two days ... and gave you a tiny chance to survive further ... in the afterglow from your glorious repast, and the heady hallucinations from the mescaline contained in magic mushroom the lizard had nibbled upon for the past week to gain enough moisture to stay alive in this scorching desert ... you FEEL a compunction to RECORD to DRAW (and only God knows the reason why ?) some of the vivid images you witness onto the walls before you. Isn't this just rank copying? If an inanimate video camera could have the image in that head, IT would have done the recording job better. Where is the art in that? Is the art the act of doing it ... instead of just seeing/thinking the images, INVENTING a way to get them out of your head and show them to others? Perhaps that is the art in the pictographs and petroglyphs? In which case, isn't all our blatherings about what their meaning might be totally meaningless? because their meaningfulness was unique to only one mind, and that ancient mind is gone ... with no voice to explain further ... with no voice to say ... Enough, with your perfidious interpretations! I have heard enough foolishness! It is enough to make me retch lizard guts! Hahahahahahahhahahahaah! Dear Markovic, plesase do not take offense at any of my comments ... I am a "realist" and in the realm of art (and mathematics, too) I tend to like real things, not imaginary interpretations (and, for perhaps the same reason, imaginary numbers, have always seemed to be to "contrived' for my simple brain). Best regards, Bob Skiles
This two answers are so bizarre, they do not deserve to be taken in account.
The problem in answering the question, is one has to know, with a relative degree of certainty, what the panels of motifs depict.
Oxford Dictionaries defines art as being “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” In short, art is ‘subjective’. Based on our definition of the word ‘art’, are the panels of motifs ‘art for art sake’? In other words, was the purpose of the ‘art’, the self-expression of the individual who created them?
There are countless speculations as to the meaning of the motifs, which fall into four (4) categories.
1) Abstract, non-representational art, that has some sort of magico-religious significance
2) Altered states of consciousness, i.e., entoptic visions by shamans while under altered states of consciousness, again having magico-religious significance
3) Decorative
4) Astronomic/Calendric
If you’re of the belief that the panels fall into categories 1, 2 and to a lesser extent 3, then by modern definition rock art is… ‘art’. On the other hand, if you believe that it falls into category 4, then the answer is no, as it’s not ‘subjective’ but rather ‘objective’, the purpose of which was to record/impart information.
Anthony O’Farrell, in his paper titled ‘Principles for Analysing the Meaning of Megalithic Art’ states that “Archaeology is a science, and its practitioners wish to deal in facts, rather than opinions or speculations.”
http://www.maths.nuim.ie/documents/principles.pdf
O’Farrell discusses two key criteria that any conjecture must meet in order for it to be considered. First and foremost, is it refutable, i.e., can it be tested. “an irrefutable hypothesis simply imposes some meaning on the art, without effectively paying any attention to its content or context.” “Only unrefuted refutable conjectures deserve any confidence at all.” The second factor is whether it has any predictive power. NOT ONE conjecture to date has ever been tested, nor can they ever be tested, unless one can speak to the dead or travel back in time. Moreover, they have no predictive power. In short, they’re nothing more than fanciful speculations.
All that being said, is there an hypothesis that meets O’Farrell’s criteria?
Following is the Foreword from my 2nd paper ‘Petroglyphs: The Bend of the Boyne’.
“At least since the advent of modern archaeology, archaeologists have proposed numerous interpretations of the petroglyphs found throughout Ireland and the UK, yet none have ever been tested, nor can they ever be tested, and therefore do not meet the criteria of a scientific hypothesis or theory. This paper explores the likelihood that many of the panels of petroglyphs decorating the orthostats and kerbstones at sites such as Knowth, Newgrange and Dowth, simply depict the monuments that were constructed during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. The spatial distribution of the motifs on the stones at Knowth, Newgrange and Dowth for example, were a way of drawing in the wider ritual landscape, creating for the community a way of connecting the physical landscape, with the realm of the dead.”
