Conditions for vigorous, innovative art ambience ?

I deleted my post as somehow it did not sit right with me, but I guess you read it anyway, now it's ultra-Zen, as it never really existed

I suppose historically collaboration has produced some superhuman achievements such as the medieval Indian temples which fused sculpture and architecture.

I cannot think of any modern collaborative achievements that equal the above.

shepaints-

Perhaps if you consider the social structure and working conditions at the time of the temple buildings compared to those existing now you might not use "equal" in such a personal way.

Have you read I A Richards's Principles of Literary Criticism?

Sorry, Spendius, I am not trying to be personal.

I was just looking at the final results of those
ancient artist's collaborations. I believe that, unlike
Western artists, they did not even leave identifying
signatures on their work.

I haven't read the book you mention.

Would you care to elaborate?

shepaints-Hiya.

You can Google Richards easy.There's plenty to go at.

An artistic achievement belongs to its time and place.It will generally consist of functionalism and ornament.One of the latest combinations has been labelled "desperatism" which you can introduce yourself to by Googling The Sunday Times,click on Culture and then on the article by Brian Appleyard which has the word "taste" in the title.

Generally speaking ladies are more susceptible to ornament for obvious reasons,(some men too) and thus your praise of the temple is probably due to that and thus subjective.Not that I think there's anything wrong with that.I rather prefer subjective ladies actually.
But,I fear,you made a slight claim for the superiority of feminine appreciation and I'm sure you wouldn't expect ol' spendi to sit still for that.

For sure the temples are great if you can't see the bloodstains on them but so also is a modern jet fighter which usually has some small ornamentation and fabulous technique in it's production.

I hope you don't mind my putting the coarse masculine side of things.I fear that if the feminine side gets exclusive cover men will tend to become feminised and I couldn't imagine you wishing for that.

Why do you think female animals are so plain and dowdy compared to the males (peacocks) and human females are so ornamented compared to the dullness of their counterparts.

Yeah but the females smell better.

Thanks Spendius, I'm not sure where I have made "a slight claim for the superiority of feminine appreciation." Perhaps I should just avert
my gaze from the aesthetic splendours I noted above.

You know, I used to marvel at some of the world's oldest and finest "collaborative" paintings...in the caves of Lascaux and Altimira. However, most likely women were excluded from their execution.

While the cavemen likely busied themselves with the enjoyable task of festooning the walls with bison paintings, the cave women probably had no access to the paints or walls! Too busy stirring the pot, probably with a passel of kids hanging onto their ankles! Puts the cave paintings in context, as you say.

Thanks for the references, I'll look them up.

Shepaints-

The cave paintings are very interesting.A lot of them were done in locations which were chosen for the difficulties presented to the artist or to anyone seeking to deface them.Long underground trips and scaffolding.The very opposite of having them splashed all over the culture pages and the "improve yourself "TV channels.If one assumes that it was because what was being depicted was shamanistic,secret,sacred,mysterious and of benefit to the tribe it might be that doing the opposite,as modern artists do,implies something common,trite,profane,simple and not of benefit to the tribe.Hey-that's pretty wild.Intelligent ladies do stimulate my imagination.

Not long ago I saw a review about a lush book on the cave paintings at what I thought to be a very extravagent price so I ordered it from the library for the price of a decent swig of beer and six months later it arrived.

What a beauty.But what amazed me was the number of erections.There was one picture of a bunch a guys stabbing spears at tonight's roast beef,I presumed they had fan assisted ovens,and they all had 20 degree erections.From the vertical I mean.It was as if as soon as they got this thing back they were on.Primitive foreplay.

I had a cartoon in my head about it all but it was too difficult for me to draw.Can you draw good?

The paintings in the book are all shut up now because of the damage from the lights used to show them to tourists.

How far are you off Henry Miller's old place?

?????

is that Lascaux you refer to when you say it's closed now?

Lascaux is closed because of the damage done by the warmth of people and the humidity but they've built a brilliant replica. Other caves in the area are limited to only 2 visits per day to conserve them and prevent the problems of Lascaux. They are absolutely wonderful. The skill of the artists is real, there's a real intellect at work and acute observation.


I've visited several caves with paintings - Lascaux II, Font de Gaume and Rouffignac and the main point is that men weren't depicted. Animals are beautifully drawn/painted, anatomically correct, they move correctly (unlike the legs of horses in medieval paintings, stone age man knew the way horses legs really moved, not like a rocking horse), there were hands silhouetted by blowing pigment round a hand held flat against the cave wall, but only very very rare human figures and they were always 'stick figures', with animal heads and painted very unrealistically.

