3 ms·

I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were

I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. We don't obviously know why these signs were made, but the the hypothesis that they were there to guide travelers to water sources suggests the former.

bawolff 1y ago
Why not both? A lot of art has practical purposes.
MisterTea 1y ago
> practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. Why not both? It's obvious some effort was put into carving the figures as they look pretty to me. I am sure some people were better than others at making rock carvings making them artists IMO.
nkrisc 1y ago
> I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. That still fails to distinguish between "art" and "not-art". Your faulty assumption is that art can not serve a practical purpose.