“Though many of the monuments within the Boyne Ensemble are still visible in the landscape, there are hundreds of sites where nothing can be seen, except for the panels that exhibit this enigmatic art, with hundreds more yet to be discovered. With the advances in geo-prospecting technology, and using the probable cartographic information on the panels, undiscovered sites and monuments beckon.”
(NOTE: the foreword was edited Dr. George Nash, an expert in Neolithic art at the University of Bristol)
More importantly, the panels are the only surviving historical records of these sites, with the wealth of artifacts and remains they’ll eventually yield, shedding fresh light on who constructed them, their age and chronology, thus opening a new chapter in their history.
My three papers can be accessed online at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sean_Moriarty
Three additional articles and two short films can be accessed online at:
https://independent.academia.edu/SeanMoriarty
Sean, thank you for your answer. I have always agreed that rock art is multifunctional and that it cannot be understood from a single point of view or a one dimensional hypothesis. Anthropology is the science that studies human diversity, the particular aspects of each specific culture, in the first place. That’s why rock art has to be studied within its cultural framework. Ethnography and ethnohistory are a fundamental aid to the interpretation of archaeological data. I am not a structuralist, but if have found in my research that you can find common patterns that are present in many examples of rock art, all over the world. Aside from its various functions, the artistic or aesthetic element is there.
All throughout human history, at least beginning in the Late Paleolithic, human beings have produced a very wide range of objects with artistry. They are created with an outstanding craftsmanship, being beautiful, efficient in their practical function, and the material support of spiritual symbolic meaning. Nonetheless, several researchers think that the concept art can only be applied to the “Western cultural tradition”–being the term, in itself ethnocentric-, obviously, their point of view is either naïve, dogmatic or ethnocentric.
Best,
Julio
Julio,
Regardless of the meaning of rock art, I agree with you that the artistic element is there. As for the aesthetic… no, at least not with respect to the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age rock art In Ireland, the UK and France. While rock art may be multifunctional, I think that depends a great deal on the culture responsible for the art, and to some extent the time period in which it was executed. You stated that “Ethnography and ethnohistory are a fundamental aid to the interpretation of archaeological data.” Though I disagree with Robert Bednarik on a great many points, I have to agree with him that ethnographic interpretation of rock art has some major pitfalls.
http://www.ifrao.com/ethnographic-interpretation-of-rock-art/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifrao.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FEthnoAnalogy.doc&ei=5BiHVcrZF4bgoAS0lZW4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFLD31H4O6AAiAthGYZCUEVDVHFOw&bvm=bv.96339352,d.cGU
Kevin Callahan also discusses the matter, though he’s less cautious about the use of ethnography than Bednarik.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~call0031/folklore.html
One of the many pitfalls of ethnography, is that it relies heavily on folklore. As the folklore of a given culture can stretch back in time thousands of years, and hundreds of generations, as in the case of say the Australian aborigines, the meaning of the motifs have no doubt been distorted to one degree or another. To draw a simple analogy, I remember when I was in grade school we played a game called ‘Telephone’, where the teacher would make up a very simple one sentence story, which she’d tell student #1. By the time the story had made its way around to student #30, it barely resembled the original story told student #1. Now that took place in the course of few minutes, so you can imagine how distorted a story became over the course of several thousand years.
Even when there are ‘historical records’, those are, depending on the culture and time period, extremely unreliable because in many cases those ‘records’ were either written centuries after the fact, and/or by ‘outsiders’ who were interpreting the events they witnessed from their point of view, not that of the culture they were observing. Take for example the Roman historians who were writing about the different cultures that inhabited Britain and Ireland during the Early Christian Age.
All that being said, there’s a site in Ireland called the Hill of Tara, which dates to around 3000 BC. The site is comprised of several dozen earthen monuments, and while some are still visible in the landscape, most have only been detected by geo-physical survey. Based on the ‘historical records’, which in this case are the Dindshenchas Erenn, and the Rennes and Metrical Dindshenchas, the earliest of which date to the 6th Century, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Petrie in 1837 was able to match the descriptions and names of the monuments to their location on the hill. Based on the names of the monuments, all of which are in Gaelic, and their history as recorded in the Annals, archaeologists believe that most if not all, with the exception of the Mound of the Hostages – a small passage mound on the hill – date from 500 BC to around 500 AD. The problem with ‘Dating by Name’, is that there were a number of other cultures who inhabited Ireland prior to the arrival of the Celts around 500 BC. What do you think the odds are that over the course of 3,000 years, not to mention different cultures and hundreds of generations, that any of the earliest history and folklore surrounding the site got passed down? As Winston Churchill said, “History is written by the victors”.
Based on the panel of motifs found on Orthostat L.2 within the Mound of the Hostages, the core monuments on the Hill of Tara, of which there are twelve (12) that I discuss in my paper, date to between 3000 to 2500 BC, and all predate the Mound of the Hostages, as it’s simply not depicted on the panel. In short, their anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 years older than believed, and were simply repurposed over time.
Aside from the Hill of Tara, there are dozens of other sites/monuments in Ireland and the UK that have been tentatively dated to the Iron and Roman Ages, either based on the ancient texts, or simply their similarity to monuments which have been dated through excavation, a number of which I discuss in ‘Petroglyphs: The Bend in the Boyne’ and ‘Petroglyphs: The Art of Ancient Landscapes’.
As for the panels of art, there are no written records as to the meaning of the motifs, nor are there any indigenous cultures that can be traced back to 3000 BC, that can tell us what the motifs mean. So the speculations by the archaeologists and anthropologists tell us nothing about the meaning of the motifs, rather they simply reveal the mindset of those interpreting them, which is another point on which I agree with Bednarik. This gets back to the issue I raised in my earlier post, that none of their speculations have ever been tested, nor can they ever be tested.
So what does all this mean? It means that based on the questionable history of the sites, and the misinterpretation of the panels, that for the past 300 years since the advent of modern archaeology, the archaeologists and anthropologists whether they specialize in the Mesolithic, Neolithic up through the Medieval, got it wrong. So much of the ‘history’ of the sites has been fabricated.
The sad part about all of this, is that each subsequent generation of archaeologists and anthropologists, at least in Ireland, the UK and France, going back 300 years have simply accepted, for the most part, the work of those who came before them, especially when it comes to the meaning of the motifs. The end result of which is an inverted pyramid, the foundation of which is not based on facts. The only surviving historical records from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages in Ireland, the UK and France, which are literally carved in stone, are the panels of art. Unfortunately, the archaeologists have never been able to ‘connect the dots’… or in this case the cups and rings.
I completely agree with you: ethnography and ethnohistory are only an aid and, of course, meaning changes throughout history. The specific cultural meaning of most of the rock art has been lost forever, particularly in the case of cultural groups that disappeared without leaving an oral or written tradition that can help us to understand the meaning of rock art. Ethnography and ethnohistory allow us to formulate hypothesis that are useful as approximations, when used properly, especially in the cases where we can find a long term tradition. Yes, we need to read between lines to find how the epistemological point of view of the anthropologist is mixed with the testimonies of interviewed informers and how reliable are such informers. I also agree with you in that I disagree with Bednarik’s point of view. I had an argument with him, concerning the problem of interpretation, at IFRAO, a couple of years ago. I demonstrated, from a hermeneutical point of view, that even the hardest scientific data needs interpretation and that, in fact, the same scientific data has been interpreted in many different ways by different scientists. We always guide our interpretation by theoretical frameworks that are cultural and historical products; we project our categories of thought to the data that is being interpreted. Each point of view belongs to a well-defined episteme -to use the Greek word- belonging to a defined historical horizon.
Julio,
Like you, I had a run in with Bednarik a few years back regarding my hypothesis that the motifs found on the panels in Ireland, the UK and France were ‘maps’ of the sites as they existed during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. Based solely on the foreword of my 2nd paper, Bednarik dismissed it out of hand. One thing you’ve no doubt noted is that he’s extremely critical of the interpretations by archaeologists, yet he offers no interpretation of his own, for which I not so politely criticized him.
