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/

 

[john]

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.

Sure it was.

 

[Masse]

Sure it was.

Any evidence for that idea? And what period in evolution are you referring to?

When talking about creativity here we’re not talking about making something like a tool, we’re talking about making art.

 

[Masse]

It filled a need for her creativity.

What do you mean by need? Generally “need” means something necessary as opposed to desirable. You’re saying the “function” of drawing a stick figure in the mud was motivated by need. A need for what? A need for something that had no purpose? That seems to me to be unlikely in a hostile world — 150, 000 BP.

 

[john]

What do you mean by need? Generally “need” means something necessary as opposed to desirable. You’re saying the “function” of drawing a stick figure in the mud was motivated by need. A need for what? A need for something that had no purpose? That seems to me to be unlikely in a hostile world — 150, 000 BP.

Why do you make art? I do it because it's fun. We need to have fun and create. It was the same back then. They would have had some spare time now and then to do it. They weren't always hunting or running away from sabre tooth tigers. Making art was a good indication that man was becoming more than just an animal. It's inherent to being human.

I asked Gemini

It turns out that "man" (Homo sapiens) wasn't actually the first to paint on cave walls. Recent archaeological discoveries have pushed the timeline of cave art back much further than we once thought, revealing that our cousins, the Neanderthals, were likely the world's first cave artists.

Here is the breakdown of when these paintings were made:

1. The Earliest Known Cave Art (Non-Human)​

• When: At least 64,000 to 65,000 years ago.
  
  
  
  
• Who: Neanderthals.
  
  
  
  
• Where: Spanish caves (Maltravieso, La Pasiega, and Ardales).
  
  
  
  
• What: These weren't realistic animals but rather abstract symbols, red dots, and hand stencils. Since Homo sapiens didn't arrive in Europe until about 45,000 years ago, these were created by Neanderthals.
  
  +1

2. The Earliest "Representational" Art (Human)​

• When: Approximately 51,200 years ago.
  
  
  
  
• Who: Likely Homo sapiens (Modern Humans).
  
  
  
  
• Where: Sulawesi, Indonesia.
  
  
  
  
• What: This is currently the oldest known "figurative" art—meaning it depicts something recognizable from the real world. It features a warty pig and human-like figures in what appears to be a hunting scene.
  
  +1

3. The Famous "Golden Age" of Cave Art​

When most people think of cave paintings, they are thinking of the massive, beautiful galleries in Europe:

• Chauvet Cave (France): Created roughly 36,000 years ago. It is famous for its sophisticated depictions of lions and horses.
  
  +1
  
  
• Lascaux Cave (France): Created roughly 17,000 years ago. It features the iconic "Hall of the Bulls."
  
  +1
  
  
• Altamira (Spain): Primarily painted around 15,000 years ago, though some parts are much older.

 

[Masse]

Why do you make art? I do it because it's fun. We need to have fun and create. It was the same back then. They would have had some spare time now and then to do it. They weren't always hunting or running away from sabre tooth tigers. Making art was a good indication that man was becoming more than just an animal. It's inherent to being human.

Not really addressing the OP, which is when did it become art for arts sake?

We need to have fun and create. It was the same back then.

This is a romantic view of the past without foundation. What are you basing this on? If it was all about fun why were cave drawings hidden from general view?

 

[john]

Not really addressing the OP, which is when did it become art for arts sake?



This is a romantic view of the past without foundation. What are you basing this on? If it was all about fun why were cave drawings hidden from general view?

It became art for art's sake when the Neanderthals make abstract lines, dots, and hand outlines.

Everyone hung out in the caves. It was like house, bar, grill, art gallery and poetry meet all together. Way better than outside with the sabre tooth tigers.

Plus, the drawings in the mud outside got washed away. Do you put your paintings outside?

I get the feeling that you are more interested in trolling than a real conversation.

 

[Masse]

I get the feeling that you are more interested in trolling than a real conversation.

Because I disagree with your comments? You’re resorting to insult now.

Calling the outlines of hands, and any other markings, art-for-arts- sake trivialises the deeper meaning those things may have had.
So the cave drawing are there just for fun? I’ve never, ever, read about anyone thinking that. Show me some reference to that idea, because obviously if you’re right it does change things.

My OP is an enquiry into the period when we saw the beginning of art for arts sake. Your position is that everything is art, that nature is art, art is everything, art came before mankind. I can’t agree with that. Everything; what does that mean?

You said: Does not the bee find the flower pretty?

What exactly do you mean by “pretty”? You’re giving a bee human feelings. As you’re giving early man our perceptions and understanding of things. That “art” is something both us and Neanderthals would agree on, even though it’s quite clear in all cultures that people had much deeper connections to the world in a spiritual sense than we do, that the land itself, their relationship with it, was different than ours and consequently the marks they made also had different meanings that those we make today. By saying it was all about “fun” just doesn’t add up to me.

One of the reasons I kept this going was the number if viewers. I figured people were interested in the subject. But in fact not much is being gained by my persevering. So I’ll drop out here.