Talk:Prehistoric art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Limited geographic scope
If this article doesn't show the Western-centric bias on Wikipedia, I really don't know what does. Ashibaka tlk 02:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The headings are there, which indicates an attempt to avoid bias. It's just that we're waiting for someone who knows about the subject to add more. adamsan 12:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Missing rock art styles
Any reason x-ray style is not mentioned? (Google gives about 500000 hits) One example is from 6000 BCE, and as these occur many places over the world it should satisfy this complaining on limited geographic scope. Also there is another style where deer or similar animal is looking backwards, the English name of which I cannot recall. This too is found in many places in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.164.112.1 (talk • contribs) 2005-06-29t10:25:02z.
[edit] Odd article
The following was posted as a new article called Talk talk:Prehistoric-art by User:Menahem. I have tagged the article as speedy and copied the contents here. Reyk 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
On Paleolithic art; the eminent author, Arnold Hauser had this to say: "The Palaeolithic hunter and painter thought he was in possession of the thing itself in the picture, thought he had acquired power over the object in the portrayal of the object. He believed the real animal actually suffered the killing of the animal portrayed in the picture. The pictorial representation was to his mind nothing but the anticipation of the desired effect; the real event had inevitably to follow the magical sample-action, or rather to be already contained within it, as both were separated from each other merely by the supposedly unreal medium of space and time. It was, therefore, by no means a question of symbolical surrogatory functions but of really purposive action. It was not the thought that killed, not the faith that achieved the miracle, but the actual deed, the pictorial representation, the shooting at the picture, that effected the magic."
More; female animal representations never show spear marks; because the belief in magic resulted in a desire to preserve the species for future hunting.
Hauser was a Marxist; and so it is not surprising that he believed that artists need patrons. Yet there is much truth in that contention; especially in later times, e.g. the Italian Renissance, where Pope Julius and the Medici Family both patronized Michaelangelo.
[edit] Primitive art
I think the term "pre-historic" art is all wrong. I think the topic name should be changed to "primitive art". There are a number of reasons, but the most obvious is that this article is intended to encompass aboriginal art which clearly co-exist with the western culture's historical period. How can it be pre-history? Trying to lump aborignals into pre-history by calling them preliterate is also problematic. The term preliterate implies a developmental model to all human socities which is inapplicable outside of western culture. If you must talk about the technology of writing simply "nonliterate" will do. I will make these changes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28t00:10:50z.
- I would like some help on making the change to the art history series that this art should be called 'primative'. How can this been done?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 00:31:17.
- Well, one can look at art from the historical or geographic perspectives. Both are valid and useful for the study of art and peoples. Primitive art is more of a style than a time period. Thus, pre-historic art serves an anthropological function just like pre-historic food production or pre-historic weapons. Naïve art already exists as an an article (which primitive redirects to.) Does that not address your concern? Marc Mywords 20:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iron age?
If the intention of this article is prehistoric and nonliterate art, why the hell are the neolithic, bronze, and iron ages included? I feel these ought to be removed and placed in their own home, since the art of these epochs is clearly historical.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 00:25:28.