The term ‘rock art’ aside, two other terms which are misleading are ‘abstract’ and 'highly-stylized'. The term abstract not only implies that the artists chose to depict their ‘subject matter’ in such a fashion, but that they were capable of abstraction. Abstract thinking revolves around language, mathematics, science and social studies. As there is no evidence that the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age inhabitants of Ireland and the UK had a written language, let alone a mathematical system, nor any type of science, beyond calculating the position of the sun and moon at specific times of the year, nor any form of social studies, that interpretation simply doesn’t hold water, yet it’s been suggested that abstract thinking stretches back in time some 77,000 years. However, this speculation is based solely on the researcher’s interpretation of the art being abstract, merely because the symbols are not recognizable as ‘subject matter’ existing in our surroundings.
https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0202.htm
Given that majority of the panels dating to the Early Bronze Age found in Scandinavia consist almost entirely of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic designs, they in all probability depict events, whether real or imagined. Having said that, I seriously question why the artists responsible for carving those panels, would have included abstract/geometric motifs. It’s more likely they depict structures or monuments.
With regards to the art being highly-stylized, it’s no more so than children’s art, which is due not to any intentional choice on their part, but rather their undeveloped artistic skills. This was no doubt the case with the artists during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages, something which was likely magnified by the stone tools they employed, and the medium on which the motifs were carved. Though shamans have existed in other cultures, places and times, “absolutely nothing proves the existence of shamans during the Irish Neolithic, nor practices of this kind related to the collective tombs of this period.” (Robin, 2008)
Sean:
In the case I study of northwestern Mexico, I have discovered that the elements that would be called abstract figures are symbols, mainly religious, the incorporate many complex mythological concepts, what Leroi-Gourhan calls mythograms. Some of them can be recognized with the help of ethnohistory and ethnography, because of their presence in the late Pre-Columbian period, in the early Colonial period and in the living contemporaneous indigenous societies. Others remain enigmatic, but most probably, they refer to complex religious ideas belonging to their cosmologies, and are also associated to astronomic observations and cyclical rituals, as I have found.
I do not use the concept “highly stylized”. Instead I can see there is a very wide range of intermediate phases between totally schematic stick figures –which is the case I study- and completely realistic figurative images, which would be the case of Paleolithic paintings of western Europe.
Sean, the only way to understand rock art is thru the eyes of the creators, ie, through ethnography. We cannot understand it without understanding the cultural context within which it was created. This is especially true if it does not conform to our idea of aesthetics. Read the many articles by David Lewis-Williams and Jannie Loubser, just to name two. Ignore Bednarik. He has done a lot to protect and make the public aware of rock art but this is something he has not yet quite understood.
"Art" can encompass a range of creative activities including painting, sculpture, music, dance, writing, etc. A work is created in order to give expression to thoughts or feelings or evoke an emotional response (positive or negative - good or bad) to that creation. I must admit that there is much of modern "art" that evokes no such immediate response in me (except of meaninglessness) but nevertheless some does cause me to think further. I dont think we should get too bogged down in rigid definitions. If it does not touch you, so what. It might touch someone else. The fact that similar images are repeated across the landscape must mean that it had meaning for some people in terms of their cultural values. And dont forget that a so-called utilitarian image might evoke a strong symbolic response. Think about Warhol's soup can image (I forget the details).
can an industrial product be an art form?
can art be industrial?
Once something becomes industrial can it still be art?
What when the industrial production dictates the "artist" what to make?
Rock as an art form - what a mistaka to maka!
I really don’t quite understand your answer. First of all, the rock art I refer to belongs to traditional societies from the past. They have nothing to do with the modern industrial world. In fact, many of them disappeared because of the disruptive action of the modern world on their forms of life. But, especially, I don’t understand at all your last phrase: “Rock as an art form - what a mistaka to maka!” [sic]. Could you please explain what you mean by that?
Best regards,
Julio
Perhaps this image will help clear things up: The Rolling Stone Age by JoniGodoy.
(You may click on the thumbnail for a closer look.)
