 |
Volume II
Issue 9 January 2000
|
|
|
|
Art and Technology [Part One] by Kristin Redpath Art: creativity; skill; any specific skill or its application; any craft or its principles; a making of things that have form or beauty; any branch of this, as painting; paintings, statues, etc.; a branch of learning; cunning; sly trick; wile.* Technology: the science of the practical or industrial arts; applied science.* Author's Introduction: The premise of this series of articles is that art follows technology, parallels technology, and will press the existing body of technological knowledge to its creative limits, combining available technologies and developing, when needed, technology of its own. My second premise is that art is intentional, created by the human mind and eye; that no random occurrence of nature, however magnificent, nor chance result of a mathematical graphic algorithm, however aesthetically pleasing, can be art. (I do not deny that art can "happen," but the human mind, eye, hand, must be responsible.) The third premise is that, as art became more technologically sophisticated, it became less accessible, for whatever reason, to the general population. While I have checked facts, names, and dates thoroughly, the opinions and premises submitted to you here are only those of this writer and should not in any way be confused with those of an expert. Since I'm starting at the known beginning, I am limiting the scope of these articles to two-dimensional art; that is, works created on a relatively flat surface such as a cave wall, parchment page, canvas, paper, or computer screen. So let us begin. From the moment one of our grunting, cave-dwelling, mammoth-hunting forebears picked up a rock, threw it, succeeded in killing dinner, and mused "Ah, tool!", the technological race was on. Art made with tools was a natural progression of the discovery of tools. Archeological finds and subsequent studies indicate there was much more to the creation of cave art than random doodling. Advancements of art and technology remain as artifacts in burial sites, on the walls of caves (and, later, ruins of towns and monuments). In the absence of written records, archeologists have drawn conclusions by inference from this evidence, about the development of the ideas that evolved from them. Anyone with the inclination could probably have picked up a rock and chipped a stylized animal or leaf or person into the rock wall of his dwelling. But did they? Could anyone draw or paint on the cave walls or was that privilege confined to select persons? Cave art has been found wherever humans lived in caves - Europe, Africa, Siberia, Australia. There is also evidence that art was drawn or painted on rock surfaces in the open air, but very little has survived due to the natural wear and tear of the elements. There are, however, a number of extant engravings into rock, evidence that there was probably a great deal more drawing and painting done outside than remains today.
A
petroglyph (Locality V, Boulder 3, Panel A) in the Hedgpeth Hills of
Arizona, one of the few remaining sites where paintings can be seen in
the open air. The first discoveries of pre-historical (Paleolithic) art were made in the 1860's and were small, decorated objects found in caves. Through the use of dating technologies, these items were determined to be as ancient as the Stone Age tools and bones of Ice Age animals found near them. However, for some incomprehensible reason, little or no attention was paid to the decorations on the walls of the caves themselves. Throughout the late Nineteenth Century, each discovery of paintings and drawings on cave walls, particularly in Spain and France, was eyed with doubt as to their authenticity. But in 1895 and 1901 respectively, discoveries of engravings on the walls of the caves of Les Combarelles and La Mouthe in France and paintings in Font de Gaume, also in France, legitimized cave art and resulted in its public recognition by archeologists. Throughout the Twentieth Century, discoveries continued to be made. The oldest cave paintings known are in the Ardèche valley of southeastern France, in a cave called Chauvet. These painting are believed to be roughly 32,000 years old, far older than any other existing cave art. What was the intention behind these paintings? Were they doodles or were they carefully planned, drawn to convey meaning? Were they drawn for their own sake, to satisfy the creative fervor of the artist, or to please the viewer, or commemorate special occasions? Were they intended to depict the inhabitants of the natural world around the artists or perhaps to placate the gods, insure fertility, successful hunting, or abundant game? A plethora of theories support all these possibilities, strongly bolstered by archeological evidence and knowledge of experts in Paleolithic life. Whatever the reason for the original creation, it is safe to conclude that cave art was intentionally art (as opposed, for example, to reporting, or making a record of the types or numbers of animals observed). Some interesting facts, though: human images are rarer than animal or symbolic images in cave paintings; signs and symbols are more frequently found in cave art than are full representations of people or animals; some of the more complex symbols may be ethnic markers; meaningful patterns do exist. Questions arise: Why were only a few of the species known to exist at the time depicted on the cave walls? Why are so many of the paintings and carvings in caves located in places that would not ordinarily be seen by the cave's residents? Why were some caves decorated but not used as dwellings? What do the symbols that do not depict recognizable animals or humans or objects mean? It is doubtful that a Paleolithic Rosetta Stone exists, so we will probably never know the answers.
