scigirl

Ha ha ha so does this mean that <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/" target="_blank">Jackson Pollock</a> is a chimp?

scigirl

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Mageth

Are you aware that abstract expressionism is a pretty advanced form of Art? It didn't arise until very recently. It would not have been accepted in earlier stages of history. Man did not start out doing Art this way. Abstract Art seeks a Universal ly defining priciple. Starting out like this is kind of like starting at the pinacle.

I'm not sure of copyright on these images, but <a href="http://artshack.tripod.com/caveart.html" target="_blank">go here</a> to see some New World examples of cave art from indigenous New Worlders.

This may be more typically referred to as "primitivism" or some other form, but IMO you can see abstraction (and even expressionism) in many ancient art forms, from the Aborigines of Australia to the Cro-Magnons. What arose in the 19th century that we call expressionism was not the creation of a new way of expressing ourselves, but a movement in the formal world of Art (i.e. Western Art).

I would thing that abstraction and expressionism arose very early in our history, perhaps before or along with realism.

GeoTheo

Ok Megeth. But one handy thing about human Artists like Jackson Pollack is that they can give an explanation for what they are trying to accomplish. That allows the observer to participate in it more than if they just thought the Artist was just playing with paint. BTW what DOES it look like when elephants just play with paint as opposed to creating abstract expressionism?

Mageth

In my post I'm not saying that I necessarily think elephants are really creating "art" in what they do. I don't know. The gorilla art, posted above, I find more interesting, as we're more closely related to, and better able to communicate with, gorillas than with elephants.

In either case, you'd be better off asking the elephant or gorilla.

Here's a painting by Michael the gorilla:



Michael called this picture, painted from memory of his dog friend Apple and a game they played (chase), "Apple Chase". Here's Apple:



Here's a link to more of Koko and Michael's art:

<a href="http://www.koko.org/kokomart/art.html" target="_blank">kokomart</a>

Pretty damn impressive and indicative of artistic abilities and purpose, IMO. Some of the paintings do exhibit evidences of expressionism. However, I don't know if the lack of "realism" is due to their purposely using abstraction and/or expressionism or to their limited abilities as artists (much like children's first efforts at painting.) Whichever, still damn impressive.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Kuu

I am bringing up this thread again because I have just watched a TV show which suggested that red ochre was used by early man not as a pigment but as a deterrent to insects.

As the uses for ochre was mentioned early in this thread I would like to get peoples' opinion of which they think is more likely - ochre's use as a pigment or as an inesct repellant, or both?

Camaban

rather simplified version:

Whack the red Ochre on to keep insects away, someone thinks "Hey, that looks pretty neat" and it catches on.

or failing that someone's fiddling around with it, the bloke he's with thinks "Hey, that looks pretty neat" whacks some on and then thinks "Hey, this stuff keeps insects away"

Stephen T-B

For what it’s worth, this is my definition of Art:

Anything consciously produced with the deliberate intention that it perform no practical function.
(Which leaves the question of non-human "art" in mid-air because we cannot know if chimps, gorillas or elephants are involved in a conscious production when they scatter paint across a surface. I would think they might be if, without human prompting, they were to seek out the ingredients for making a “picture” and then proceed to make one. Has this ever happened?)