When did art begin?

[Masse]

A question and theory that interests me. Assuming that art is representation, and that New Guinea carved masks, carved with care and purpose and not just something for the eye, may be the spirit of deities and the wearer becomes the spirit, at what point in history did representation become “art” and not some cultural reference to spirits or the supernatural?

 

[Bartc]

A question and theory that interests me. Assuming that art is representation, and that New Guinea carved masks, carved with care and purpose and not just something for the eye, may be the spirit of deities and the wearer becomes the spirit, at what point in history did representation become “art” and not some cultural reference to spirits or the supernatural?

Not an answerable question, that art for art's sake vs. spirituality.

But what is currently answerable is that human art is at least 51,000 years old. Whether it had a spiritual dimension of not, it had zero survival value when daily routine was all about finding enough calories to survive the next day. So it clearly has always had some significant importance.

 

[Masse]

But what is currently answerable is that human art is at least 51,000 years old.

Right, but it wasn’t considered “art”. That’s the name we’ve given it.

 

[Bartc]

Right, but it wasn’t considered “art”. That’s the name we’ve given it.

Where's you get that first notion? Nobody knows what it was considered.

But consider that it was done for esthetics, not survival, and it was done with skill, effort and intent and you have "art" by any definition. Art can be spiritual and religious, but it's still art. Art can be instructive, but it's still art.

 

[Enyaw]

So why is a chair a chair and a table a table and not the reverse. Someone gave it a name for their personal depiction and your question has the same answer. Someone classified it for whatever reason and who cares. It is what it is not what it was.

 

[Masse]

I don’t think a New Guinea mask was done for the sake of aesthetics, If the wearer became the spirit then it’s a long way from art. It’s also likely to be about survival if spirits are considered real. That doesn’t strike me as being “art”. It’s definitely skilled but it’s not art as we experience it now.

 

[Masse]

So why is a chair a chair and a table a table and not the reverse. Someone gave it a name for their personal depiction and your question has the same answer. Someone classified it for whatever reason and who cares. It is what it is not what it was.

I can’t see a New Guinea tribe member carving a mask for deep, spiritual reasons and classifying it as “art”.

 

[Bartc]

I can’t see a New Guinea tribe member carving a mask for deep, spiritual reasons and classifying it as “art”.

Then we're likely to disagree on a definition of art. It's art, my friend, just not solely for esthetic use. I think your definition of art is too limited.

And at this point I'm going to exit this thread for that reason.

 

[Masse]

Then we're likely to disagree on a definition of art. It's art, my friend, just not solely for esthetic use. I think your definition of art is too limited.

And at this point I'm going to exit this thread for that reason.

Thanks for considering it anyway.

 

[Masse]

I see a bit of curiosity here in the number of views, so I’ll clarify things a little more.

When was the moment in history that we went from representation as a cultural artefact (the New Guinea mask for example) to art for art’s sake?

Instead of the mask consider the Sistine Chapel painted around 1510. That wasn’t art for art’s sake. It served the purposes of the Vatican to propagate the word of the Bible. The Mona Lisa was painted sometime 1503 and 1519. It’s a portrait, art for art’s sake.

 

[Masse]

I’d hoped for some feedback here, or some contribution, but none unfortunately, so I’ve continued developing my thoughts.

It seems to me that “art”, art for art’s sake, began during the Renaissance. Prior to that whatever was produced had a cultural purpose: religious messages, items to glorify God, burial items, etc. During the Mycenaean period there were carved gems, jewellery and vases, but to me those are crafts and there’s a difference.

Portraits for no other reason than to show the face of an individual is the beginning of art. The painting is made to go on the wall to be viewed as the desire arises. It has no purpose except to be itself. It represents the artist’s personal desire to create something personal, without reference to cultural mores.

 

[txomsy]

What you describe as "art" is not all "art", only a part of it. And what it boils down is "doing something to amuse oneself", maybe "doing something that me or others consider beautiful just for the pleasure of it". Which is amusement in the end.

Even then, under that definition, art must have existed forever. As soon as anyone did anything because they liked the result.

Plus, what if I do something I find amusing (like carving a stone, a doll, a wooden vase) and you come, see it, like it, realize you can't reproduce it, ask me to exchange it for something you have and I want/need? Would it be art before the exchange and not art after the "sell"?

You seem to think in terms of a 21stC urbanite (no offense intended), who buys everything. In many societies people make their own garments, decorations, jewelry, etc. instead of buying it. Indigenous art isn't? What is the use of a heavily decorated garment? The garment, yes, the decoration, what purpose other than amusing oneself does it have? The tisues hung in a wall? Geometric forms drawn in walls, stones? When a mom in a tribe decorates with beautiful colors, figures, arabesques, and abstract motifs the garments for her family, she does not do it for the utility, but because she enjoys doing it and her family/clan do also consider it beautiful and enjoyable. When people paints their body for a tribal dance, to celebrate they are happy, is that "utility" or that they find it beautiful to decorate their bodies and have joy in the dance? Is not dance an art? Haven't you ever sung or hummed a song to enjoy music? Isn't music an art?

