[Home]History of Aurochs/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 21 . . (edit) November 9, 2001 8:44 pm by (logged).191.188.xxx
Revision 20 . . November 9, 2001 2:30 pm by Sjc
Revision 19 . . November 9, 2001 2:18 pm by (logged).191.188.xxx [But the artist meant ...]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff, author diff)

Changed: 101c101,103

They are certainly not worth barbecuing: they have been in the freezer far too long. Frankly, my take is this: they are painted ergo they are worthy of representation. If they are merely attributed (etc), this covers most of the bases since we don't need to get into long and tedious discussions about the role of the palaeolithic hunter/magician nor the converse view that the paintings were nothing to do with magic whatsoever but were in fact the palaeolithic equivalent of car mags, depicting things that men like looking at in their spare time. sjc

:Well, long, but not everyone would find them "tedious", though I don't mean to have the conversation here. It's just that people can be pretty blithe about saying what art from other cultures means, with paleolithic art a great example of this. Have a good one!

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: