When did art begin?

[john]

You haven’t proved yet that he did do it.

Prove this. Putting you on ignore. A first here. Congrats.

 

[Masse]

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.

@stlukesguild

Would you disagree with this part?

You buy a piece of pottery, a bowl, because of its form and colour, you think it’s beautiful. You have no intention of carrying water in it (as was its original purpose many years ago) or even putting flowers in it. You’ll put it in a room where you can see it whenever you want. It has no other purpose except to look beautiful. At that moment it’s been removed from its origins: It’s no longer made to contain something but to be something else.

This is the only way I can find to differentiate between craft and art. It’s not my intention to prove myself right, but to find a way through definitions as to where that point in time might be. At the moment it looks like the Renaissance.

 

[Masse]

So far I see art being defined as representational and having its own justification and value.

If those are reasonable definitions then anything else is not art. Being creative is not necessarily art, though art is an act of creativity.

@john defines art as this:

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.

That suggests that everything is art. Obviously that’s not possible. An avalanche, an act of God or nature, killing people is not art. Nor is art only beautiful (though subjective). Is the creation of a gun as a weapon to kill creative? So where are the boundaries that define art? Just saying everything doesn’t help. Unless you have no interest in definitions, then fine, this OP is not for you.

 

[Hermes2020]

I don't care whether what I make is art, or not. I don't even want to define "art". Perhaps it is a futile endeavour. As long as I feel fulfilled while I make the thing, no matter how difficult and even stressful the process, I am satisfied. If anyone else happens to appreciate the product, is a bonus.

 

[Masse]

Just putting my thoughts down as they arise;

The general feeling among the arts community is that art must be free, unrestrained by religion, politics, morality and social mores. When it is constrained we get the sort of “art” we see in totalitarian societies. So to be art on that basis it must serve nothing but itself.

 

[Masse]

I don't care whether what I make is art, or not. I don't even want to define "art". Perhaps it is a futile endeavour. As long as I feel fulfilled while I make the thing, no matter how difficult and even stressful the process, I am satisfied. If anyone else happens to appreciate the product, that, for me, is a bonus.

I appreciate your comment. You probably feel that way for exactly the reasons I’m using to try and define art.

 

[Masse]

Where I disagree with the conclusions of others is that we and, for example, the Neanderohals are very similar and that their “art” which doesn’t amount to much: abstract symbols, geometric patterns, some included bone, has been created for the same reason and objectives as ours.

 

[txomsy]

No… I don’t believe this argument at all. The vast majority of all art had/has a utilitarian purpose. Portraits by Rembrandt, Rubens, Velazquez etc… had a utilitarian purpose of representing/commemorating individuals. Michelangelo’s Sistine paintings, Dürer’s prints, and lithographs and stained glass windows by Chagall all illustrated Biblical narratives. Illustration, decoration, portraiture, socio-political commentary, religious expression, erotica, etc… are all utilitarian to a greater or lesser degree. Very little art… almost none prior to the 19th century… is truly without any purpose beyond aesthetics.

You are referring to final, masterpiece works of art that have been recorded and preserved and luckily survived the ages (not just time, also wars, negligence, etc.).

But for each masterwork, there are countless pieces of art done by common artists just for the pleasure of it, there are countless works of art done by the great masters for their own pleasure that didn't preserve because there was no commissioner with an interest in preserving it, countless divertimentos, folias, doodles, even conscious pieces the masters did for themselves that didn't reach "preservation status" or that were directly destroyed by the author. The contemporary fandom and mythic status of 'designed masters' and obsession with sollecting and saving every single piece is very recent. And even so we know may masters do works, feel satisfied by them, and then re-work or destroy them. Not everything makes it to the news.

The oldest flute ever found is the Divje Babe flute, a ~60,000-year-old Neanderthal flute. If Neanderthals played music, that was because they found something worthy on it, and that wasn't utilitarian. Again, offerants sacrifice to the divinity what they already find lovely and valuable. Even if they played music for the deity, they had to first have played it for pleasure and, when they found it pleasurable, then and only then sacrifice it to the Gods. I don't think babies would be coerced to play so they could sacrifice as adults.

