When did art begin?

[Masse]

Originally I’d looked at this question through painting, but I can see now that pottery has the longest history with measurable evidence of eras. My feeling is that once an object is removed from its original context (in pottery as a receptacle to contain something), it slips into art. But the application of marks doesn’t make it art, because it’s still embedded in its original utilitarian purpose. It’s only when a bowl is made (with or without markings) for no other purpose but to be looked at, completely removed from its past, that it becomes art. It’s no longer made to contain something but to be something else.

 

[john]

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.

Yup, everything is functional. If it was from pure wonder and creativity that the first man sketched a stick figure in the mud, that had a function. It filled a need for her creativity.

It was an easy transition from that to decorating the pottery. Why not? You would practice in the mud first. Heck, if any of us were back then, we would probably be sketching stuff too. The prior art was nature. We didn't need any culture from man to create art. Nature does it for us and we are part of nature. We tend to forget that.

 

[Masse]

If it was from pure wonder and creativity that the first man sketched a stick figure in the mud, that had a function. It filled a need for her creativity.

Pure wonder? What period are you placing this action? If it’s as far back as I think you’re suggesting then it can’t have been from a need for creativity. Everything done would have been from a need to survive. It’s worth remembering that there were very few tools, if any. That suggests a very primitive state.
Filling a need for creativity, if it happened, is not about function. You also seem to think that anyone who was inclined just started drawing in the mud. For what purpose? The development of tools took many, many years. As a creative act it’s very prolonged and not owned by just one person. So I imagine making meaningful, marks; it’s very drawn out. Did the person who made the cave drawings just suddenly feel inspired to go into that dark cave and draw those figures fully developed. And who was that person that dud all this so secretively? And why, if it’s just an elaboration of making stick figures in the mud.

 

[Masse]

Yup, everything is functional. If it was from pure wonder and creativity that the first man sketched a stick figure in the mud, that had a function. It filled a need for her creativity.

It was an easy transition from that to decorating the pottery. Why not? You would practice in the mud first. Heck, if any of us were back then, we would probably be sketching stuff too. The prior art was nature. We didn't need any culture from man to create art. Nature does it for us and we are part of nature. We tend to forget that.

“Haselberger (1961) defined works of art as objects produced with the intention that they be aesthetically pleasing and not merely pragmatically functional.

A broader definition would include the decoration of useful objects such as tools and weapons, and allow for the possibility that most early art may have had a ritual or religious significance. We simply cannot know whether any prehistoric art was created simply for the sake of providing aesthetic pleasure, although there must surely have been an element of this on the part of both artist and viewer. It is also generally accepted that art incorporates a symbolic element (e.g. Gombrich, 1960; Layton, 1991) but, even where symbolism was not intended, a pattern or animal shape may have a totemic function; a particular pattern or animal form may be specific to a group or tribe and may mark their territory or clothing.” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2815939/