A
painting of what has been interpreted to be a unicorn on the wall of
the Great Hall of the Bulls, at Lascaux. Whatever the underlying meaning may have been, the accepted fact that meaning exists signifies intent, and thus, art. Of course, no single underlying theory will ever explain all cave art, since the art itself was made over a period of about 20,000 years. There is, naturally, no reason to believe that, during those 20,000 years, the underlying philosophies of life did not change as much as they have changed during recorded history. A 32,000-year-old cave painting of a bison may hold completely different meaning, therefore different intent, from a 20,000-year-old cave painting of the same animal. Likewise, life was very different in the various parts of the world where cave painting has been found; thus, the meaning and intent should differ. How the technological advancements of those dim years affected the art created with them is as enigmatic a question as the meanings of the paintings themselves. We do know that, at first, objects were made with simple materials found in nature, modified with equally simple natural tools. Teeth, bones, or shells, carved or pierced with rock or bone and used as jewelry or amulets probably came first. Engraved drawings on small flat stones or pieces of bone were, again, made with bone or rock. But it was the art on the cave walls themselves that was made with a variety of techniques that are surprisingly diverse. (It is interesting to note at this point that the words "technique" and "technology" have the same root, the Greek word techne, meaning "an art.") Cave artists used their fingers at first, especially in soft clay found in southwestern Europe, but they also used the natural formations of the rock to enhance or emphasize their paintings. Some cave-art figures were made of clay in high relief (as at Le Tuc d'Audoubert cave in France), and others were made fully three-dimensional, sometimes from massive amounts of clay (a sculpted bear at Montespan, also in France). Who made them? Artists. Who were the artists? We won't ever know, but we can infer that anyone so inclined could make art, if not on special places of the cave wall reserved for ceremonial art, at least on small stones or in soft clay. We should not in any way dismiss the attempts of the amateur Paleolithic artist to create art by drawing with fingers in clay any more than we should disparage the attempts of children to create art with finger paints readily available today. What established adult artist did not begin with finger-painting and, if she were to paint with her hands now, using the same paints, it might be called a masterpiece. Nor were the paintings of cave dwellers in any way childish. They represented their perceptions of the natural world with the tools they had, as have artists of every era. Later, when pigments were made from natural products, they probably would have been rare and only those with greater skill would have been allowed to use them (as was the case at the turn of the first millennium). Thus, the creation of art becomes more restrictive. However, anyone who lived in the cave could look at the paintings. Art was still available to the masses, however limited those masses were. If they were present, they could see the work. Where did the colored pigments originate? Again, from the natural world: red from iron oxide found in clay, black from manganese or charcoal left over from cooking fires. Thickeners and extenders like feldspar or talc, and oils from plants and animals were added to these paints. Water and oils served as thinners. To produce some of the dots or shadings found in cave paintings, it would have been necessary to spray pigment on the wall, either through a tube or directly from the mouth. Research has also found that brushes made of animal hair (as are the finest of today's brushes) or twigs pared with a stone or bone tool were probably used, since markings on the cave paintings indicate the use of brush-like tools instead of fingers. It is even possible, though highly uncertain, that lumps of pigment were used as crayons.
Panel
of the Negative Hand, at Chauvet, depicting a human hand, probably
that of the artist - a kind of signature. The presence of paintings on the ceilings of caves testifies to the necessity of ladders and scaffolding, indicating that the paintings were far from casually painted and that a technological solution to the problem of reaching the surface to be painted had to be used. (This does not suggest that ladders and scaffolding resulted from the need to reach the ceiling of a cave, but, even if these items already existed, they had to be adapted to the purpose of creating art and the art could not have been created without them.) From these discoveries, it could be inferred that cave painting was not done by the casual artist but by those early Michaelangelo's who may have lain on their backs on scaffolding to paint on the ceiling of their caves. Nevertheless, the art created was probably available to all those who lived in that cave, although some cave painting is found in isolated or secluded parts of caves, or in caves believed to be uninhabited. It is possible that it was not to be viewed routinely, or by the chance observer, but only by a select group of, perhaps, religious leaders, or by the general population but only on particular occasions. While we will probably never know the precise circumstances under which or reasons why cave art was painted over the pre-history millennia, we can conclude that anyone could create art, but not in any place of their choosing. We can also conclude that inexpensive tools and supplies were probably available to almost anyone, but more expensive pigments or carefully crafted tools and brushes could be used by those of the group who were called (by whatever name) artists. The works of art made by the artists may or may not have been available to all, but there was probably some art that was reserved for those who could be called qualified to see it or admired by everyone only on special occasions. Years ago - in the 1960's - I visited the New York World's Fair. I remember viewing Michaelangelo's Pietà from a moving walkway while the masterpiece remained, bathed in blue light, behind bulletproof glass. I was lucky to be able to be there at that time. I've seen the Mona Lisa and the Venus Di