Topic Question Essay 2: Perception and Reality

Essay #1b

Perception and Reality

  

Figure 1 Source Link - Waldeck Mayan Glyph Reproduction -- Unknown Media, Jean Frédéric Waldeck, 1838

Figure 2 Source Link - Stela 3 -- Carved Stone, Unknown Artist, Unknown Date

Figure 3 Source Link - Woman from Willendorf -- Limestone, Unknown Artist, c. 24000 BCE

Figure 4 Source Link - Figures of a Woman and a Man -- Ceramic, Unknown Artist, c. 4500 BCE

QUESTION: Is it possible for a modern viewer’s "perceptions" to either create or alter the "reality" of a specific Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic Period cave painting or carving?




PART ONE:

SUMMARY: My attempt to answer this question has revealed quite a bit to me about how perception shapes the way we humans experience the world. I better understand the limitations of my own brain when attempting to analyze a piece of art and use my knowledge of perception to my advantage in future interpretations.

REASON: The reason this question was asked was to force the writer to examine with a magnifying glass the biases that influence people who view and study art. The writer will recognize the limitations of art research by closely studying them through this question.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this question is to allow the writer to pick apart the individual ways perception can change reality and examine the realities created by these prejudices.

DIRECTION: In the course of answering this question, I was able to list

IMPRESSIONS: My research has convinced me to take any speculation on the art of prehistoric men with a grain of salt. It is surprising to discover all the different ways our own brains can trick us when we are looking at things and making interpretations. Researchers aren't exempt from these problems but they are also not obvious problems in the field at first glance. I am surprised at just how much understanding more about the way people perceive the world and art specifically has improved my own artistic process by using these neurological quirks to my advantage.


PART TWO:

Art historians and related scholars may believe that they are always searching for the objective truth
behind prehistoric life in the artifacts those peoples leave behind. However, a major blind spot has plagued the fields of past-human discovery, causing setbacks and misinformation to circulate. This blind spot is the bias historical researchers imposed on artwork by each researcher's own perceptions. It turns out that a modern man's context and presuppositions can certainly alter the entire reality of prehistoric men or even create a new reality for these peoples. A number of factors can influence the way a piece of early artwork is interpreted by modern man and thereby influence the conclusions made about the lives of those ancient humans.

Unfortunately, our brains can sometimes put up mental barriers that hinder our understanding of the intended meaning or use of a work of art. (New Perspectives on Prehistoric Art, "The Discovery and Study of Prehistoric Art", Günter Berghaus, Praeger Publishers, 2004, p. 5) In some instances where scant information is available, modern perceptions have been shown to actually create the reality of specific works. A serious obstacle in efforts to decipher the ancient Mayan writing, for instance, was getting past the initial archaeologist's inattention to his own personal biases. The glyphs of the Mayan tablets are primarily based on imagery, often animals. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 385) When people in the 1930's learned of the preserved images near the ruins at Palenque, a few copied them into notebooks, including French artist Jean-Frederick Waldeck. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/cracking-maya-code.html) These sketches were circulated but scholars were at a complete loss deciphering the information contained in the tablets. Eventually the site was revisited and those researchers discovered that many of the sketches were flat out wrong. For example, many "reproductions" contained an obvious Hindu influence and depicted animals that did not live in South America. "Believing that Babylonians, Phoenicians or Hindus had built the Maya cities, Waldeck's drawings even included Indian elephants." (Fig. 1) (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/cracking-maya-code.html) Rather than depicting an unfamiliar reality objectively, the original sketch artist allowed both his experiences and unsubstantiated beliefs fill in the gaps that were not entirely clear about the Mayan imagery. In this case, modern mental barriers soiled an entire research field with inaccurate data for a number of years and created a "reality" of the Mayan civilization now known to be nothing but pure fantasy. (Fig. 2 depicts a real Mayan stela.)

