Talk:Prehistoric art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[[Media:Example.ogg ---- Insert non-formatted text here]]==remove scope tag== It's difficult to see any particular Western-centric bias in this article? Can anyone simply LIST preshistoric art finds from Asia? (older than say 10,000 years.) Are there many? Have there been any good finds yet? If there are, click EDIT and put them in the article. If there are not, the silly tag should be removed.

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)
This article is completely lacking in native arts of Asia. It doesn't even have a heading for Asia. Since Asia is the largest continent and it does have a rich history, I'd be surprised if it didn't have any notable pre-historic art. SCHZMO ✍ 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculous. If you want to add sections on Asia prehistoric art, click the EDIT button and go for it.

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.112.1 (talk • contribs) 2005-06-29t10:25:02z

This comment is so vague as to be not very valuable. If you want to add a section on some particular type of prehistoric art, do some reasearch and then click the EDIT button.

[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.

     Hauser is nonetheless quite sexist in his analysis of Palaeolithic art.  There is plenty
     of newer scholarship that even takes hunting "out of the picture" altogether.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.82.128 (talk) 20:16, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
The comments above seem extremely irrelevant to this article, which is, and should be, an overview of prehistoric art.

[edit] Primitive art

I think the term "pre-historic" art is all wrong.

You are quite wrong. "primitive" is a stylistic description. "prehistoric" is a well-accepted term spanning particular eras.

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 00:31:17
See WP:MOVE. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-28t19:13z
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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 00:25:28

I just checked, they already have their own home! See: ancient art.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.145.27 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 00:26:38


What about MALTA. Shouldn't it be mentioned, as the site of the world's most ancient structures? Poorly researched page. 87.74.127.29 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone really care that much about Malta?  :-) The time scales mentioned on this page (eg, Africa caves 70,000 years old) are far older than some buildings in Malta. Why not add what you know about Malta to the Malta page?

[edit] Gee whizz!

This article has an awful lot of knockers and very few positive contributors! What about it? --Amandajm 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No kidding.


Uh, this is the pursuit of knowledge AND an encyclopedia, not a feel good party. Art History has been one of the most problematic disciplines for the production of lies and biases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.82.128 (talk) 20:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] book?

What are the best coffeetable picture books or reference books about ALL prehistoric art ever made? including all genres, all archetypes, etc.?--Sonjaaa 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

try amazon.com, use the search field

[edit] Mesolithic Letters: Just Like "Ours"

So what's up with that line in the Mesolithic section that says: "...it's the first letters ever found and it looks just like our letters. It says: Stine for den hårdt i prutten af en kat..."

That's kind of weird, and doesn't sound likely. And who's letters are they? The Latin alphabet? I think someone should explain this more thoroughly, with some sort of reference, and re-word it because it just doesn't sound encyclopedic. Or I'll just delete it. Cool?--Cosmiclingo 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)