Week 7 Blog post
The Lascaux Cave
The Lascuax Cave was a very important part in our history because of how influential the art was. Animals were a big symbol in these paintings and provided a big role in how the art was to be looked at. The animals shown are representative of the flora that people would have seen at that time. Feared predators like lions, bears, and wolves were among those depicted, and animals like deer were hunted for the human diet. The figures don't include any representations of the flora (there are no illustrations of plants, landscapes, or the environment). Horses are by far the most frequently shown animal out of Lascaux's 600 or so animal depictions.
The techniques that many of the artists used were very unique and influenced how many artists showcase their work. The methods and equipment chosen were determined by the features of the assistance being employed (the walls and ceiling of the cave). Drawing was the greatest option in the Hall of the Bulls because the support there is hard and has a rough texture. However, in other areas of the cave, such as the Chamber of the Felines, carving figures into the rock was conceivable because the limestone had already begun to corrode a little. Painting was done using a different method that involved blowing dry paint through instruments made from hollow bones.
The type of material that was used on the paintings show the timeline of which the painting was made. Additionally, red ochre appears to have been the material used in artwork found in Western Australian caves, which is thought to have been produced around 50,000 years ago. Once more, the idea that art is an innate force inside the human species lends itself to the reality that humans were experimenting with crude paintings while living across oceans from one another.
The notion that art can reveal a lot about the era in which it was produced is not new. Art has always educated modern people about the way their ancestors lived, from ancient civilizations like Egypt to the relatively modern Renaissance works in Italy. In this respect, cave paintings and the process used to create them are comparable. Although there is one depiction of a human (paintings of humans in Paleolithic art are extremely uncommon; sculpted human forms are more common), the majority of the paintings show animals that can be found in the area, including horses, bison, mammoths, ibex, aurochs, deer, lions, bears, and wolves. The illustrated animals include both prey species (like deer and bison) that would have been hunted and eaten as well as feared predators (such as lions, bears, and wolves). The animals are depicted in profile and frequently stand in an alert and animated position; no foliage or surroundings is shown around them. The sweeping, rhythmic contours that surround the softly colored regions give them life. Brush strokes weren't found in the paintings which showed that many of the early humans found ways to show their art and provide meaning with anything they could find. Red, yellow, black, brown, and violet are just a few of the widely accessible mineral colors that were used to paint Lascaux and other caves. Since no brushes have been discovered, it is most likely that the large black edges were created with moss or hair mats, or possibly just plain color chunks. Color-stained, hollowed-out bones have been discovered in the caverns; the surfaces appear to have been painted using paint that was blown directly from the mouth or through a tube.
My favorite type of art is film photography due to the fact that I practice it currently
Section 1: I've started to read through your post. There are specific questions in each section you were asked to address. You offer a very good description of the cave art in general, focusing on the process of producing it, but you don't seem to address any of the prompt questions specifically. I can review your information and see if any of it can apply, credit-wise, to the questions in the prompts, but please make sure you address all questions directly to avoid loss of points.
ReplyDeleteSection 1: Yes, clearly the message here was that animals are important to them, but why did they need to make that explicit message?
You talk about how the images depicted fauna and not flora, but the question in the second prompt is about the relative absence of *humans* in the images. Even when they are depicted, humans are mere stick figures, while the animals are detailed and in color. Why did they spend so much time creating the animals while humans were no more than an afterthought?
The next question asks you to use the information from the paintings to deduce information about this culture in general. You talk about how the pictures were produced, but missing a discussion about it's culture. What do the pictures tell us? You make the great observation about the lack of flora in the images. There are no berries, no mushrooms, no birds, no fish and no eggs, things that would be part of the "gathering" process. So who is painting this pictures, men or women? Does that tell us anything about the gender roles of this culture?
This fourth question asks you to discuss the difficulties of producing these images. You do allude to the difficulties of painting on certain surfaces:
"carving figures into the rock was conceivable because the limestone had already begun to corrode a little."
Did you mean INconceivable?
Beyond the intricacies of managing painting on uneven, difficult surfaces, there are more glaring problems faced by these early artists, including accessing these deep, dangerous caves, producing light in order to see, and gathering/creating pigments and tools for painting, which indicates in interesting level of innovation.
Missing the final question in this section about the functions of this art.
Section 2: The section that I *think* best applies to this discusses the *process* used to create these paintings, but the question here is about a comparison between the FUNCTION of art, both modern and archaic. Art can be used to record events and history. Art can tell stories and educate people. It can be a form of record keeping. It can also inspire or anger or sadden people, driving them to act on that emotion.
Section 3: Again, you focus on the purpose of the *process*. But what is the purpose of the *art*?
When you discuss the style of this photography, you are digging into the *culture* of this art form, which will have its own tools, its own language and vocabulary, its own behaviors and social network. Address the question directly instead of alluding to it.
To answer the last question, perhaps it is better to consider the broader form of photography in general. Can photography be used to benefit society? How about how photography was used to drive society against the Vietnam war? Or to inspire people to march during the Civil Rights era (which did much to change our social & government policies)? And can photography have detrimental impacts when used to slander someone or perhaps disseminate propaganda?
Good afternoon Anthony I really enjoyed reading your blog post and found it very interesting and enjoyable to read. for your first response I liked how you answered the question I too believed they only would draw those animal's because they were the only animal's in their environment at their time . I can also see how they would divide the animal drawings into two groups the ones they hunted which you described to be the deer and bisons and the ones they feared (lions, bears and wolves). I too can agree that photography can be an art as it sends messages through the photos and sometimes creates emotions.
ReplyDelete