In a popular discourse, yes, but in a more accurate if still general way, our varied and often contradictory notions of what could constitute art have broadened to include anthropological and ethnographic artifacts as well as a host of commonplace products. So when we speak of paleolithic art we presume that it's understood we are stretching the more historic term of art (since the Ren.) to include a special group of artifacts that were most likely made for magical purposes. This is not to say that paleolithic peoples or their forebears did not have "aesthetic" sensibilities. That's the basic question but you don't like the subject term "aesthetic" I think that man and even many other animals have varying degrees or kinds of aesthetic consciousness/feeling but of course no one can say for sure just yet. It's something but what? The terms art and aesthetic are equally ghostly.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RE: 'he accuracy of retrofitting human imagery as > art is > probably as weak as retrofitting practical > observations as science. It doesn't much matter > what > you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and science > are > recent divisions of the subjective-objective > conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700.' > > So you don't think the Lascaux caves are art in our > current acceptation of > the term? > > DA > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:31 AM, William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > See below. Is that really right? Using a > scientific > > method to infer a general law of nature by means > of a > > hypothesis, observation, and measurement of some > event > > that can be duplicated by objective repetition is > > fairly new, 17C. Empirical observations and > > measurements, "applied science" has a long > history, at > > least from Aristotle. Magic has a played a big > role > > in science. A great book is Wonder and the Order > of > > Nature, by Lorraine Dalston and Katherine Park. > It > > traces the development of examining nature from > > superstition to science, 1150 to 1750. Almost > any of > > Barbara Stafford's books are also good for > discussions > > of how science emerged from magic and > superstition. > > > > > > The accuracy of retrofitting human imagery as art > is > > probably as weak as retrofitting practical > > observations as science. It doesn't much matter > what > > you say, it's all nostalgia. Both art and science > are > > recent divisions of the subjective-objective > > conumbrum, let's say 1500-1700. > > > > Of course we don't know what the Chinese were > doing > > when we weren't looking. > > > > WC > > > > After all, a > > > large number of > > > knowledges from all those cultures are among > that > > > which we regularly > > > call science. > > > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > > > Michael Brady > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan
