When did art begin?

[txomsy]

I don't understand, so please, help me.

I don't believe in magic. Ex nihil, nihil fit. I think that cultures, families, tribes, rituals, do not pop up out of nothingness. They are built up progressively, step by step. by aggregation of pre-existing behaviors and persons that are selected by mores. But for mores to exist, there must be the behaviors first and some must be repeated to become mores, and some selected to become culture. Or do you mean culture comes up first and then it defines customs and these define how members must craft everything they do?

As I understand, Bell-shaped pottery didn't sprout as a "cultural" thing. I think it must first have been done by someone. Then copied. Then appreciated by others, then sold, then traded, then spread from Algarve to most of Europe, and then, millenia later we talk about the "bell-shaped pottery culture". Or do you mean that first all those people from differing ethnics, ten thousand miles away, came up together, and decided they would have a common shape for their pottery and decided that it be made only in one place and then traded to the rest?

I personally think it didn't exist previously. It didn't pop up simultaneously by magic all over Europe. It wasn't a necessary evolution of a shared culture that had to appear in all places or a cultural imposition on all members. Like Chinese decorated porcelains, I do not think there was a common culture in Europe and China: it was first made somewhere, maybe presented to the Emperor on its anniversary to please him, then others found it beautiful, and coveted them. Like Mona Lisa or Tanagawa Great Wave reproductions, Or do you suggest that there was a previous shared culture in the times of isolation and that they worked to match it?

If it didn't come all at once, then someone came up with a first item, then others were appalled by it, then copies spread all over the world and finally they became cultural icons. Isn't that art? And if Hokusai and Hiroshige designed the wooden planks to sell copied for money, then the works that inspired Van Gogh to make copies were not Art?

Master Mo fought against arts like music more than two millenia ago in China because it wasn't "practical", it was a waste of valuable time and resources needed to feed the population and make a kingdom succeed. No matter how we put it, decorations in porcelain are unneeded to its function, and yet decorated porcelain was traded and bought by persons in Europe with no shared culture with the Chinese makers. The vases may have had a role, but were they appreciated for their role or for the art in the decoration? I can't see a common function, and even if they originally had it, when they were made to be traded to Europe, the function was no longer relevant, the art that sold in faraway lands was.

Same for bell-shaped pottery. Same for The Great Wave of Tanagawa, the Scream, or Mona Lisa. Do you mean that their creators were thinking of making a cultural icon to be spread all over the known -and unknown- world? Or were they thinking of making something beautiful and meaningful, that would appeal to them and to others, and possibly making some money off it? Becoming cultural icons was first or came up afterwards?

Same for a worker passing the time singing. The song they choose to hum may be influenced by culture (or made up on the fly), but isn't the humming, singing itself artistic expressions of art "for art's sake", because they feel the urge to fill in their ears with music while doing something else?

All popular songs had to start at some point. Ancient taless were not made to fulfill a "cultural" need, they were composed because people loved hearing about heroes (Rama, Sun-wu-kung, Achilles, Odiseus...) and gods, who suffered, had adventures, and expressions of power, war, love, etc. Then, many of these short songs coalesced, someone like Homer or Valmiki compiled them in a more expressive/powerful work, then they became more popular, and finally "cultural". Or do you imply the blind singer who commanded a short (<100 verses/slokas) from a composer to earn his life singing in small village markets had already in mind the "Illiad"? Or that they cared more for keeping a coherent local culture than by exploiting people's feelings to make a living telling any story that would sell? Was the Enuma elish first, or were there many short stories circulating mouth-to.mouth first, each in different city-states, for different rituals, and then compiled to "document" what had become a common culture?

Many of these are now being defined as "inmaterial heritage of humanity". Do you mean they came up because they were needed to fulfill the building of Humanity's culture? Or did they exist, become shared icons, and then built up our culture?

Jung called all of these the Collective Unconscious, the set of common feelings all humans seem to share, that surrealists tried to make conscious, that art in general tries to express.

In my opinion, there are common trends across all humans, independent of culture, religion, ethnic, language... which we all feel the urge to express, and that when we succeed in expressing, we call art.

First if the work. Then the Myth.

 

[Masse]

I don't understand, so please, help me.

I don't believe in magic. Ex nihil, nihil fit. I think that cultures, families, tribes, rituals, do not pop up out of nothingness. They are built up progressively, step by step. by aggregation of pre-existing behaviors and persons that are selected by mores. But for mores to exist, there must be the behaviors first and some must be repeated to become mores, and some selected to become culture. Or do you mean culture comes up first and then it defines customs and these define how members must craft everything they do?

As I understand, Bell-shaped pottery didn't sprout as a "cultural" thing. I think it must first have been done by someone. Then copied. Then appreciated by others, then sold, then traded, then spread from Algarve to most of Europe, and then, millenia later we talk about the "bell-shaped pottery culture". Or do you mean that first all those people from differing ethnics, ten thousand miles away, came up together, and decided they would have a common shape for their pottery and decided that it be made only in one place and then traded to the rest?

I personally think it didn't exist previously. It didn't pop up simultaneously by magic all over Europe. It wasn't a necessary evolution of a shared culture that had to appear in all places or a cultural imposition on all members. Like Chinese decorated porcelains, I do not think there was a common culture in Europe and China: it was first made somewhere, maybe presented to the Emperor on its anniversary to please him, then others found it beautiful, and coveted them. Like Mona Lisa or Tanagawa Great Wave reproductions, Or do you suggest that there was a previous shared culture in the times of isolation and that they worked to match it?

If it didn't come all at once, then someone came up with a first item, then others were appalled by it, then copies spread all over the world and finally they became cultural icons. Isn't that art? And if Hokusai and Hiroshige designed the wooden planks to sell copied for money, then the works that inspired Van Gogh to make copies were not Art?

Master Mo fought against arts like music more than two millenia ago in China because it wasn't "practical", it was a waste of valuable time and resources needed to feed the population and make a kingdom succeed. No matter how we put it, decorations in porcelain are unneeded to its function, and yet decorated porcelain was traded and bought by persons in Europe with no shared culture with the Chinese makers. The vases may have had a role, but were they appreciated for their role or for the art in the decoration? I can't see a common function, and even if they originally had it, when they were made to be traded to Europe, the function was no longer relevant, the art that sold in faraway lands was.

Same for bell-shaped pottery. Same for The Great Wave of Tanagawa, the Scream, or Mona Lisa. Do you mean that their creators were thinking of making a cultural icon to be spread all over the known -and unknown- world? Or were they thinking of making something beautiful and meaningful, that would appeal to them and to others, and possibly making some money off it? Becoming cultural icons was first or came up afterwards?

Same for a worker passing the time singing. The song they choose to hum may be influenced by culture (or made up on the fly), but isn't the humming, singing itself artistic expressions of art "for art's sake", because they feel the urge to fill in their ears with music while doing something else?

All popular songs had to start at some point. Ancient taless were not made to fulfill a "cultural" need, they were composed because people loved hearing about heroes (Rama, Sun-wu-kung, Achilles, Odiseus...) and gods, who suffered, had adventures, and expressions of power, war, love, etc. Then, many of these short songs coalesced, someone like Homer or Valmiki compiled them in a more expressive/powerful work, then they became more popular, and finally "cultural". Or do you imply the blind singer who commanded a short (<100 verses/slokas) from a composer to earn his life singing in small village markets had already in mind the "Illiad"? Or that they cared more for keeping a coherent local culture than by exploiting people's feelings to make a living telling any story that would sell? Was the Enuma elish first, or were there many short stories circulating mouth-to.mouth first, each in different city-states, for different rituals, and then compiled to "document" what had become a common culture?

Many of these are now being defined as "inmaterial heritage of humanity". Do you mean they came up because they were needed to fulfill the building of Humanity's culture? Or did they exist, become shared icons, and then built up our culture?