If the history of a civilization as recent as the Maya became so jumbled by modern prejudices, it seems more than likely that our analyses of the art of the European Stone Age men may be similarly muddled. Those peoples lives are disconnected from us by tens of thousands of years in some cases, we already have little to go on. Some source images might never be fully understood because the modern people who recorded them with field sketches may have allowed a certain level of their own biases creep in. This is an especially salient point of caution for those analyzing works that are no longer available in original or photographic form, such as some wall paintings discovered at Neolithic village site in Turkey before the time of proper preservation techniques. As in the case of the Mayan glyphs, researchers can only rely on field sketches of earlier archaeologists because excavation destroyed the primary images. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 14)

Ignoring poor secondary sketches, accidentally biased modern speculation can alter the significance of a work in other ways. Interpretation of a piece of art and its subsequent artist can be drastically different based simply on what name it is given. One famous Stone Age statue in particular suffered this exact setback for a number of years. Today, the four inch stone figure of a plump woman with no feet or facial details has become known as the "Woman from Willendorf." When it was first discovered in Austria, however, the statue seen in Figure 3 was popularly identified as the "Venus of Willendorf." Although it was known as a "Venus" (as in the ideal Roman goddess of love and beauty,) there is little evidence to suggest that the Willendorf statue represented the ideal form of a woman. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 6) Today, scholars concede that the Willendorf sculpture could have had any number of different meanings. For example, the piece may have been a charm meant to boost owner's vitality. This would be due to the association between woman's life-giving ability and magical symbology, hence the exaggeration of womanly parts. (Art and Civilization, "The Origin of Art," G. Elliott Smith, Books for Libraries Press Inc, 1967, p. 39) Another theory suggest that the statue may have even been a simple self portrait by a pregnant woman who could see neither her feet nor her face. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 7) Art historians may never discover the true meaning of this statue or other "Venus"'s found in nearby regions. One fact is clear, however: By the seemingly innocent act of labeling an object for easy reference, archaeologists accidentally identified the object for others who viewed it, thereby setting the stage for years of distorted interpretations of prehistoric reality.

Artwork can also be interpreted differently based on position relative to each other. The frequent placement together of two ancient statues of a man and a woman sitting (Fig. 4), for example, highlights this cognitive limitation well. Although almost certainly created by the same artist, there is no way for modern viewers to know the significance the individuals had in relation to each other. Regardless, their stylistic similarity combined with an arrangement in which they face each other in close proximity is highly suggestive of a pensive couple. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 24) Often, our brains tend to reconcile the closeness of objects by assuming that they must be related. (Design Essentials for the Motion Media Artist, Angie Taylor, Elsevier Inc, 2011, p. 128) The tendency is not always a problem in itself; linking two unrelated objects forces our brains to compare them, thus experiencing both pieces in a completely novel way. In the context of prehistoric art, however, the tendency to rationalize a relationship between unrelated paintings may cloud our understanding of the facts, purpose, or meaning of the work.

A final note to consider is the relative paucity of artwork available to modern viewers from the men of 30,000 or even 5,000 years ago. The simple fact that only a tiny fraction of these works may come under our microscope likely skews our perceptions of the society as a whole. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 1) What we see is only a few small categories of all that ancient man created. This issue can be read more clearly through a simpler analogy: If the only dogs one has ever experienced are aggressive, then they will likely form the belief that all dogs are aggressive and graft that prejudice onto any future dogs they encountered. If they ever had to write about dogs or interpret their behavior, it would almost certainly be through a lens of perceived aggression as well. This tendency to process information in accordance with preconceived notions is one of the many well understood and inescapable cognitive biases of human beings. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/l/list_of_cognitive_biases.htm)

The outlook on prehistoric research today appears to have greatly benefited from the discovery of our own neurological quirks. Art historians have been fighting against the old myths more than ever. Our most contemporary researchers have a greater understanding today of the various ways our brains may lead us astray in search of the truth and the prognosis on our understanding of ancient art has never looked better.

Topic Question Essay 1: Them and Us

Essay #1a

Them and Us

Figure 1 Source Link - The Great Black Bull -- Paint on Limestone, Unknown Artist, c. 15,000 BCE

Figure 2 Source Link - The Crossed Bison (Lascaux Cave) -- Paint on Limestone, Unknown Artist, c. 15,000 BCE

Figure 3 Source Link - Bison -- Unbaked Clay, Unknown Artist, c. 13,000 BCE

QUESTION: How artistically similar, or different, do you think prehistoric people were compared to modern man and, what singular force or need continues to drive the artistic needs and human expressions of the 21st century?