Source: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5b/02/0a/5b020aafd39cdb7dfef8b6ddc25c87d1.jpg
Maybe Willy understands something different than what we refer to as rock art? I specifically refer to paintings and petroglyphs done on rocky surfaces like caves or rocky walls or outcrops on the surface of the earth. It has been done since de Upper Paleolithic. Of course there are beautiful natural rocks, but they are nor manmade. About the difference between natural beauty and art see: W. Worringer, Abstraktion und Einfülung, 1908.
I was trying to suggest, with the image I posted yesterday, that the misunderstanding seems to have been caused by the ambiguity of the word "rock" (the geological sense --stones-- and the musical genre, based on blues, that emerged in the mid-twentieth century and continues to thrive today). Of course I'm only guessing.
I find it still interesting that archaeologists (who, at least in Europe, are researchers in a discipline that is part of the humanities), have so little understanding, perhaps so little respect, for another discipline in the humanities, that of art history. Rock art is a visual form of communication. It is art. There is much to learned from understanding how art is analyzed and interpreted, something which art historians do regularly for cultures that are essentially foreign to them, both in terms of age and culture.
Thank you Lisa for your answer. I fully agree with you. I will quote Carolyn Boyd, as she refers to this specific question:
"Scholars, in particular art historians, have long recognized that the art of ancient societies serves as an enduring record of intellectual and spiritual expression, a unique source for deriving inferences from the past. Professional archaeologists have been reluctant to access this same information in prehistoric art. The prevailing attitude has been, and in many cases it still is, that research directed toward the interpretation of art cannot be accorded scientific status and thus should not be the subject of archaeological study. Instead, archaeological research has focused more on the material aspects of life, avoiding the areas of human cognition or symbolic structures […] In contemporary Western society, we tend to focus on the aesthetic, decorative, and recreational nature of art and either deemphasize, ignore, or deny the utility of art […] In non-Western societies, however, art objects are often considered essential and powerful instruments-not passive props but active participants in the sociocultural system within which they were produced" (2013: 3).
Boyd, Carolyn E.
2003 Rock Art of the Lower Pecos, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Yes yes Julio! And an art historian as «dated» as Panovsky provides a useable framework with which to understand rock art, and the particular culture that produced it. See also: «Ancient Art in
I have demonstrated that art and rock art in all materials and styles have the identical subconscious structure and content, including sixteen clusters of optional features, attached to characters, in the standard peripheral sequence, on the same axial grid between their eyes (with two standard exceptions), with certain central features, in five layers. Each of about 100 features now known appear at fixed average frequencies worldwide. See 200 examples in my book Mindprint (2014, Lulu.com), or extracts on my website www.mindprintart.wordpress.com. In addition, many other studies indicate that the cultural ensemble and repertoire and cognitive behaviour of all people are equal. Where technologies differ, it is due to population density and maturity curve, which does not affect cultural media content and functions at all. Art is art. To separate stylistic corpi indicates the paradigm of culture as supposed 'invention, diffusion, evolution', which is false.
But what is art or Art with a capital A? What distinguishes "art" from my random scribbling or chocolate box images or banana skins stuck on a wall? Actually, the latter would probably be called art.
The provocative question "is rock art, art?' lacks context.
If you want it to be art you can make a plausible argument for this being the case and if you do not want it to be art you can make a similarly plausible argument against.
Why ask the question?
But why do we feel the need to ask the question? Standpoint feminism would here be useful in identifying the perspectival bias of the questioners and answerers.
The utility of archaeology and different scales of time, place and people
Archaeology is perhaps useful in expanding our frames of reference. For many people, especially gatherer-hunters it seems rock art was not primarily considered art, or even representation. Rather in many cases what we call the image or depiction, seems to have been considered an entity unto itself, sometimes even a more-than-human being. Wandjina/Wanjina rock art of Australia's Kimberley has a rich ethnography on this; southern African forager rock arts' use of rock features suggests a knowledge of a realm beyond the painted rock wall that housed various beings that at times are present on the rock and so on.
This is not to say the producers of the 'rock art' did not enjoy this creation aesthetically and in other ways, and can be studied using formal art historicla methods (rarely done) in tandem with archaeological contextual analysis, but that may not have been the primary motivation.
