Blog #8 Making Sense

It is part of human nature to make sense of anything beyond our comprehension, when something is unexplainable we search for an explanation to gain understanding. Prehistoric art is an excellent example of humans trying to make sense. The art, which clearly meant something to our ancestors, has lost its meaning to us through the years. Yet modern scientists see it as a link to the past, a way to understand who the human race used to be and how it has gotten to where it is today.
Making sense when looking at the past can be misleading, there is so much information that archaeologists and anthropologists will never know, and there is never a way to be one hundred percent sure that what they think happened, actually ever happened. The cave paintings are the perfect example of this problem. No matter how much people study them, or how they interpret them, the problem is it is still just their interpretation, without actually speaking to the artists it is virtually impossible to be sure that the proper understanding of their work has been determined. It makes it even harder to determine what the true meanings behind the cave paintings when we take into account the fact that there is no actual social context to any of the images. It is like we discussed in class on Wednesday, different works of art makes sense to us because we know the context of what it means. An example of this would be the statues on wall street of the Bull and the Bear. We know that these animals are being used as a representation of the different markets on the stock exchange, but to someone from another country what would they see? Just a couple of statues depicting animals. It is the same with the cave paintings, without that social context to suggest the meaning behind the paintings, our interpretations of them, our attempts to "make sense" of them can never be truly valid.

Blog #7: The First Humans view of their place in the world

In The Cave Painters, Curtis mentions how the paintings might not just be a reflection of how the Cro-Magnons saw the animals around them but how they see themselves, in regards to the rest of the world. According to the text the most common animals that appeared in the cave paintings were horses and bison, where as other animals such as fish and birds find no place, if not for some exceptions, on the walls on the caves. This raises the question, as Curtis mentions of why draw some animals and not others? Why are the animals they do choose to draw significant to them? It would be easy to assume they are drawing what they know, what animals are important to the way they live, yet if that were true fish would be a far more common occurrence than they are. Also aside from a lack of various animals on the cave walls, there is also a lack of any humans existing on the walls as well, apart from stick figures every one in a while. Curtis asserts in the first chapter how this may be a sign that the humans believed themselves to be insignificant to the world in comparison to animals. That the first humans truly believed it was an animals world and that they would just have to do what they could to survive in it. In this aspect I agree with Curtis, based on the knowledge gained of this art so far, I would have to say it does seem to show that the humans felt they were second to the animals. If they had seen themselves as equals or even as higher beings than the animals around them, than they would have depicted themselves in a more sophisticated manor. A manor of drawing that they had already proven they could achieve, through the very detailed depictions of the animals they had painted.

Blog #6

Personally I feel that when studying prehistoric art, it is much more valuable to learn the meaning behind the art and try to glean a perspective of not only the thought process behind the work, but also a sense of who the people were and the way they lived. This being said I would place myself in the second school, I feel that a lot more can be learned about these prehistoric people if they are looked at from the right perspective. The downside to the second school however is that even when trying to find a vivid living past in these works of art there is no way to establish any findings as fact, because there is no way to prove what we think happened actually happened. Where as school number one is all based on fact, finding the time an art work is done, but not why it was done, and if I could choose, I would want to know why.

"Primitive" Art

By classifying a culture, or it's art, as primitive it insinuates that the culture lacks intelligence and complexity. The use of the word primitive is so problematic because of the negative connotations that arise the second a person uses the word. In The Anthropology Of Art Layton denounces the use of the word primitive in the context of modern societies, on the pretense that different cultures have different art styles and movements that have evolved as their society evolves, thereby illustrating the cultures complexity. Dissanyake takes a similar  view in What is Art For? to the extent that she recognizes the negative connotations of the word, yet does not use it for implications of inferiority of other cultures, but mainly in a descriptive sense to refer to a society's placement on a theoretical spectrum.
Personally I feel, that from an anthropological perspective, usage of the word primitive only provokes close mindedness when dealing with a culture different from your own. By referring to a culture as primitive you go in thinking of them as an inferior form of human, and to me that really keeps you from assimilating to the culture and opening up your mind to see the world from their perspective, as opposed to making them see the world from your perspective. In a way using the word primitive puts up a wall that makes it harder to truly see a culture as they see themselves.

What is art?

Hello, My name is Aisling Bradley, and I am a Freshman at HSU this year. I am currently an anthropology major. The reason I am taking this class is to get a different perspective of anthropology than intro to anthropology, to see if this is the right major for me.
    What is Art? Art is expression, a way for someone to leave their mark on the world, to present a message in a way that can be universally heard. Art serves as a window for people to look at the world from a new or different perspective. This being said how can we distinguish what is art and what is not. For me it is all about intention, what was the artist, or creator, intending for people to see or use their creations for. Art can be anything that someone took the time to make it something more than what it was originally, adding their own emotional expression to it in the process. This does not necessarily make it aesthetically pleasing, or beautiful, it can easily be grotesque or disturbing, as long as it causes people to reexamine what they know, or shifts their perspective in some way, then it is art.   
   By studying art anthropologically I hope to gain insight into what art can be for all different cultures and people. Also I hope to see how art can help different cultures understand each other better. Art is a constant and major part of all cultures, that has existed since humans have started to express themselves, and I feel like this class will be a fascinating way to learn about human nature, behavior, and it's various interactions.