Neolithic Modernism
Filed under: Uncategorized — Giulianna Maria Lamanna @ 1:59 PM
The new issue of Archaeology Magazine has listed what its editors believe to be the Top 10 Discoveries of 2007. One story didn’t make the list but is a must-see: a Neolithic mural unearthed in Syria that could easily pass for modernist art.
Made up of red, black, and white geometric shapes painted 11,000 years ago, the small panel bore an uncanny resemblance to the early work of modernist masters Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee.
…
This year Coqueugniot’s team not only gave us a more vivid glimpse into the ritual life of Djade al Mugahara, but a sense of just how close Neolithic aesthetic sensibilities were to those of early European modernists…
Beautiful. Not only in its actual composition, but also its evidenced implications.
Visual proof that modern man is not all that more artistically capable than our ancestors of just a few thousand years ago. Since, we’re ultimately still the same damn species.
It’s frustrating to hear the misconception out of people that we’ve evolved as a species so much, when most of the evolution (devolution?) is actually cultural/technological.
Or… maybe we will all lose our pinky toes and become super-intelligent floating balls of energy by the next millenium…
Comment by Peter — 6 January 2008 @ 10:41 PM
The mural is interesting enough but it looks like the kind of thing I would absent-mindedly scribble while being put on hold for an hour.
Is your position that:
One ancient artwork resembles some modern artworks.
Therefore (all?) ancient artists were as sophisticated/accomplished as (all?) modern artists are?
So now all we need are surrealist, art deco, art nouveau, cubist, dada-ist, expressionist, impressionist, fauvist, futurist (sic), photo-realist, minimalist and pop-art murals from the neolithic to complete the set? Keep digging everyone!
Comment by Anonymous — 6 January 2008 @ 11:39 PM
The mural is interesting enough but it looks like the kind of thing I would absent-mindedly scribble while being put on hold for an hour.
well, sure, but so does most modernist art
Comment by jhereg — 7 January 2008 @ 8:29 AM
By the same token, Anonymous, where might we find European composers prior to the 14th century who could match the polyphonic complexity of M’buti songs? Where can we find artists, even today, who can match the detailed and nuanced use of all three dimensions, rock textures and cave shape, as found in a place like Lasceaux?
No one could argue that different cultures have the same art, but yes, in general, ancient hunter-gatherers and modern hunter-gatherers alike evidence as much skill, sophistication and nuance in their art as modern artists do. Their uses for and ideas about art differ dramatically, certainly, but civilization has no monopoly on art.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 January 2008 @ 12:52 PM
A journalist writing for the New African, when writing of Yoruba artworks (found in modern Nigeria) wrote that ‘uncivilised people cannot produce artwork of this high quality and sophistication.’
I knew there was something wrong with that statement.
Comment by benjibopper — 9 January 2008 @ 1:55 PM
Interesting recent article from the economist…..time to sharpen your knives (spear heads?) and dig into it everyone!
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703
Comment by void_genesis — 9 January 2008 @ 10:36 PM
I don’t see anything new being stated here, just the same stuff about violence and warfare that we’ve discussed so many times before, repeated with another round of ramped-up rhetoric. The flip-side of close intimacy is savage xenophobia—you simply can’t have that kind of close-knit community, without also feeling the kind of extreme passion to defend it that motivates terrible violence. But as we’ve also seen time and time again, estimates like these are meticulous in cataloguing all violent incidents in primitive society, and downright deceitful in their dismissal of ubiquitous civilized violence. That’s followed up with other prime myths we’ve debunked a dozen times before, from the “Overkill Hypothesis,” to the flagrantly deceptive “correction” to Lee’s work-week estimates for the !Kung. I don’t see a single thing in here that we haven’t addressed; it’s simply repeated here once again, and presented as fact. I really, really hate articles like this. I can take smugness or ignorance on their own, but the combination is just over the top. Which is pretty standard fare for The Economist, from what I’ve read from it over the years. Remember, this is the same periodical that gave us that great essay question, “Do we need nature?” Although, perhaps it says something positive that the message is getting out so effectively that The Economist has to devote its apparatus to its usual, deceptive FUD in our general direction.
But more to the point, what does that have to do with Neolithic art?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 January 2008 @ 10:54 PM
A full collation: Part 1, Part 2
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 January 2008 @ 7:52 PM
For interesting perspective on paleolithic rock art, i heartily recommend David Lewis Williams’ The mind in the cave. his axe to grind is that many abstract geometric images are a result of shamanic practice and altered states of consciousness. as a dream reseacher, my additional axe is: hey, i saw that cool imagery last night in my hynagogic doze!
Comment by Ryan — 14 January 2008 @ 10:32 AM