Further, in our ocular-centric studies we tend to isolate the image, ignoring the process of, for example, sourcing and mixing pigments and/or assembling the physical and social resources to produce an 'image'.
This is why Tacon and Chippindale suggested 'rock-art' (hyphenated) as a portmanteau term.
I quite like that we are constantly dissatisfied with 'rock art' adequately naming that entity we study/are drawn to - as we may never have an adequate term, and efforts to homogenise very different 'rock art' practices seems a hallmark of a universalising science at best - and imperial/colonial one at worst. Indeed, we face a fundamental incommensurability - trying to use 'words' to understand 'images'.
Quo vadis?
Turning our gaze to the present and future, would we call graffiti art (many do) or modern 'rock art' (not many do)?
So, I don't think it useful to assume 'rock art' exists, but 'rock arts' certainly do, each to be studied in their context, which then allows us to step back and ask these larger questions.
For what it is worth (if anything)
If authors would not consider rock art to be art, they would be badly advised to call it rock art.
Thank you, Sven: very good answer. I’ve always thought that anthropology is a science of particular cases. Throughout decades we have learned to adopt a basic attitude of humility: try to understand the specific cases within their own cultural framework. Universalistic and Eurocentric perspectives have failed to develop adequate answers to anthropological questions. The recent ethnographic studies, specially those referred to the so called “animistic ontologies” of Amazonia and Siberia, as well as those that study the aboriginal traditions of Australia, have brought new light to our understanding of those societies, still labeled with old Eurocentric concepts like “animism” and “totemism”.
I agree that there is not a universal answer to this question. Nonetheless, it is a good question if we understand, as Robert Layton has proposed in his book The Anthropology of Art, that we have to adopt a different approach towards the meaning of “art”, depending on the society that we pretend to understand. Some societies don’t even have a word for what modern Europeans have called art. Moreover, if you read Tatarkiewicz, you will find that the European concept of art has changed throughout history, from Athens to Contemporary Art.
Rock art, ancient or prehistoric drawing, painting, or similar work on or of stone. Rock art includes pictographs (drawings or paintings), petroglyphs (carvings or inscriptions), engravings (incised motifs), petroforms (rocks laid out in patterns), and geoglyphs (ground drawings). I think its an art.
In my opinion, pictographs and petroglyphs inside caves are an artistic expression. It is true that there are different meanings and purposes behind these images and different theories have been proposed by researchers in this field, but with all these descriptions, the artists who have painted or engraved these images have tried to make these images as beautiful as possible To display. According to this, it can be said that the engravings inside the caves and shelters are related to a kind of artistic expression.
Art is one of the crafts of instinctive re-expression of the archetypal structure that underlies meaning, including some of the links between structure and meaning, such as allegory, symbolism, and other kinds of incomplete likeness. Art is not conscious logical meaning (and where it tries to be, as in Communist propaganda, it fails). Art is not beauty, and where it tries to be, it becomes decor (which has some minor artistic functions) or kinds of porn (instant gratification, attempted appropriation). Among the social functions of art is appropriation of several classes of resources (time, place, identity, supremacy) on behalf of several classes of assumed peers of the artist (nation, tribe, clan, epoch, age group, guild, etc). Art walks a fine line between the many traps of attitude it usually falls into. I remain amazed at the consist re-expression of the five layers of archetypal structure, as a subconscious prerequisite for being art, by prodigies, masters and novices alike. The minimum complexity (about eleven characters in proximity) invokes the eye hand mind nature co-ordination required. Thus most isolated doodles are not art. But doodles inside an artwork are usually part and parcel of the work. See my paper Blueprint on www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com Earlier I published a paper about supposedly 'abstract' art in the anthropology journal Expression, which is posted here on Researchgate or on Academia. Resolving the question of the features and functions of art, is a step towards resolving who and what we are, which is the central question of the human sciences. Art is the most individual cultural craft. Crafts equal to art, but more collaborative, are myth, architecture as engineered (as built), calendar as ritualised in events, iconography, pantheons, etc.