Method in the Madness

            Annette Laming-Emperaire’s analysis of the cave paintings at Lascaux, particularly the methodology she used, is very logical and brilliant.  In anthropology, it is the tendency of those studying phenomena that is difficult to explain to reach the extraordinary, mythical, or magical.  Laming-Emperaire is directly criticizing the previous analysis of cave paintings in France, as well as the methodologies that have developed these speculations.  The archaeological approach, the one that she proposes as the best suitable means of discovering facts about the paintings and the people whom created them, is the best method of discovering facts about these artifacts, rather than mere speculations based on ethnographic interpretations. 

            The archaeological method involves gathering information on how these works were created, one aspect is the materials that were selected and the tools used to adorn these walls with the beautiful representations of animals that were roaming the earth at that time.  The most crucial analysis of these works of art comes as one interprets them as a collection of artifacts.  How were they composed?  Is there a method behind the chaos in which the images were arranged?  Is there an association between certain animals being used in a specific artwork?  Is there a connection between the associated animals and sexes of members of the groups, could they have served a ritual purpose?  Are the arrangement and distribution crucial to their understanding? 

          All of these questions can be answered through methodological analysis, it doesn’t have to necessarily be through trolling into the ground and discovering further artifacts, although this practice is greatly helpful because you may find evidence of a speculative theory surrounding the societal purpose of these artworks/artifacts.  What Annette Laming-Emperaire was trying to impose on the analysis of these works is that there is an obvious need for speculation, but it should be grounded in archaeological and methodic research.  She directly attacks that theory of the paintings having a magical hunting association.  Laming-Emperaire debunks this theory by highlighting the fact that very little of these works have spear or arrow markings indented in the artworks, and, if these artworks/artifacts were used for the purpose of magically taking down prey, there would be some markings on the paintings where the group would prod the image, releasing the magic.  This is speculative, but seems reasonable based on evidence of magic cross-culturally.  Laming-Emperaire sees the repetitive appearance of symbols in multiple locations as the only true evidence of a cohesive set of beliefs.  This would provide the evidence for totemism and confirm the mythological speculations surrounding the purpose of the cave paintings.

This is from Chauvet

Also from Chauvet

This is the Great Hall of Bulls in Lascaux

This is also from Lascaux

Hunter-Gatherers and Art

“Procuring food in groups and making it edible would foster improved vocal and non-vocal communication, and the development of certain technical, motor, and sensory skills, such as tool making, dexterity, observing powers, appreciation of symmetry, and the development of “handedness”—a dominant, more skilled hand and eye” (110).

How has the development of these skills, in combination with the high amounts leisure time facing hunter gather societies, contributed to the development of art as an evolving behavior?

            Hunter-gatherer societies were clearly amongst the first humans to engage in the behavior of art.  The complexity of social order we have today was minimal for these small groups of people.  These societies are the basis at which our complexity in social organization has bloomed from.  First the obvious needs to be pointed out; this social structure does not need to be complex because if these societies experienced a fair amount of stratification, the longevity of that group would be highly questionable.  Within this social order of early human society, the skills that Ellen describes manifested over the expanse of hominid existence.  As time passed, communication and language developed, learning progressed over generations of knowledge being shared between people, and advancements in tool making created the skills needed for artistic expression.  The process of making tools is probably amongst the most crucial for creating art because of the expertise needed to create a well-fashioned tool (good hand-eye coordination, the selection of proper material, and a knowledge of symmetry to maximize the usefulness of the tool).  Through the mechanisms of early societal organization and the mode of production for the society, the raw materials were now present, but how did art fully manifest itself?

