The Origin Of Art

By paulie

Once upon a time... The oldest intentional images in the known world are cave drawings and etchings made by cavemen. Earth's first artists. What Ug lacked in talent, he also lacked in imagination. What his goal seems to have been was to be able to pass on to other people things he had seen. So despite the rudimentary crudeness, the cave man was doing his best to provide an exact rendering of what he was drawing. As millennia passed and man began to live in places other than caves, the cave wall became stone tablets, then animal skins, and eventually on to the canvas we know today. Techniques went from using bones and rocks to feathers and brushes made from hair. But the intent was still there. Portray as accurately what had been witnessed as possible. And there came some people who were truly talented. Their portrayals of plants and animals and people were growing in such a quality that there was no translation needed as to what was drawn or painted. Paints changed, tools evolved, and the art got better... Now... here's where I'm going to lose some of you... Somewhere along the way, when people were beginning to be recognized for their great art talent, there were those who sought the glory, but lacked the talent. Or those who lacked the sober mind. So, they created "styles" like "abstract" and "surrealistic" and claimed they were great! In the times of humankind, many famed artists were championed by certain kings, queens and nobles. Regardless of talent, they became the favorite due to Royal decree. Their style, regardless of if it was the best possible art of the day, became what was to be strived for. For to curry favor with the powers-that-be was more important to them than to stay true to themselves. OK... for those who are still with me... I'm not indicting the artistic styles we have today. Today's artist is striving for one of two things; either as realistic, photo-quality creation as is possible or to recreate the styles that emerged from the flawed artists many call "masters". And in style, many of those creations are indeed strikingly beautiful. They have a value, both in history and in entertainment. There is a place for slinging paint or vomiting objects all over the canvas. It's appreciated by many, or at least many claim to apprciate it. But I think if Ug were here today, and he was asked to judge all the possible styles of art, his preference would be "the closest to reality" as can be captured. It's what he was trying to achieve with stones and bones and blood when he created art as a form on that cave wall oh-so-long ago...

Comments (14)

DavidP

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Can be the start of an interesting conversation. I read this, in a nutshell, as asking the question 'What is art?' I am entirely unqualified to offer an answer. I am in the camp of 'I like what I like'. I've no meaningful education in 'art appreciation/history'. So I can't really comment on the talent of artists over the centuries, or the merits of the styles that developed over the centuries. We can only speculate on the purpose of the cave-paintings. I think you can reflect on art in eally simpistic general terms as before and after the invention of photography. If what you want is an accurate rendering of reality then take a photograph. What is the point in spending hours and hours, painting or drawing, to produce a work that is so photorealistic that many might think it is a photograph? Just take the photograph and be done. That is not to say I don't appreciate the incredible skill of the person who can produce such a painting or drawing. Once I move from not wanting an accurate depiction of something for purpose of communicating reality, record-keeping then I think the conversation becomes far more subjective. The purpose and meaning having so much possibility. Then there is the 'system'. Who decides what is 'great art'. As you said, once upon a time it was kings and queens. Perhaps all that is changed is who are the metaphorical kings and queens. And where money is to be made, then corruption of ideals, purity is almost inevitable. I've rambled enough. I can say a lot and have nothing to say 😂 Thanks again for a post that got me thinking.

paulie

I can understand that. And as I said, it's not meant as an indictment of current artists who are inspired by the style of yesteryear. Experimenting is something we all do. There is a myriad of people who refuse to acknowledge what we do as "art". I think I mentioned on a Blog post from @Cheinia that I faced the same aggravation as a photographer with pretty good equipment coping with the advent of the smart phone photographer. I'm sure those who pioneered surrealism and abstract faced that same feeling from traditional, realism painters and sketchers! In truth, part of my blog post is just to stir a conversation. I have no true artistic talent to defend, one way or another. I still consider myself a wordsmith rather than an artist, even though the words I put together now paint an actual picture for the eyes and not just the mind.

paulie

That's why I have a tough time judging or grading in challenges. I know what I like and I know what I don't. And sometimes I know I'm missing the point in that I don't "like" a creation well enough to grasp that it is artistically what the creator was striving for... Some 4's become 3's because I simply don't get it, other times 3's become 4's or even 5's because the creation speaks to me or is something I like. It's one reason I don't get too worked up over my own challenge scores, one way or another (unless I'm at 2.89 and it's a no-theme challenge that has no imperfections... then I know it's just not an audience I want to be part of!)

EternaSky

Drawings began as a means of communication in a world without written language. Stories were told thru them. The medium was limited, stones, etc. Realism wasn’t pursued because of a lack of media - colors etc. Instead symbolism was the key style, many a language evolved from pictograms.

Sealine

I enjoyed reading your perspective. I think our tastes probably do differ. I'm not so much a fan of photorealism. Though some abstract stuff, I just do not get. I fall in some range in the middle. And it doesn't have to be technically perfect to be beautiful.

paulie

Point taken. And you're right in that pictures took the place of words before there were words. But my contention remains that they early "artists" were still striving to be as accurate as possible. It just wasn't possible.

King

you made a point and thanks for sharing it with us.

paulie

I do agree with you that the age of photography did indeed impact the world of actual art. And while physical art (inks, paints, pencils) are not likely to produce a photo quality piece of art, it can produce an extremely realistic looking piece of art. And realism is the key. It goes back to a previous commenter stating though that they believe the earliest art was to tell stories rather than depict reality. And I can see that point of view. I can also believe that while some people may truly like the styles of oil painting vs. watercolors vs. charcoal sketches... most of those style still rely on the recognizability factor. However I can also believe that the advent of surrealism or abstract could be failures being turned into something else. Taking lemons and making lemonade! A very successful product from my childhood and through most of my adult life was Margerine. Fake butter. Marketed as better for you than real butter. But the dirty little secret is that Margerine was not created for human consumption. It was created to be a cost-effective food for raising Turkeys! However the turkeys were smarter than us and wouldn't eat it! And some marketing genius said one day, "you know, it kinda tastes like butter..." and boom! That's how I look at unrealistic art styles. "Oh look, we can say we planned it and people will like it!" LOL But yes, I too know what I like when I see it. And yes, I like *some* surrealistic styles, given the right light, the right mood, and the right amount of alcohol! (Funny, that's also how I decide how I like my women sometimes!) 😁

DavidP

I think a conversation about what I like and why, what you like and why has its place. I think of it as a different conversation to one exploring art history and appreciation, the meaning and purpose of art, and how to judge the merits of art styles and works of art. Thinking more about 'realism' made me wonder what the opposite would be. As usual when I don't know I go to Google. So this answer is as prone to error as any I'd give ie it's AI generated and not fact-checked. First what is realism "Realism is an approach that seeks to represent reality truthfully and accurately, without artificiality, exaggeration, or idealization, across various fields including art, literature, and philosophy. It focuses on portraying everyday life and ordinary people in an objective manner." And the opposite in the context of art (turned out not a simple single term)? Abstraction - it removes recognizable subject matter entirely. Romanticism - it prioritizes drama and idealization over objective truth. Surrealism - it explores dreams and the irrational instead of the visible world. Idealism - it seeks to depict perfection rather than the "unvarnished" truth. No mention of impressionism, expressionism, pointillism, etc. So I guess that is another branch of the conversation?

paulie

Thank you for your kind words. I know that there are many who don't like the photorealism aspects of our text-to-art and use the excuse that you can just pick up a camera... to that end, *they* could just pick up a paint brush! LOL From a talent aspect, it takes as much or maybe even more talent in this ai field to produce a photo-like realistic creation than it does to create abstractions or surrealistic swirls.