Art is not just drawing. And art moves the creator and -maybe- those around. Art may please everybody or no-one, not even its creator. But that it is done implies someone finds it moving. I.e. does it for its sake.

 

[Masse]

The oldest flute ever found is the Divje Babe flute, a ~60,000-year-old Neanderthal flute.

A bit more research would reveal that it’s not necessarily regarded as a flute but a bone penetrated by animal teeth. There’s always debate about these finds, especially when they’re used to reinforce a theory and the other views are ignored.
So we don’t know if they did play music and lack of evidence suggests they didn’t. Even if the bone is a flute, one is not enough to support a theory.

You’re still using the word art as a catch-all.

But that it is done implies someone finds it moving. I.e. does it for its sake.

Sure, but hard to believe among Neanderthals. Contrary to theories about the leisurely life of these people are research papers that suggest it wasn’t anywhere like that. So far you’ve given me no evidence to change my mind about that.

 

[txomsy]

Neanderthals thought like we do

As early as 64,000 years ago Iberian Neanderthals created cave paintings

www.mpg.de

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24005327

Art beyond cognition: reframing Neanderthal art through social connectivity and cultural transmission - PubMed

Despite growing consensus that cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans were not as significant as once assumed, visual art remains disproportionately associated with <i>Homo sapiens</i>. This paper explores why that is. Rather than appealing to underlying cognition, we argue...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The earliest unambiguous Neanderthal engravings on cave walls: La Roche-Cotard, Loire Valley, France - PubMed

Here we report on Neanderthal engravings on a cave wall at La Roche-Cotard (LRC) in central France, made more than 57±3 thousand years ago. Following human occupation, the cave was completely sealed by cold-period sediments, which prevented access until its discovery in the 19th century and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Superior Visual Perception Hypothesis: Neuroaesthetics of Cave Art - PubMed

Cave Art in the Upper Paleolithic presents a boost of creativity and visual thinking. What can explain these savant-like paintings? The normal brain function in modern man rarely supports the creation of highly detailed paintings, particularly the convincing representation of animal movement...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Direct evidence of Neanderthal fibre technology and its cognitive and behavioral implications - PubMed

Neanderthals are often considered as less technologically advanced than modern humans. However, we typically only find faunal remains or stone tools at Paleolithic sites. Perishable materials, comprising the vast majority of material culture items, are typically missing. Individual twisted...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and a very long etc.

Neanderthals were different but not that much. And similar enough so both they and us could mate and give rise to mixed populations. Mounting evidence shows they produced different kinds of Art, and that most of it has been lost just because of ephemeral substrates.

But this we know: to achieve mastery at something one must need to do it (and Art does not directly provide food, shelter or protection), be forced to (by someone with a motivation), or like it. Once you become a master, you may be commissioned to create a lasting work, which, even then, may ultimately not be preserved (e.g. lots of Egyptian Art, and lots of Literary works in Alexandria). You cannot claim those works or books didn't exist because they did not survive, as for historic times we have indirect references. Just as we also have many direct and indirect evidences for prehistoric works.

Your claim they wouldn't do anything not-utilitarian is like going out, seeing ponds, everything wet and claiming it hasn't rained because you do not see the rain now. Evidence allows us to deduce what has happened.

We know Picasso (as many others) destroyed or painted over many of his works. That does not mean they didn't exist. And we know that only a tiny amount of the few works selected as significantly worthy of preservation survive. Mounting evidence is constantly accruing to prove not just painting but other arts have earlier than expected origins despite the lack of direct evidence.

Monkeys sometimes develop tools after careful consideration (even dogs do), but many times it all starts with "playing". Most animals like to "play" because this enables playful learning and discovery. They do not play to learn martial arts, they play because they enjoy it. Some plays teach useful things, some give body pleasure, and some are done just for the fun of it.

