Shemales are just men... don't take my word for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Home Work: compare and contrast the Cave of Forgotten Dreams with http://www.vatican.va/various/cappel..._vr/index.html

Wednesday morning (a day before we got into this conversation) I was almost late to lecture gawking at this link (thinking deep thoughts like "Wow! This is incredible!"). Now I'm reminded of it again. Complexity vs Simplicity ( a theme to which MacShreach alludes ) comes to mind. Both may or may not be religious, but the earlier work seems positively innocent by comparison. The obsessions within the Christian work now strike me almost sick!?

---

Oh Trish, there's a big one...Complexity and simplicity...I think great art is always both, to be honest. Certainly in the Chauvet caves, there is one famous picture of four horses, which is very complex in its composition, yet simple in its allure...again, you could look at sculpture by Brancusi or Jean Arp and see them as simple but when you spend time with them you begin to realise just how complex and sophisticated they really are. I have always said that 'technique should be invisible.' You should be amazed by the art, not by how clever the artist was...though of course, in the best work, the artists are very clever indeed. These cave paintings, by any measure, are great art, but every period has had great art.

As for Christian art, if you mean Christian religious art, you really have to speak of Catholic art, because there is so little in the Protestant traditions. Because you were referencing the Sistine, I think you were probably thinking of post-Renaissance art, which was characterised, up until the mid 19th century, by the pursuit of naturalistic representation. Photography liberated painters from this, which is one of the reasons we see the huge stylistic changes that led to contemporary art, and sometimes, to our photographically-conditioned eyes, the post-Renaissance work can seem tight and excessively formal.

All I can say, without getting into a really detailed discussion, (which I would be happy to do later but I don't have time right now...you know how much I like talking with you,Trish) is that sometimes you have to see beyond the image and try to understand the underlying metaphor. Obviously (I hope) the Goddess is central to Catholic art, certainly in Europe, but there's a lot more in there.

Complexity V simplicity in art. A lot of the seemingly simple contemporary (or rather modern) art seems simple because the artists have learned and gone through complexity. The idea, offered in simple form, is complex if examined properly. But what MacShreach alludes to is a relatively modern idea (at the time). Contrast the pure force of Arp or Brancusi or Moore with the baroque or the roccoco. It certainly suits our contemporary emotional and aesthetic needs better. But the idea of "progress" - the "sophisticated present" versus the "relatively primitive pst" - i think we all agree is not one that is really intellectually acceptable right now.

1) From a practical angle, painting in caves preserves the images which would fade in the light of day, no mystery there; archaeological theory has merged with cultural theory to argue that cave paintings are the first example of Homo Symbolicus -humans thinking and expressing themselves in symbols -a connection is then made to the Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt where Gods take animal form -in North America, in Canada I think, they found that the one animal that was not depicted -the Reindeer- was the one they ate the most.

2) The differentiation of non-human things: beads, artefacts, animals -may represent once insular communities making contact with others, and attaching a sense of identity to things to say: this is mine, not yours. And yet, evolution has relied upon knowledge transfer, and we cannot be sure we are talking about things as being conceived of as private property -but then people do assume that early societies practised a form of what Marx called Primitive Communism, but then the procesional theory of social development was discredited long ago. So it becomes part of the concept of an acquisitive social milieu, what Andre Gunder Frank once characterised as being the fundemental propulsion of human society since the outset: the cumulation of accumulation.

3) It is not true that the phobia of menstrual blood is solely Judeo-Christian, Gilbert Herdt's pioneering/controversial work on Papua New Guinea argues that the segregation of male-female spaces is generated in part by phobias about bodily smells and liquids, in which white= positive (semen, breast milk) and red= negative (menstrual blood, blood shed in anger or violence).

4) There is plenty of non-Catholic art, vide the Ikons of Russia and Greece; dare I mention Rembrandt, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Hans Holbein, or Caspar David Friedrich, who, after the glories of renaissance Spain and Italy, produced the most magnificent religious paintings?

But I have no deep undersanding of what cave paintings are or what they mean, but concur with the consensus they must be part of some early religion/cosmology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

1) From a practical angle, painting in caves preserves the images which would fade in the light of day, no mystery there; archaeological theory has merged with cultural theory to argue that cave paintings are the first example of Homo Symbolicus -humans thinking and expressing themselves in symbols -a connection is then made to the Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt where Gods take animal form -in North America, in Canada I think, they found that the one animal that was not depicted -the Reindeer- was the one they ate the most.

2) The differentiation of non-human things: beads, artefacts, animals -may represent once insular communities making contact with others, and attaching a sense of identity to things to say: this is mine, not yours. And yet, evolution has relied upon knowledge transfer, and we cannot be sure we are talking about things as being conceived of as private property -but then people do assume that early societies practised a form of what Marx called Primitive Communism, but then the procesional theory of social development was discredited long ago. So it becomes part of the concept of an acquisitive social milieu, what Andre Gunder Frank once characterised as being the fundemental propulsion of human society since the outset: the cumulation of accumulation.

3) It is not true that the phobia of menstrual blood is solely Judeo-Christian, Gilbert Herdt's pioneering/controversial work on Papua New Guinea argues that the segregation of male-female spaces is generated in part by phobias about bodily smells and liquids, in which white= positive (semen, breast milk) and red= negative (menstrual blood, blood shed in anger or violence).