Milo, both of which were well-protected and guarded in the Musée du Louvre in Paris, but these masterpieces are only appreciable to those who can go to them. Yet, most of the world's cultures make art that they live with. We place art on the walls of our homes and schools and offices, but to see the immensely valued works of our culture, we must go to them. Many of the world's masterpieces are in private collections where most of us will never see them. Every once in a while a museum is able to collect works of Monet or Renoir or other master to be viewed by members of the general public who have the interest and the money to buy a ticket and who reside in a convenient location. I suspect the masterpieces drawn on the walls of caves in France were far more accessible to - and at least as much appreciated by - those who lived then and saw them daily as the Pietà is to most of us today. [In the next article, I will skip to the beginning of the second millennium to examine the two-dimensional art of that time and to discuss the intent in its making, the technology with which it was made, and its accessibility to the general public.] Resources: *Definitions of "art" and "technology" are from Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, 1980 [Many of the sites listed below include links to other related sites, as well.] For information about how the early artists made their paints and tools see: http://www.asu.edu/clas/anthropology/dvrac/intro.htm http://user.fundy.net/fpweb/3-medium.htm http://members.tripod.com/amazon3000/lascaux.htm For images of the Paleolithic cave paintings mentioned in this article (and others) see (some of these sites also are included in the regional breakdown that follows): http://drawsketch.miningco.com/arts/drawsketch/gi/dynamic/off site.htm?site=http://www%2Dsor.inria.fr/%7Epierre/lascaux/ (twenty color images from Lascaux, each with enlargement available) http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/f-init.h tm (French government's site about the Lascaux cave art) http://www.asu.edu/clas/anthropology/dvrac/photos.htm (many black and white images of Arizona petroglyphs) http://bip.concept.se/user/rupestre/rupestre.html (Rock Art in the Alps - six web pages, each with many images, each with clickable enlargement) http://mistral.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/gvpda-d.h tm (French government's site on the Chauvet cave art; color illustrations with clickable enlargements) http://www.jimhopper.com/paleo.html (one color image, Vallon Pont d'Arc) http://colophon.com/gallery/minsky/caves.htm (one clear color image from Lascaux) http://www.nmnh.si.edu/VirtualTour/Images/vt94b.jpg (from National Museum of Natural History, photographic illustration) For images and articles on rock art in different parts of the world see: US and
Canada France Spain Italy
and the Alps India Australia For articles of general interest on Paleolithic cave painting and rock carving see: http://www.ee.pdx.edu/~igal/visocomm/paleolit.html (brief summary on Paleolithic art with two illustrations) http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/anthro/exploratorium/art/paleoart. html (history and descriptions of Paleolithic figurines) http://www.asu.edu/clas/anthropology/dvrac/intro.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2996/ (TRACCE Online Rock Art Bulletin) http://www.questorsys.com/rockart/ http://www.dana.edu/~dwarman/aeg.htm (narrative on prehistoric art, with links to examples) http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/anthro/origins/stoneage.html (Time magazine article on discovery of Chauvet art and its meaning) http://mistral.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/gvpda-d.h tm http://members.tripod.com/uncanny007/cia/FTB10.HTM (origin of cave men) http://www.hilson.org/writings/caveman.html (Cro-Magnon art, excerpting images and narrative from Chauvet) http://www.calacademy.org/pacdis/archive/sum95_1.htm For information on preserving rock art see: http://www.asu.edu/clas/anthropology/dvrac/pres.htm (practical rules to observe at a rock art site) http://www.questorsys.com/rockart/ http://www.nps.gov/planning/petr/petreis.html#descr (Petroglyph National Monument, near Albuquerque, NM) For information on scientific techniques for dating prehistoric art: http://www.sciam.com/0696issue/0696scicit05.html http://members.tripod.com/willardlibby/Carbon.html (carbon-14 dating method explained) http://members.aol.com/dsfrink/ocr/ocrpage.htm For other links to sites on this subject: http://www.harbrace.com/art/gardner/Anc.html#prehistoricgener al (Gateway to Art History - for use with Gardner's Art Through the Ages - rich outline with extensive linked resources) http://www.mythinglinks.org/euro~west~prehistoric.html (commentary and illustrations of prehistoric art) http://www.nmnh.si.edu/VirtualTour/Tour/Second/Origins/index html (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC) http://www.bowdoin.edu/dept/library/classes/anthro/102/index html (resources from Bowdoin College Library) http://rock-art.com/books/region.htm (Piedra Pintada - offerings of bookstore specializing in rock art) http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/stoneage.html (from ArtLex - online visual art dictionary) About the Author: Kristin Redpath is Professor Emeritus of Computer Technology, Massasoit Community College, Brockton, Massachusetts, with a Master's Degree in Theater Education, as well as additional graduate study in theater, education and computer science. She combined her love of teaching, computers, and the arts with business skills in 1984 as an adjunct, then full time, professor of Computer Information Systems at Massasoit Community College. She served as Chair of the Computer Information Systems Department from 1988 through 1994, received tenure in 1990 and the rank of full Professor in 1991. Before retiring (early) in August, 1999, she also served as President of Massasoit's Academic Senate.
She is currently at work on a textbook on introductory computer graphics and is investigating the feasibility of making her own technical training CD's. Also a watercolorist and singer, she views retirement as a new beginning. Married, with a grown son, she lives in the picturesque (Wheaton) college town of Norton, Massachusetts, and never wants to live permanently anywhere but in a small, New England college town. |
|
|
|
|