[ADDED] Monkeys have been also proven to imitate each other and this way develop "cultures". We also know many works only because they preserved by imitators. We know most of us try to emulate what we like. So, monkeys do imitate what they like, we do, and our ancestors didn't unless it was directly useful? Monkeys learn from imitation. Many of us do today. We know some like what they learn to imitate and continue doing it even without need until they reach mastery or for self satisfaction. And our ancestors didn't? They must have been pretty weird. [/ADDED]

Even so. Utility gives pleasure and appreciation, pleasure gives a draw to do things by themselves. Even if art was ultimately destined for utilitarian goals, it must have been also done in parallel for pleasure.

I don't see Picasso or Van Gogh learning to paint because they were forced to do senseless, useless works they didn't like, or because they were forced because it would be utilitarian later. Same, I don't see cavemen forcing their children to do something they didn't like and getting them to be masters. Instead, they would have had to make it fun for kids long enough to permit them to specialize through their adult life.

So, someone had lo like it first, start doing it, at some point someone else consider it worthy enough of praise, commission, envy, preservation or sacrifice, but the utilitarian/superstitious part can only come after the "joyful" part.

You defined art as seeking beauty. But what is beauty other than mathematics, symmetry, harmony and contrast? As soon as one develops these skills, beauty derives naturally and to develop them (the skill), one must first have a drive, a reason to do it. The skill may have an utilitarian origin, but the abstract skill is separate and more general than just the specific application it arose from.

Ultimately, then, there is not any "Art for art's sake", as the search for Beauty is the development of skills that are ultimately useful, for engineering, physics, chemistry, mating, reproduction, power... The question then becomes

Does Art for Art's sake exist or is it all ultimately and uniquely aimed at developing useful skills?

Because if it exists it must have existed for as long as Art does.

 

[Masse]

Neanderthals thought like we do

As early as 64,000 years ago Iberian Neanderthals created cave paintings

www.mpg.de

[URL

Your comments don’t really explain a lot and are certainly not convincing.

First of all no one doubts that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens made cave drawings. No one disputes that.

What I question is their purpose.

they would have had to make it fun for kids long enough to permit them to specialize through their adult life.

This statement is absurd. You seem to have this idea of Neanderthals living just like we do today.

Even if art was ultimately destined for utilitarian goals, it must have been also done in parallel for pleasure.

But no evidence of this. Why do you assume this? It’s not like there’s some evidence to, as you say, deduce it. Somehow, according to your theory, only the work done for pleasure has failed to survive, and only the utilitarian work has.

You defined art as seeking beauty.

I didn’t say that, and to be clear I’d never say it.

Ultimately, then, there is not any "Art for art's sake", as the search for Beauty is the development of skills that are ultimately useful, for engineering, physics, chemistry, mating, reproduction, power... The question then becomes

Does Art for Art's sake exist or is it all ultimately and uniquely aimed at developing useful skills?

Because if it exists it must have existed for as long as Art does.

Not sure what you mean here. The search for beauty is a very subjective idea. Just try to define beauty and see what response you get. Art for arts sake is exactly what it says. It’s not for developing useful skills. It’s also a modern idea, which is why I’m trying to find the point where art became that and not for any other purpose.

Unless you can prove that the cave drawings were nothing but an ornamental flourish to brighten up the cave for all the Mums, Dads and children, then it remains utilitarian; having some purpose beyond a decorative addition to living quarters.
If it’s all about the pleasure of creating art for arts sake where are the drawings of flowers and children, portraits of loved ones and elders? Why just animals and abstract symbols?

I’ve done a lot of reading since beginning this OP. There’s a lot of theories and much is disputed by opposing sides. So obviously there’s no certainty about things except that the cave drawings were made, those by Homo Sapiens being more sophisticated than Neanderthals.

 

[Masse]

An interesting aside about the idea of art for arts sake is that it allowed anyone to think of themselves as artists (not always a good thing) and not just those chosen and supported by institutions. It also opened up the subject matter.