            The amount of leisure time within a hunter-gatherer society directly enabled the development of artistic expression.  Shortly after the selected quote above, Ellen states: “Their leisure must have been occupied with practicing and developing skills, but equally so there must have been time to idle, to chat, to dream” (101).  Clearly this statement is just speculation, but that doesn’t disprove it as it has been seen in anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer societies that modern society has encountered.  Aboriginal Australians are example of leisure time leading to complex mythology and art, which is intertwined with their culture’s religion and system of laws.  Aborigines exploited seasonal resources in different areas.  These resources often expanded great distances, so, they walked.  With these travels, there was often songs and stories that went along with this journey, as well as totems representing the physical manifestation of their spiritual world connecting with their existence, thusly making the stories true.  The presence of stories were often seen in subsistence and tool making as well, like the building of bark canoes to exploit resources along the coast (obviously this was only amongst coastal tribes).  The point of this example is to illustrate Ellen’s point about subsistence, tool making, and leisure time directly contribute to the development of the behavior of art.  The main idea that should be taken away from this is that as society develops, then the social behaviors that humanity revels in will also develop.  Through tool making, leisure time, and increased socialization, humans developed a great capacity to express themselves, and the world around because the abstract concepts need to create art gradually developed as the social mechanisms with which we organized and feed ourselves also developed. 

The Aesthetic Nature of the Arts

            The main driving forces behind the arts have to be the aesthetic experience and the symbolic meaning attached to the aesthetic experience of an artwork.  These are the two most impactful experiences of the arts.  The first aspect of an artwork that catches people’s attention/curiosity is usually the aesthetic qualities of the piece.  In other words, does this piece pass the enjoyment/dislike phase of the viewer?  In either reaction from the viewer of the piece, the aesthetic experience is present.  The aesthetic experience may, and is, most likely intertwined with the symbolism attached to the meaning of the piece.  This experience directly relates to the individual through the cultural practices in which he/she has learned to behave; it is the experience of breaking from the ordinary that appeals to the viewer of the artwork.  Some of the aspects of the arts that are definitely involved with the aesthetic experience, other than symbolization, are the complex emotions that humans display, the need for sociality, and the need for humans to be entertained or intrigued to avoid monotony and boredom.  The arts are often an emotional expression that can reach out to masses of people.  This aura that the arts illuminate is part of the socialization and emotionality that is intertwined with art, and is a contributing reason for the aesthetic power of art, and what ultimately makes it such an extraordinary experience. 

Another aspect of the aesthetic and social experience of the arts is the process of going to a museum or viewing a piece of art.  There are codes of behavior/mannerisms that are expected in viewing an exhibit; the experience of going to a museum with people and feeling connected, through a piece of art to one another because of the realization of a shared similar view or belief; and in this context, it is the ritualization of the way we appreciate the arts that make it a social behavior.  People flock to view an exhibit or artwork that speaks to them, and once there, people exchange their ideas about the aesthetic and symbolic nature of the piece that appeals to them, making that piece significant and further connecting people together, and thusly connecting them to the intensity of experiencing that art work.  This connectivity is what makes the arts so relevant in cultures across humanity; it is feeling of something much larger than oneself. All of this appreciation is impossible without the aesthetic experience of art.  All of these factors of the aesthetic experience of art cause a break from monotony and the mundane.

Make My Lacrosse Stick Special

            Today I’m going to make my lacrosse stick special.  Lacrosse originated as a Native American ritual (game) that some tribes played on the east coast of the United States to prepare for battle.  Warriors would decorate their bodies in preparation for the blood sport.  Over the years, as the game has evolved, the practice of decoration, or making special, has not left the game.  Players decorate the heads (the top of the stick where the ball sits) with colored stringing or dye them various colors.   Both types of decoration are an expression of the style of game that the individual player plays.  Let’s go dye my stick.

            Like I said, the stick expresses the style of the player; as an attack-man (an offensive player) the style of my game was flashy, I always went for the stylish move to score a goal.  I no longer play (so this stick was dyed a few years ago), but I found this act of “making special” interesting because of its anthropological connection to the native groups near where I grew up in New York, and the continuation of the traditional practice of expressing yourself in the game.  Considering the style I played; my stick was pretty flashy. 

            First you need some supplies.  I’m using a small trashcan to contain the water and dye (red and blue, after dyed it turns to this ugly, flashy purplish color) that I’m using to make my stick special.  I boil some water.  While waiting for the water to boil, I take a hot glue gun and lay out some newspaper so I don’t make a mess.  I slowly streak the hot glue over the lacrosse head horizontally, working from the base up to the top.  I do this so that white streaks will appear after the dying is complete.  I let the glue dry and by that time the water is at a soft boil.  (NOTE: Don’t leave the head on the newspaper to dry, use a wire hanger and don’t hang it over something important leave it outside or in the garage over some newspaper).  I dump the water into the trashcan and add the blue dye.  Then I take the lacrosse head and place it into the water and dye for about five minutes (the longer or shorter you leave it in will affect the color, shorter = lighter color, longer = darker color).  I check it at three minutes and take it out after five.  I take out the head and let it dry for a 4-6 hours.  Then I take the head once more and repeat the gluing procedure while I boil the water in preparation for the red dye.  This will give the head blue and white horizontal streaks across its purple overtone.  As the glue dries the water is once again at a soft boil.  I put the water into the trashcan and add the red dye.  I place the head into the water and wait for five minutes, again checking it at 3 minutes to make sure the color is where I want it.  After five minutes of soaking in the dye, I remove the head and let it dry for another 4-6 hours (clearly this is either an all day or two day procedure).  After the head is dry, I take a butter knife and scrape the hot glue off, revealing the blue and white streaks.  Then I string up the stick using white stringing (the head is flashy enough on its own). 

Un-dyed Lacrosse Head

My Dyed Lacrosse Head

Another view of it

Primitiveness

            Robert Layton states very clearly his opinion of “primitive art”, and the societies that created those art works, “Any community which possesses a tradition of artistic expression has more than a little sophistication in its culture.” (p. 3).  The key part of that belief lay in its last few words, “…in its culture.” (3).  This is what makes the discussion of “primitive art” problematic.  These words are what make Ellen Dissanayake first describe the nature of what western society has come to label “primitive” society.  She states: “`Primitive` societies are…characterized by small-scale settlements, a low level of technological development, an unspecialized economy and a nonliterate tradition, and generally slow-changing, unquestioned homogenous social institutions and practices relative to nonprimitive societies.” (p. 42-3).  Therefore, now gifted with some sort of scope for the word “primitive”, we can begin to understand what Layton meant when he described “primitive art” as having, “…more than a little sophistication in its culture.” (p. 3).  This statement refers to people of small-scale societies that not only possessed enough sophistication to identify hundreds or thousands of edible/non-edible plants, and how to track, hunt, kill, butcher and make use of all parts of an animal, but also had the intelligence to creatively express their spiritual/general beliefs regarding the world around them.  To create a work of art with high significance and relevance to a society’s spiritual beliefs, for not only their-own, but also other generations to follow, takes a high amount of time, intelligence, and sophistication.  I don’t see the art created by our human ancestors as primitive; I see it as the basis for all of our artistic expression because there is no difference between “primitive art” and western art.  “Primitive art” is the creative expression by our human ancestors that describes how they view the world around them.  How is this concept different from most western art?  It’s not.  If you look at arguably the most famous artistic period in human history, the renaissance, you see a similar pattern of artists expressing their feeling and beliefs about the time that they are living in.  This time period was a dawning of many scientific theories, a reawakening of philosophical thought, and questioning the dominant institution of the time; the catholic church.  This is all reflected in many of the artworks of the period.  In art’s most basic sense as creative expression, there is no difference between the works produced by the people of the renaissance and those that created the cave paintings in France because both traditions are effectively portraying the world around them as those cultures knew it.

            Both Layton and Dissanayake disapprove of the term “primitive art”.  Dissanayake took multiple pages (p. 43-4) discussing why she is uncomfortable with the term.  Layton on the first page of his textbook states: “…the term `Primitive Art` will not be used here…” (p. 1).  True to his word, “Primitive Art” is not used much, if at all, in the first chapter of his book.  Both authors discuss a great deal about the art of small-scale societies but both try to remain objective. 

Sources for Images

http://smarthistory.org/Donatello.html

http://www.oddee.com/item_93915.aspx

http://ohhaythurr.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/cave-paintings-feb-14/

http://www.elementalsource.com/drupal6/student-blog