Jung called all of these the Collective Unconscious, the set of common feelings all humans seem to share, that surrealists tried to make conscious, that art in general tries to express.

In my opinion, there are common trends across all humans, independent of culture, religion, ethnic, language... which we all feel the urge to express, and that when we succeed in expressing, we call art.

First if the work. Then the Myth.

That’s a lot of words. I’m going to have to think bout it all.

 

[Masse]

I don't believe in magic. Ex nihil, nihil fit. I think that cultures, families, tribes, rituals, do not pop up out of nothingness. They are built up progressively, step by step. by aggregation of pre-existing behaviors and persons that are selected by mores. But for mores to exist, there must be the behaviors first and some must be repeated to become mores, and some selected to become culture. Or do you mean culture comes up first and then it defines customs and these define how members must craft everything they do?

This paragraph:
True, culture does not spring out of nothingness. Culture is the result of long term imperatives to survive. Like evolution what doesn’t work is left behind. Cultural mores spring from those demands and successes. They aren’t selected by the people, anymore than the people selected a thumb. These mores hold things together. Mores might be said to be utilitarian, they’re not indulgence.

 

[Masse]

As I understand, Bell-shaped pottery didn't sprout as a "cultural" thing. I think it must first have been done by someone. Then copied. Then appreciated by others, then sold, then traded, then spread from Algarve to most of Europe, and then, millenia later we talk about the "bell-shaped pottery culture". Or do you mean that first all those people from differing ethnics, ten thousand miles away, came up together, and decided they would have a common shape for their pottery and decided that it be made only in one place and then traded to the rest?

I don’t know how pottery jars came about. Like everything else a slow evolution. Nor do I know if everyone had the skills to make pottery, or if particular members made jars and were recompensed for it. Maybe it was a skill passed from member to member. An efficient, well made jar may be a speciality.
Was it a cultural thing, ie. specific to a culture? It’s likely it was a cultural, thing, something that evolved according to necessity and materials available. Things aren’t just “done by someone”. They evolve. For those who interacted with others they likely traded what they made for what they didn’t have. So pottery culture travelled. No one decided on a “common shape” except in what worked. There was no decision, there was only evolution. So pottery is cultural. It springs from the demands of culture, which is survival.

 

[Masse]

I personally think it didn't exist previously. It didn't pop up simultaneously by magic all over Europe. It wasn't a necessary evolution of a shared culture that had to appear in all places or a cultural imposition on all members. Like Chinese decorated porcelains, I do not think there was a common culture in Europe and China: it was first made somewhere, maybe presented to the Emperor on its anniversary to please him, then others found it beautiful, and coveted them. Like Mona Lisa or Tanagawa Great Wave reproductions, Or do you suggest that there was a previous shared culture in the times of isolation and that they worked to match it?

Exist previously to what? No, pottery didn’t “pop up” simultaneously across Europe. The evolution of something like pottery is too long to specify how pottery found its way in different cultures. But it was always utilitarian.
Decorated work may have been coveted by other cultures. This seems to be where you see “art for arts sake” entering the picture. The jar was no longer coveted for utilitarian reasons. It was coveted for pleasure.

 

[Masse]

Same for a worker passing the time singing. The song they choose to hum may be influenced by culture (or made up on the fly), but isn't the humming, singing itself artistic expressions of art "for art's sake", because they feel the urge to fill in their ears with music while doing something else?

When did humming for pleasure begin? What did it mean? Why did they do it? No one can know. Let’s say it was eventually for pleasure. But what were they humming? Either they created original music in their head, something most of us can’t do, or they were repeating something they heard. We don’t know if it was for pleasure and if it was we don’t know when that happened, how it evolved.
Is it art for arts sake? How can we know when we don’t understand the reason for it being there over time? You say it’s for pleasure so it must be art. It’s for pleasure now, but we don’t know what it was hundreds of years ago. Is humming the beginning of singing? Maybe. Is singing art?

