Paleolithic Art

There have many controversies over the attempt to explain art of the Paleolithic period. In this essay I will review the major points of three essays. These three authors explain the different controversies in detail. First talk about the theories behind why there is art of that period. Secondly I will explain why what points I agree with and why.

In the essay Art for Art's Sake in the Paleolithic by John Halverson; the idea of why art from the period is compared to many different authors. Halverson idea of art from that time period is that it is a representation of stead of actual art. Meaning that the people of the Paleolithic time period tired to just make observations their surroundings. So instead of art these figures on the walls of the cave could be a method of record keeping.

Halverson gave an explanation that the art work was only found in caves. The reason given behind this is that people used caves to gather. This in a way could be represent a modern day convention center for small crowds. This goes back to the idea that maybe the drawings were used for record keeping. If a civilization wanted to leave a story behind in a place that would be free of weathering the caves probably represented that.

Another major point that that Halverson wrote is about lack of analogy to hunt magic. Hunt magic is theory that the cave painting was a mystical aid to the hunt season. The point Halverson makes is that all the theories that have been made about this topic are based speculation. However this many of these theories lack enough evidence to be proven true.

Now, I will talk about some major point from the essay The Signs of All Times by J.D. Lewis-Williams and T. A. Dowson. This essay argues that the figures drawn by the people of the Paleolithic time period were based on hallucinations. The idea behind this is that it let the artists of the period find a way to make the images out of the real objects they try to depict. The argument is that it wasn't possible to make a 2d image from 3d image as we do today. That technique wasn't developed at the time. Instead artists drew from what they saw in hallucinations.

The second major point in this paper is how hominids of that time interpreted these images. These images depending on entopic or shamanistic phenomena. These images might be understood using symbolism. This might be the reason some of the cave art might seem randomized rather than having meaning.

Lewis-Williams and Dowson's third major point is that by the information we currently have. It is too difficult to understand the exact meaning of the drawings. But, in the paper they want to give ideas on how to use the information that has been gathered. This can be later used to figure out the patterns to understanding meaning.

The third essay I will review is The Evolution of Paleolithic Art by Andre Leroi-Gourhan. This essay breaks down three problems of classifying the objects from of Paleolithic excavations. This data is then used to show an improvement trend in the art work. The first problem is how to figure out the chronological order of the findings. Based on a system of assumptions by Abbe Breuil; this can be made into an easier task. The assumptions were that paintings were layered. That people added more art over time. That drawing were not in any order.

The second major point in this essay is method to figure out what time period objects are from. This is done several different ways. If the art work has similar styles it can be assumed that it's from the same time period. The styles can range from rendition to presentation practices. This is a good practice considering the painting are not in any order as I mentioned.

The third major point in this essay is how the drawing and paintings has improved. Over time is can be assumed that the drawings went from a simple to a complex form. This drive to improve the art could have many reasons. One major reason that has come up is the need for increased vocabulary.

Now I will talk about which points of view make sense to me. As noted in Halverson's essay, drawing must have taken an evolution like a child drawing. In this explanation it is said that drawings by children are more representational what they know rather than what it is. For example the hominids could draw a horse. But, they draw them from