PART ONE:

SUMMARY: In my attempt to answer this question, I discovered my own feelings about making art that had previously been hidden from me. Through this paper and my research, I am better able to articulate what motivates me to create. I also learned to look at a work from the artist’s perspective, as the two are inseparably linked. I have a much greater appreciation for many works that I did not previously understand.

REASON: The reason this question was asked is to force the writer to question his own ideas about what art is and the role the artist plays in a work. This question is also meant to explore man’s origin as a creator and examine the sophistication of prehistoric art that may look rather simple at first glance.

PURPOSE: As stated in the reason, this question is intended to help the writer critically examine his preconceived notions about art, form a more full definition, and investigate why humans are driven to create it.

DIRECTION: In the course of answering this question, I was able to form a fuller and more articulate idea of how art is defined and what purpose it serves our brains. I also learned a great deal about how skillfully executed the art of prehistoric men were, especially cave paintings.

IMPRESSIONS: Before my research I had assumed, as most people do I am sure, that cave paintings are very simplistic and childlike. I now realize this has more to do with the materials available to these men, something I can sympathize with as an artist. I am sure that if they had the same advanced tools of the Ancient Greeks, the hunter-gatherers would have created "Venus de Milo"s of their own. I am also astonished at the amazing mind of Pablo Picasso, whose ideas I had never examined until my research for this essay.


PART TWO:

Upon examination of prehistoric peoples’ art, it appears that they shared similar thought processes to that of modern man. Prehistoric peoples of Europe left many traces of their artistic history for their ancestors to discover. Pictured in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are examples of the numerous paintings of assorted prey animals found on the walls of Lascaux Cave in southern France. Figure 1 depicts a bull and Figure 2 features two bison. These works are believed to have been created around 15,000 BCE. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 9) Figure 3 shows a meticulously detailed clay sculpture of two bison discovered in a French region close to the Lascaux site. This work is dated to about 13,000 BCE. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 12) The animals represented in these works and similar art found during this time period are shockingly true to life. The ancient artists appear to have taken great care to capture the essence of the beasts. Since the discovery of such beautiful sculptures and paintings, art historians have speculated that these peoples likely attributed magical qualities to this type of artwork. One theory suggests that the men believed that if they depicted something in their art, it would happen in reality. “It seems fairly certain that sympathetic magic was at the bottom of most of the cave drawings. Such magic decrees that the image of a being possesses such affinity with its original that an injury to one causes a corresponding injury to the other.” (Art and Civilization, “Prehistoric Art,” Dina Portway Dobson, Books for Libraries Press Inc, 1967, p. 51) Further indication of a magical connection can be found in the choices the artists made for the location of much of their cave work. Many sites where the paintings appear are rather inaccessible. Evidence of heavy foot traffic also indicates that these places were for ritual or group activities, once again suggesting that the paintings held some importance to the people. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 9)

Today, men might scoff at the thought of painting a bison in order to capture it in the real world. This connection to the mystical and magical, he will say, is absurd and has been since science has delivered us from our struggle to understand and control our world. However, the thought process behind these beliefs may be more nuanced than humans of today are aware. To many, the magic in their art may be hiding in plain sight, for they can’t quite articulate it. Regardless, an artist’s belief in his own paintings and their “supernatural” power seems to persist as a common thread between the minds of at least a few recent masters. For example, Jackson Pollock, commenting on his painting entitled “Full Fathom Five,” began a speech with the telling phrase, “When I am in my painting…” Pollock speaks of his painting as if it were a real living thing, adding, “The painting has a life of its own." (http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?authid=73) Some may view that quote as a simple turn of phrase, but perhaps Pollock was articulating something special about the relationship between artwork and any man, prehistoric or contemporary. Turning to another master of recent decades, Pablo Picasso once said of his artistic process, “It is necessary that I live my work.” (Picasso on Art: A Selection of Views, Dore Ashton, Viking Press, 1972, p. 84) Picasso too seems to imply that his work takes on a form of life deeply connected but distinctly separate from his own. If we are to trust the thought processes of our own highly regarded contemporaries, it is safe to speculate that prehistoric men really did feel a sort of magic in their work. Regardless of whether the sympathetic magic theory is spot on, at the very least ancient men may have felt as if they were capturing or even creating a soul in these hyper-realistic depictions. This may also explain why such hard to reach areas were chosen to display these works. The men wanted the animal to persist beyond its physical life, into the life of a painting permanently hidden deep in a cave. In this way, the spirits are truly immortalized because art is considered to be a persisting event that can be experienced as long as it survives. (Art Through the Ages 5th ed., Helen Gardner, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970, p. 2)