 

[Masse]

All popular songs had to start at some point. Ancient taless were not made to fulfill a "cultural" need, they were composed because people loved hearing about heroes (Rama, Sun-wu-kung, Achilles, Odiseus...) and gods, who suffered, had adventures, and expressions of power, war, love, etc. Then, many of these short songs coalesced, someone like Homer or Valmiki compiled them in a more expressive/powerful work, then they became more popular, and finally "cultural". Or do you imply the blind singer who commanded a short (<100 verses/slokas) from a composer to earn his life singing in small village markets had already in mind the "Illiad"? Or that they cared more for keeping a coherent local culture than by exploiting people's feelings to make a living telling any story that would sell? Was the Enuma elish first, or were there many short stories circulating mouth-to.mouth first, each in different city-states, for different rituals, and then compiled to "document" what had become a common culture?

All songs fulfilled a cultural need. They couldn’t be anything else. They were about that culture. They sprung from that culture. Culture first, songs second. Songs carried culture.

 

[Masse]

Many of these are now being defined as "inmaterial heritage of humanity". Do you mean they came up because they were needed to fulfill the building of Humanity's culture? Or did they exist, become shared icons, and then built up our culture?

Like I said; culture first.

 

[Masse]

Jung called all of these the Collective Unconscious, the set of common feelings all humans seem to share, that surrealists tried to make conscious, that art in general tries to express.

Jung didn’t refer to feelings as the collective unconscious? He meant instinctive memories, archetypal forms. Of course it’s a theory, not really supported so much these days.

 

[Masse]

In my opinion, there are common trends across all humans, independent of culture, religion, ethnic, language... which we all feel the urge to express, and that when we succeed in expressing, we call art.

This is too vague. The idea of art still hasn’t been isolated. You try to nail it by saying it’s expression, and pottery is expression, therefore it’s art, therefore art for arts sake has always existed. But pottery was utilitarian, it wasn’t about expression.

 

[Masse]

Looks like I may not be round much longer. I seem to have upset the gods in the St Francis of Assisi Church thread.

 

[txomsy]

This is too vague. The idea of art still hasn’t been isolated. You try to nail it by saying it’s expression, and pottery is expression, therefore it’s art, therefore art for arts sake has always existed. But pottery was utilitarian, it wasn’t about expression.

Exactly. Pottery is utilitarian. Decoration of pottery isn't and does not provide any utilitarian added value, only an esthetic/artistic one. Paper, walls and canvases are utilitarian, the disposition of pigments over them isn't.

I remember many stores about some pages of a very old manuscript about valuable literary texts. They had been lost until someone found them in a small cottage, whose owner was using those parchments as window shields or reused as covers or bindings for other books, or... The topic seems to have happened often enough as to actually become later a literary tropos.

The parchments were utilitarian. The words written in them were Literature. You are confusing expression with the media or substrate used. By the same token, Mona Lisa or The Scream, are utilitarian as a canvas can be used for many things. The Sistine Chapel is utilitarian, as a ceiling has clearly a definitive utility, etc.

The sentence was vague because art can take many forms and express many things, hence it is not easy to pinpoint. But, from my most humble point of view, art is not the same as the substrate it is built upon.

 

[john]

Does not the bee find the flower pretty?

Is the bird not happy to see the lovely ripe red berry?

Was not early man overjoyed to see the marvelous herds of beasts and wonder about the sky above and the ache in his heart?

Is not the beauty of a spiral galaxy inherent in all that is alive?

Art is a reflection of all of these things. A way to acquire, consider, act with and exalt God/Nature's creation.

Art is nothing more than this.

 

[Masse]

Does not the bee find the flower pretty?

Is the bird not happy to see the lovely ripe red berry?

Was not early man overjoyed to see the marvelous herds of beasts and wonder about the sky above and the ache in his heart?

Is not the beauty of a spiral galaxy inherent in all that is alive?

Art is a reflection of all of these things. A way to acquire, consider, act with and exalt God/Nature's creation.