Some, like Rouffignac, were deep underground, involving a long trek down dark tunnels, with hazards like sink holes through the limestone, dropping long distances down. When the paintings were made they painted them in tunnels so low that the artists had to lie flat on their backs to paint the ceiling - for visitors to see it has now been dug out so that you can stand.

Font de Gaume on the other hand is in a narrow cave not too far in from the light, not hidden away as Rouffignac.

There are so many caves in the area and a brilliant series of caves high on a cliff at St Cristophe that was inhabited from the stone age to fairly recent history - medieval at least. Who knows how many paintings have been lost? The only reason that the deep caves survive is because they were hidden and protected, Any rock paintings at St Cristophe would have been destroyed long since by the continous use of the caves and in other places rock falls may have destroyed them, weather etc.

A people who could produce wonderful images like these must have decorated their living spaces and belongings I'm sure.

That's real nice Viv.

When I saw Andy Warhol's late self portraits it struck me he was trying to show what he thought those guys back then,those fabulous artists,might have looked like with the moonlight on 'em.Or maybe what he felt he would have looked like had he been one of them.

But I don't know much about them really but I can imagine what I might have looked like if I'd been there and it worries me a bit.(I'd better say 'only kidding' because sometimes you get taken literally in the US.)

You must have felt that even stronger if you were actually in the caves.I was only looking at a book.

I've seen some out of Australia and they were amazing too.And one of them was the hand.Amazing eh?Two artists with no contact both do their hand with a mouth full of pigment.

Do you like Picasso?

I'm afraid I can't look at Picasso's work due to
his cavalier treatment of the women in his life.

Thats a valid point of view. Ive found that many times I

1 like an artists work

2 look up the artist and learn more about him/her

3 find out that the artist was real pond scum

4Then I have to take a break from liking the artists work

I was like that with Demuth, I thoughthis 'prism views" and graphic styles were really great. Then as I learned about his lifestyle , I was more thinking of him as a "decorator" Now Ive swung back to a more appreciative mode.

Picasso and Goya would stand out as real pond scum, but youll soon have to give them their due as great artists.

How bout Pollock- he was the crust of the scum

I agree entirely with the principles here.If I hear of anyone committing suicide I place every remnant I have of their productions in the bin.

But to dump on Picasso is actually to underestimate the women in his life simply because they had difficulty in getting the better of him, which,one presumes,is what they were trying to do.

That is a prejudiced,partial agenda with which I will not up put.It rigs the game.It's special pleading.It's another version of "us poor girls".

Naah, Picasso made it a point to pick up fairly naive pretty young things and paint them , usually while his present wife was away. (Like his affair with Maria Therese). Francoise, his last wife was more adult because he was already in his 60;s and she was able to stand up and use his extreme narcissism.
Spenid, it sounds like you have a consistent theme when speaking of women, id look into it , for it colors your ability to reason. Picasso, in todays standard, might be considered an abuser (not physical, but emotional)

I dont know.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say with my
post, Chumley.

Back to the caves, I can't help but think that the cavemen had more fun with their shamanistic ceremonies, painting in secret locations and throwing spears at their images. The women, meanwhile, were looking after the kids and preparing mammoth feasts (a mammoth task!)

The art is quite exquisite with its layering of images in which the work of individual artists seems indistinguishable....

Conditions of this particular vigorous art ambience..... art in the service of some ritualistic belief, common purpose, and necessity (being the mother of invention) in tools, materials and location.

Yes you do but you're shy.

There is no valid causal connection between the moral stature of an artist and the artistic value of his work. Wagner was a rabid anti-semite, but his work was great. Picasso was a sexist but his work is among the very best. If we say that a bad man cannot produce good art, then it follows that a good man cannot produce bad art. Since this is not true empirically, my opening sentence stands.

This is the third time I've made this argument. Wish I didn't have to.

I was at Altamira a bunch of years ago. They discouraged photography. I heard they closed that one also.

The paleo Indians of the US were more into sculpture, they spent time carving complex petroglyphs in places that were hard to get to like in river bottoms and cliff faces. Nobody has given a real good explanation . My only feeling is that maybe these guys were here earlier than we give em credit . Because in the heighth of the last ice, the water levels were down another 100 feet which made the Susquehanna an estuary as far north as Pa. and the rocks were exposed . That exlanation always seemed simpler than some Paleos diving down 10 feet underwater and carving a 'turtle"