On the topic of what drove these men and all humans to create art, our living creations, aesthetic sense does not seem to be the key. It is true that men strive to bring visual balance and harmony to their creations and admire these qualities when they are present in nature, but this is not a uniquely human trait. There are unrelated species throughout the animal kingdom that appear to admire nature’s aesthetic oddities, such as the bowerbird who collects all manner of peculiar artifacts and displays them outside its home. (Larousse Encyclopedia of Prehistoric and Ancient Art, René Huyghe et al., Prometheus Press, 1962, p. 27) For this reason, man’s motivation to create art must not lie in simple aesthetics, but instead in a unique desire to express himself and discover a clear picture of his own identity. This explanation seems to be a vital factor in understanding the thousands of human depictions prehistoric peoples left behind, as the human form is the core of an individual’s identity. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 21)

To understand these motivations, it must be stated what art is in the simplest terms. Art can be defined as an emotional expression among other definitions. This “artistic impulse” appears to be present in not only the creators of art, but its viewers as well. (Art and Civilization, “Prehistoric Art,” Dina Portway Dobson, Books for Libraries Press Inc, 1967, 51) The theory that prehistoric man was simply attempting to literally capture buffalo with magical help from his cave drawings does not discount this view of art as emotional self-expression. After all, most humans share a primal desire to survive. The various cave paintings and sculptures of animals can be seen in this light as an important aspect of hunter-gatherer survival. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, 1) To survive would have been impossible if ancient hunters failed to capture their prey, some of which were, coincidently, the subject of their people’s works. (Art History Volume 1 4th ed., Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 13) The prey art, depictions of the life-givers, was the outlet through which these men expressed their deep, emotional aversion to death; Whether the hunter-gatherers were conscious of this connection is unimportant. The fact is simple: when a person saw these pictures of animals so realistically depicted that they were practically living on the walls of this cave, he felt hope and security.

Identity development plays a crucial role in understanding the human need to express. Once again we turn to Picasso who said, “The inner I is inevitably in my painting, since it is I who make it.” (Picasso on Art: A Selection of Views, Dore Ashton, Viking Press, 1972, p. 47) The desire to express one’s own identity, cultural or individual, is certainly featured in the Lascaux Painting. The animals here are immortalized out of respect and worship from the people they sustain. This idea would not be terribly unusual; many culture’s identities are wrapped up in the specific life-giving resources of their region. For example, Ancient Greek civilization is heavily associated with olives and this food and wood source appears numerous times throughout their artistic works and mythologies. Relating back to the mystical element of art, the Ancient Greeks believed their native olive tree, which provided them so many resources, was a gift to Athens from the goddess Athena. (Art History Volume 1 4th Ed, Marilyn Stokstad et al., Prentice Hall, 2010, p. 136)

Man cannot escape his need to form an identity through expression. It is all around us. Evidence of this need is seen not only in our paintings and sculptures, but also through the hundreds of languages humans have developed throughout history. People that live in different regions of the world develop their own words and dialects. Typically, cultures will fiercely defend and glorify their language as part of an important group identity. For example, Jamaicans consider their language to be a crucial form of self-expression. (http://www.globalexchange.org/country/jamaica/language) Why would maintaining their personal connection to a language be such a big deal? The answer is that language, like art, is a creation. The people are defending their own group creation, which has shaped and given them identity for centuries or sometimes millennia. Discovering identity through self-expression appears to be a recurrent theme throughout human artistic history, among other endeavors, and will continue to drive us as long as we continue on with our current, unaltered human nature.