You seem to never have seen someone knitting. Boring as it is, the urge to make each work different and beautiful is only natural. Not a cultural expression, it is the exhilarating joy of producing something unique, beautiful and moving.

There are many manifestations of human activity that transcend utility. That added dimension, beyond utility, is what you call art for art's sake. The shepherd that invests time engraving a "kuksa" (a wooden vase) with beautiful images (or painting pottery, or engraving patterns), for the sake of its beauty, not to make it more useful, but to have joy every time s/he uses it (where use is a excuse to enjoy their own work of art more frequently), to fill in boring hours alone, to express a deep feeling and fill in their solitude with moving beauty, are not they artists?. Reality is that for many "useful" things, the decoration is art, an added value, not something that adds in any way to their utility. Yeah, you may think it is conscientiously added to increase their perceived value and your profit, but truth is whoever buys it buys both the utility AND the art, and whoever do it for themselves use the goods as canvas for their own joy doing art for art's sake.

We hung paintings in walls to see them more frequently. Many artists paint or engrave or use many technique to decorate things that they use frequently so they too can enjoy them. Is not that art for art's sake? If not, what the heck is art for art's sake?

In other words, art, even by your own restricted definition, has existed practically forever.

 

[Masse]

In other words, art, even by your own restricted definition, has existed practically forever.

The problem with discussions like this is in how we use language, which changes from culture to culture and from person to person.

Art is representation. Would you agree on that?

 

[txomsy]

I fear not. From my most personal, subjective, arguable and most humble point of view:

Music may be representation, and I've listened to music I could see as a "description" of something, but it is also often feeling, not just singing "I love this guy/girl", but arising deeper feelings unattached to any tangible reality, even the same piece played by two interpreters may be totally different because of the differences in execution. Dance, is the same, sometimes it is "representative" (like bad movie's stereotypes of indigenous hunting dances) but sometimes it is just "feeling". Theater, Literature, Architecture... sometimes you get descriptive representations, sometimes they are just circumlocutions to convey something that cannot be described, and the form itself becomes meaningless or secondary to that other something.

Art, through the ages, has been described as being able to bring the human "soul" to higher levels. That, in itself, is inherently not representative. Art, from my most personal, subjective, arguable and most humble point of view is something (representative or not) that conveys a deeper message, that "touches the soul", brings up increased awareness and generally moves the spirit.

Otherwise, what is "artistic license" for?

Of course, if you mean representation of abstract concepts and feelings, likes and dislikes, etc. we agree, but I guess that would be a way open interpretation of "representation".

But that's me. And most likely, only me. So never mind. Just ignore.

 

[Masse]

This what I mean by representation:

“Art represents by making something present that isn't physically there.”

Which is the point of “It’s not a pipe.”

 

[txomsy]

I don't think so. I think the point is not to bring the image of a pipe where there is none, to evoke something, but rather it is a call of attention to viewers so they realize that they are taking the image for the real thing, that the image evoked by the painting is not the actual pipe, and that illusions should not be taken for real as they often are. That is why it is called "The treachery of images".

It came at a time when populism was rising, and words, images, took the place of reality misleading people who took them as real while they were actually fabrications. Yes, it was a representation of a pipe, but if it were only so, it would have been named "Pipe". The writing included in the painting is an integral part of it and of the message it wants to convey, something that is not easy to express with words or to represent with images: people taking the expression of non-real things for actual real things (an imaginary, idealized pipe for an actual one), which is a treason of our senses and a well-known cause of cognitive dissonance often abused by scammers and many others I won't name.

You could have "represented" someone talking and someone literally believing a figure of speech (not that easy), or Magritte showing the painting of a pipe and a viewer trying to smoke it, but that wouldn't have had the impact the original had. Which is why it became a major, universal work of Art. Not because it represented a pipe, but because it exploited symbolic thinking bias to convey a message on a neglected unconscious cognitive bias of humans (confusing something with its representation), brought it to conscience and forced us to realize something for which most of us do not have a name but which most of us can experience. So, it is more than just a "representation"

Wikipedia page on "The Treachery of Images" explains it much better than me.

Put another way, why does one choose a motive to represent? For me, can't claim for others, it is because I found something in it worthy of preserving or sharing, some beauty, a feeling, a sensation, a striking contradiction, a humorous association... feelings in a word. It is not the representation that motivates me, it is the associated feelings.

 

[Masse]

So, it is more than just a "representation"

Yes, I know it’s more than a representation, that it “exploited symbolic thinking bias”.

My point was to make clear what I meant by representation in relation to the OP.
Do you think art is “representation, in the sense I’ve used or not?

Of course it’s “because I found something in it worthy of preserving or sharing, some beauty, a feeling, a sensation, a striking contradiction, a humorous association... feelings in a word.” But it’s not art until it’s given a physical form.
I’m not saying it’s the representation that motivates you. But it does make you wonder why some choose a particular medium, which is neither here nor there in relation to the OP.

