An interesting fact of paleolithic cave paintings is that the artists seem to have preferred bulges, cracks and other natural features that seem to have suggested animal forms to them. Thus a bulge in the wall was chosen because with a few alterations it looked much like a bison or something. We all do this all the time when we see something we can't identify and say "it looks like..." except the Paleolithic artist added the necessary, convincing detail. In the early Renaissance, before anyone had a clue about Paleolithic anything, the myth grew up around Giotto, who was seen by following generations of Renaissance artists as the father of the new naturalist art, that as a shepherd he once saw a rock that looked to him like a turtle and he added a few marks to make it obvious.
A perplexing (to us) feature of much Paleolithic cave art is the seeeming lack of regard artists had for previous painters in the same space. Thus images overlap in apparently haphazard ways, or like gang graffiti that purposely overpaints another gang's insignia. Keep in mind that the cave paintings were made in the same caves on top of one another for tens of thousands of years! Thus one painting can be obscured by another that was painted thousands of years later. So we don't know what went on re magic or cancellation of previous images or just not "seeing" what had been done before (just as we ignore the ephemera of a few generations ago). We just can't be sure of anything and can't apply the compositional frame to Paleolithic art, not because they didn't have a frame in mind but because we can only speculate. WC --- On Fri, 10/3/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 3, 2008, 4:25 PM > Re placement/cropping of cave paintings: inasmuch as I > haven't been talking > to paleolithic man recently, I'll have to take your > word for it that > placement of cave paiintings didn't have to do with a > smooth patch of wall, > a place where the drawing could be seen by everyone, or > selected paleolthic > men/women or due to some "spritual' reason. > Geoff C > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > >Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:40:44 EDT > > > >In a message dated 10/2/2008 5:54:02 P.M. Eastern > Daylight Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >Frances muses with Luis and others... > >The limiting of graphic or plastic or tectonic space, > by the > >cropping and scaling and closing of visible objects > like depicted > >images, is indeed probably a mental act of gestalt > perception and > >vision, but may not fully account for ancient works > like > >primitive drawings and carvings and buildings that > were put on > >rocks or in caves, where edges and frames may not > actually exist > >in concrete fact. > >Frances, > >The selection of a particular cave setting, the cave > itself and the > >location > >of the drawing/painting on the wall/ceiling is the > perceptual cropping. It > >was a very intentional act to provide a special place > for them. We would > >have > >to look at many drawing/painting scenarios and their > context as it may have > >been at the time of their creation (highly difficult in > many), to assess > >how > >far back perceptual cropping occurs. > > > >The deliberate imposition of peripheral > >restrictions on aesthetic forms like tones or marks > can even be a > >block to understanding artistic goodness. In semiotics > however > >the determination of semantic grounds and margins is > required for > >signers to interpret the referents and meanings of > objects or > >subjects that may be signified by signs. Such > boundaries act as > >limiting spheres and domains and realms, whereby the > signer can > >be brought into a conforming and controlling relation > with the > >sign, so that some degree of normality is assured. > There is also > >a key difference to note in pragmatist semiotics > between a > >visible material object and a visual mental object. > Furthermore, > >such semiotics holds that when a delimiting frame is > present to > >sense, that it is itself a further sign that impacts on > the > >signing and the signed and the signer. To be specific, > a frame or > >boarder is mainly an "indexic" kind of sign, > and not mainly an > >"iconic" or "symbolic" kind of > sign, although these three > >semiotic properties will be present in all kinds of > signs, > >regardless of their main dominance in any particular > situation of > >semiosis. The issue of whether such peripheries are > necessary > >subjective dispositions discovered by humans as inborn > traits, or > >rather are arbitrary subjective conventions invented > by humans as > >learned trails or trials, is another important thorn to > deal > >with. > > > > > >I believe that we must already have the built-in > cognitive systems to do or > >recognize anything that we now or in the future may do > or recognize. > >Innate > >abilities/traits exist cognitively (hardwired > potencies) long before we > >may > >become conscious, as a culture, of them. > > > > > >Luis Fontanills > >Architect > > > > > > > > > > > >**************Looking for simple solutions to your > real-life financial > >challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news > and information, tips > >and > >calculators. > (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