4) There is plenty of non-Catholic art, vide the Ikons of Russia and Greece; dare I mention Rembrandt, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Hans Holbein, or Caspar David Friedrich, who, after the glories of renaissance Spain and Italy, produced the most magnificent religious paintings?

But I have no deep undersanding of what cave paintings are or what they mean, but concur with the consensus they must be part of some early religion/cosmology.

---

While it is true that darkness would prevent the images fading, I would still conjecture that the caves were chosen for symbolical or shamanic reasons. Of course it is possible that the outside rock was also painted but that these have been lost through weathering; but if that were the case, why go to the trouble of going deep inside the earth to do it? In addition, the charcoal and earth pigments that were used would have lasted many decades without fading from sunlight, again suggesting that the deep caves were used for another reason. Further, there are references to caves as analagous to the womb of the Earth Mother in many early mythologies; Mithras, for example, was born from a cave. I will hold to my contention there; I did say it was an opinion, and one that can't be strictly proved, but it has plausibility.

I'm not at all convinced about the idea of the 'cumulation of accummulation' being a strong motivator in these early societies, but there is not enough evidence in either direction to argue the case. What we can say is that the accummulation of wealth became a major social impetus with the arrival of city-based culture, with its shift towards patriarchy and patriarchal religion, and of course, warfare.

I don't remember saying that menstrual blood was solely a Judeo-Christian taboo, but if I did I stand corrected; there are plenty of other cultures where it is also reviled. However we do know that the so called pagan culture that predated Christianity in Europe and elsewhere did not share this taboo, and its rise appears to be a part of a more generalised misogyny which developed in the Abrahamic monotheisms.

There is of course plenty of Iconic art from the Orthodox areas, but it cannot be said to have experienced the development that was obvious in Western European art after the Renaissance. Perhaps I should have made it clear that was what I was talking about, but since the conversation began with Michelangelo, I did not think that was necessary.

As for the illustrious artists you mention, Holbein and Cranach were both born into Catholic traditions and produced much work for Catholic patrons, and C D Friedrich is a noted exception to the Protestant tradition. Of all of them, Rembrandt van Rijn, whose father was Catholic, was the most difficult to categorise, with many different styles during his long career. His depiction of religious scenes differs very greatly from the work of, say Michelangelo, which is where we began, sort of. Rembrandt painted illustrations of Biblical scenes, but also used many other classical sources. I think there is a difference between this use of Biblical and Classical sources, and the use of similar sources by many Catholic artists when working in a religious context, in that Rembrandt's work, even when referring to Biblical sources, is essentially secular, (something that he shares with many Catholic artists, of course; it is absolutely not the case that all art by Catholic artists has been Catholic religious art, far from it.)

I think it's misleading to suggest that because art has its source in a Biblical story, that it is necessarily religious art; if that were the case then we would have to categorise all of the post-Renaissance art that used classical sources as religious, since the root story was a part of a religious tradition (albeit one no longer practised.) But these paintings have no devotional purpose and so are not really religious per se. We cannot say that because an artist was Catholic or Protestant, that his or her art is necessarily Catholic or Protestant in a religious sense or context.

I therefore stand my ground; in comparison to the vast amount of Catholic religious art in the post-Renaissance period, there is very little comparable Protestant art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

Changing the subject completely but inspired by your dancing cave shadows.....have you seen Cave of Forgotten Dreams yet?

---

Wonder if Dino has seen this? He's a big fan of of the Herzog-Kinski collaborations, but then Herzog is a bit eclectic so perhaps Dino isn't a fan of his entire body of work.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation. Got it saved in my Neflix streaming queue.

Amused at what people looking at this thread for the first time and reading the discussion on the meaning of cave art will make of it.

Oh - and shemales are not just men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Amused at what people looking at this thread for the first time and reading the discussion on the meaning of cave art will make of it.

Oh - and shemales are not just men.

---

Yeah I was enjoying that. Seemed like a positive hijack!

Seconded on the on-topic part.


And just to be OT again...

It happens that I was in one of the lesser but still magnificent French cathedrals today. Often people forget that when they were new, they were not bare stone, but painted throughout, and there is still some of the original paintwork preserved in this one....what they must have been like! Awe-inspiring. But that was the point of course; to enter the womb of the Goddess herself and be...overwhelmed. There's a line of connection between these and the caves, without any doubt in my mind.

Think you are correct on that MacShreach. People also forget that the greek statues were also painted. The classical revival has given s the idea of pure white marble.
Which cathedral? I confess that my favourite remains Chartres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Think you are correct on that MacShreach. People also forget that the greek statues were also painted. The classical revival has given s the idea of pure white marble.
Which cathedral? I confess that my favourite remains Chartres.

---

Chartres is fantastic but it's a long way away. I was at St Vincent in Chalon-sur-Saone. The facade is neoclassical but parts of the interior are 8th century.

read "whipping girl" by julia serano... wish i could tell Elly too but I don't know how to talk to her ~ it helped clear lots of my confusion over my inherit knowledge that yes i am a boy, but i really wanna be a girl ~ Julia is smart, she helped me come out :)