 

[txomsy]

I thought it was obvious from my answer:

Independent of New Guinea masks: as soon as humans started representing things beautifully or abstractly, when they might have done without that extra effort, they started doing art. They were investing unneeded energy in something that didn't give them a tangible benefit, only a satisfaction.

The first tattoos might have been striking and given a "mating" advantage (but why did the first one come up?), but when everyone started tattooing that advantage was diluted, and they kept doing it because of something else. Call it "culture", but culture is the set of things we do that differentiate us from other groups. If they were compulsory for survival they would be common, so culture is the set of things that we choose to do one way without an imperative reason, i.e. because we somehow like them, by themselves and for themselves. Sometimes technical, sometimes religious, sometimes political, sometimes artistical.

Now, I'll give you that a tattoo or a mask in a tribal society may acquire an additional "meaning". But when someone, alone, expends their time in doing something beautiful, it is for their own enjoyment. A shepherd playing a flute in the middle of nowhere is not earning a "competitive advantage", so it is not utilitarian, it is for the feeling of beauty, for some need to "contribute" to the beauty (or to dilute the ugliness) of their environment. Is not that art?

When a mom sings a lullaby to her kids, she could as well talk softly, or simply hum a monotonous note and get the same result. So, when she sings, what is the "utilitarian" (or "religious" or whatever) reason? Isn't this just art?

And when a priest or prayer offers something to the gods, they can just throw in the animal fat (the most savory part) to the fire (like Achilles in the Illiad) or they can expend time carving a mask. Why do they think that carving a mask may be more pleasant to the gods than giving them the best food? They can only think so if they find the carving more appealing to themselves, if they feel that a beautifully carved wooden good (like the mask) is more satisfactory than a plain one. That is, they first feel satisfied by the beauty and then they offer what they find most agreeable to their gods.

Actually, they create and appreciate art, and when they find it beautiful and satisfactory, and because they do, and only then, do they offer it to their gods. So, art was there first, and then it became an offer.

A hunter who expends waiting hours carving the handles of his tools (or painting them, or knitting ropes) is not utilitarian, actually it may make handling them less practical, but they will be more beautiful and that satisfies some internal need. Is not art this?

Ultimately, we may claim all art is not. If we look at evolution, we may conclude it is all utilitarian, maybe "corrupted" utilitarian: tattoos, skin paints, garment decorations, ... can be likened to the mating "plumage" of birds, carving and dancing abilities may be a show off of psycho-technical proficiency and coordination that proclaims our qualities and makes us more desirable to mates, friends, rulers... like the kid jumping "choose me" when making teams to play, whatever.

But in that case, that "corrupted" utilitarianism (that we have been selected to feel well about doing/observing harmonious and beautiful things, beyond an immediate benefit, as an underpainting of (or a continued training in) our life, because overall, in the long term it may pose an evolutionary benefit) is what we call art anyways.

So, no matter how you define it, art was first.

 

[Masse]

The point about representation, is that it is obviously not the thing, like the map is not the country, it’s a representation of the thing, whatever it might be. This is the difference between art and craft. The thing crafted, pottery, jewellery, etc is the thing, it exists in time and space. A painting of a tree is a representation of the thing, the tree, but it’s not the tree.

A mask is a thing. When someone puts the mask on they might become the spirit. The idea of transforms them for that time. The mask is not frivolous, it’s not for decoration, it has a purpose. Added to that is that it’s integral to their survival. It’s not for pleasure. Nor does everyone in the tribe make a mask. They’re made by particular members. There is obviously great skill in the making, just like all well made crafts.

You mentioned earlier how women may have decorated their clothes and themselves, much like modern Western women dress themselves: make-up, jewellery, clothes, etc. That by definition is not art-for-arts sake. Nor is it a frivolous occupation. Those things like rings worn in the ears and around the throat, tattoos, incision, etc. that to us looks like embellishments of style, are more than that. Their significance is not frivolous. It’s very much connected to cohesion and survival of the tribe or culture. It’s not about some “satisfaction” as you call it. Nor is culture about a “set of things that we choose to do one way without an imperative reason, i.e. because we somehow like them, by themselves and for themselves.” Everything cultural contains an imperative reason.
Once again it’s not art. You may choose to call it that but you have no way to prove it. You choose to call anything that is creative “art”. Some of the work produced by these people is beautiful and exceptional, made by a pair of skilled hands with years of experience. That doesn’t make it art. Pre- art is craft. It’s only in recent history that pottery served the purpose of art and not as a thing that had a utilitarian purpose, like carrying water.

 

[Masse]

When people paints their body for a tribal dance, to celebrate they are happy, is that "utility" or that they find it beautiful to decorate their bodies and have joy in the dance?

That’s a terrible understanding of dance by the people we’re referring to. When Aboriginal men dance it’s in the role of spirituality, or an initiation process. Face and body paint relate to the character they were demonstrating. None of it was about decorating their bodies for the sake of joy or happiness.