Art is nothing more than this.

So your feeling is that art existed before man came along.

 

[Masse]

The sentence was vague because art can take many forms and express many things, hence it is not easy to pinpoint.

Not impossible though. Art is representation.

Decoration is introduced not as self-expression but as surplus—value layered onto function once function is secure. Art for art’s sake doesn’t emerge from a desire to make art; it emerges when objects circulate beyond their original survival context and begin to signify something else: status, exchange, admiration.
Even decorated jars still hold water. The decoration doesn’t replace function; it rides on it.

 

[txomsy]

So, there, you have it: Art predates Renaissance, it predates the Iron and Bronze ages, it can be found even in the Stone Ages before modern humans, and as we go back, it becomes more difficult to "connect" or "communicate" since our cultures and experiences are so different, so it is too difficult to say when did Art start. We can say there was Art when written history began. We can say it likely was before, orally transmitted, and probably even before a full fledged modern-like language did exist, maybe developed by imitation.

Taken to an extreme, some would claim that Nature is the Divinity's own work of Art, and so it would exist since the onset of Creation. Many feel "Art" in galaxies and stars, so maybe that claim is not that far fetched.

Me, all I can say is I don't feel I can pinpoint any point in time when Art started to exist. And I assume Art has always been done because its creator enjoyed it (even if only as a way to fill idle time), otherwise I see no reason for Art to exist.

 

[Masse]

ce, it predates the Iron and Bronze ages, it can be found even in the Stone Ages

How do you reach this conclusion? You’ve presented no proof.

I notice you emphasise this being your opinion, which you use to protect your theories against challenges. None of this is about opinion, nor should it be. It’s very easy to use logic and the record of history to narrow down the transition from craft to art.

 

[Masse]

“The 6th century BCE was a golden age for Greek pottery, dominated by the flourishing black-figure technique, with Athens becoming the leading producer, exporting fine wares with narrative scenes across the Mediterranean … This era marked pottery's shift from purely functional to a significant art form, with rich decoration and even artist signatures becoming common.”

Still largely functional though.

“Greek pottery may be divided into four broad categories, given here with common types:

• storage and transport vessels, including the amphora, pithos, pelike, hydria, pyxis,
• mixing vessels, mainly for symposia or male drinking parties, including the krater, and dinos,
• jugs and cups, several types of kylix also just called cups, kantharos, phiale, skyphos, oinochoe and loutrophoros,
• vases for oils, perfumes and cosmetics, including the large lekythos, and the small aryballos and alabastron.

As well as these utilitarian functions, certain vase shapes were especially associated with rituals …”

This is the critical moment:

Art for art’s sake doesn’t emerge from a desire to make art; it emerges when objects circulate beyond their original survival context

 

[txomsy]

OK, so well, we can look at prehistoric remains. Problem is they are pre-historic, i.e. pre-written record, so we can only speculate about what drove them. Hence, anything we say is just opinions, no matter who says it.

Cave art from 50.000+ years ago. Neanderthal art from even earlier. Arguably Heildebergensis art before... It is very comfortable to say everything was "functional" because nobody can demonstrate the opposite. My position is that if not needed for function, then it is not functional. But that is my opinion. And no way anybody can demonstrate what these peoples thought before a written record. Only opinions (poopinions?) can be posed.

 

[Masse]

OK, so well, we can look at prehistoric remains. Problem is they are pre-historic, i.e. pre-written record, so we can only speculate about what drove them. Hence, anything we say is just opinions, no matter who says it.

Cave art from 50.000+ years ago. Neanderthal art from even earlier. Arguably Heildebergensis art before... It is very comfortable to say everything was "functional" because nobody can demonstrate the opposite. My position is that if not needed for function, then it is not functional. But that is my opinion. And no way anybody can demonstrate what these peoples thought before a written record. Only opinions (poopinions?) can be posed.

Thanks for sticking with this. Even though I don’t agree it’s had me digging a bit deeper.