4 ms·

There is one observation I find missing in the discussion of prehistoric abstract art. It is that with primitive tools and techniques the abstract kind of art i

by avz 12y ago

There is one observation I find missing in the discussion of prehistoric abstract art. It is that with primitive tools and techniques the abstract kind of art is easier. It is the non-abstract kind that is difficult. Regardless of the causes for their preference towards the abstract kind of art, I find it amazing that Homo erectus 500,000 years ago had some art at all.

ap22213 12y ago
There's a gradient between the abstract and the non-abstract. And, the artist decides the position on the gradient based on their communication intent, the subject (the perceived audience), and the object (the perceived thing), even if they're just 'doodling'. Art is a cost / benefit play, just like most activities. Sometimes, it just makes sense to keep things simple - especially if there's not much to communicate.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  How do you define the gradient between simple and complex?
  - ap22213 12y ago
    Art is a communication mechanism. So, I guess in my mind, your question would be similar to asking what's the gradient between a simple and complex binary packet.
    - drcomputer 12y ago
      Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be transformed into a photograph of art? I understand we can simplify this argument down to 'everything is everything', 'i don't know' or 'maybe'. But that's an over-generalization of something very complicated, and then I miss the point of implementing things, doing things - with something real behind it. I just don't know whether computer code and mathematics can truly be like art, and art can truly be like mathematics and code. Communication can be simple. It can also be everything besides simple. You can look at a symbol and know what it is. But do you really know what it is? Are you just using a bunch of other symbols to explain what you think you know it is? And then how do you explain those symbols? In my mind, it's crazy. Not in a bad way. Just in an incessantly annoying way. There's a lot of philosophy and ideas and emotions and theories surrounding art, in what it represents, how it affects culture and society, how it represents culture and society and the individual. It's all reactions. Sometimes I think the same way about code, except in a psychoanalysis way, in that it explains how I think way, and why my perceptions of people socially are challenging, in two perfectly explainable simultaneous ways that keep changing depending on how much math and logic I know (or have the capacity to use all at once).
      - ap22213 12y ago
        It's more like if you had a server and a client. If the client understands the server packet, then it can perhaps do something with it. The packet contains some information. But, the developer may package it in an infinite number of ways. I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. It would be akin to photo-realistic paintings or perhaps photography. But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. Picasso experimented a lot with this. Take a look at his bull drawings. He started with a very representational image of a bull. Then, he said, 'what if I start taking things away - how much can I take away for it to still be a bull?' Picasso then went on similarly to experiment with different perspectives. How much can you twist or warp the perspective for it to be still representative of the thing? Can the artist take away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light.
        drcomputer 12y ago
        When I learned about Picasso in school, I heard that his representations of people were meant to consider the planar nature of the canvas superimposed as form. Then we learned about the waves of critics, the warping of perspective, of explanations. > I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. Abstraction can refer both to the process of generalizing and enumeration of state, so this is where we diverge on terms, a slight leaning in either direction. > But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. For me to understand that, I have to imagine every possible state that the defined abstraction can manifest as, and only then can I feel as though I understand the abstract form (but not really because infinity). The definition gets defined. All enumerations of state up to a scope are generated. The definition is checked to make sure every enumeration fits under the associated expectations of the definition. I don't understand the idea of taking away until it is not the thing I once called it. In one state I called it a thing. Then I smashed it to bits and called it something else. They are contextually dependent, there is a bigger picture of which these things are defined in. When I called it a thing, I called it that thing because I compared it to a bunch of other things. When I smashed it, I think smashing it does something. But it doesn't have to. When I was in philosophy class, my professor asked me what I would call the overhead if he sat on it. I said "a chair". He said "you must have a lot of trouble communicating with people." > What if the artist takes away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? Ooof. That one might take my entire life to figure out, in a humorously, ironically sad and overly verbose way. I surely hope not. > I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light. I have heard this guy has important opinions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg > Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. No. I learned a new way to call things abstract that makes sense to me in computer science from you. The usage of the word 'abstract' in CS has been bugging me for a long time. There's also all the goop under the form. A word can be like a case for which to hold an idea. So can books.
- Nzen 12y ago
  Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_ presents a more robust paradigm than abstract-not. He posits a triangle whereby visual communication selects a space between three poles: representative , abstract , realistic. I encourage you to look at his slideshow on the topic. http://www.scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html http://www.scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
drcomputer 12y ago
I find it more amazing that some of this turned into writing, communication, and the other turned in things that are sold for ridiculous prices to decorate walls with. A tool used to make a permanent mark becomes an alphabet, a word, a glyph; or ART. It is humorous to imagine that prehistoric man had tropes, hipsters, and the opposition to 'tendency'.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Why jump to the conclusion 'art'? Maybe the 'sharks tooth' used to open the shell made the marks, as it was wiggled back and forth and jammed between the halves. Maybe when the meat was scraped from the shell, same thing. Intentional doesn't mean creative.
- coldpie 12y ago
  It's a possibility, but the article does point out that the ends of the lines are perfectly joined, which is unlikely to happen by random chance of scraping a shell. I think such marks would also have probably turned up on more than one shell, since scraping is a pretty routine action.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Jam a knife solidly between the halves, wiggle back and forth while pushing - I think you could expect almost exactly that pattern? And the pattern was described as almost impossible to see, so who knows how many shells have the mark.
    - yawz 12y ago
      I hear what you're saying but when you check the picture, you see that the tips join perfectly, which is extremely unlikely to occur randomly, especially when there seems to be more than one zigzags. [http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22191.1417622702!/image/image1_900px.jpg http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22191.1417622702!/image/...]
sunstone 12y ago
The most common artistic medium in times past would have been a stick and sand. Unfortunately almost all of those drawings have been lost over the millennia.

by avz 12y ago

ap22213 12y ago

There's a gradient between the abstract and the non-abstract. And, the artist decides the position on the gradient based on their communication intent, the subject (the perceived audience), and the object (the perceived thing), even if they're just 'doodling'. Art is a cost / benefit play, just like most activities. Sometimes, it just makes sense to keep things simple - especially if there's not much to communicate.

drcomputer 12y ago
How do you define the gradient between simple and complex?
- ap22213 12y ago
  Art is a communication mechanism. So, I guess in my mind, your question would be similar to asking what's the gradient between a simple and complex binary packet.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be transformed into a photograph of art? I understand we can simplify this argument down to 'everything is everything', 'i don't know' or 'maybe'. But that's an over-generalization of something very complicated, and then I miss the point of implementing things, doing things - with something real behind it. I just don't know whether computer code and mathematics can truly be like art, and art can truly be like mathematics and code. Communication can be simple. It can also be everything besides simple. You can look at a symbol and know what it is. But do you really know what it is? Are you just using a bunch of other symbols to explain what you think you know it is? And then how do you explain those symbols? In my mind, it's crazy. Not in a bad way. Just in an incessantly annoying way. There's a lot of philosophy and ideas and emotions and theories surrounding art, in what it represents, how it affects culture and society, how it represents culture and society and the individual. It's all reactions. Sometimes I think the same way about code, except in a psychoanalysis way, in that it explains how I think way, and why my perceptions of people socially are challenging, in two perfectly explainable simultaneous ways that keep changing depending on how much math and logic I know (or have the capacity to use all at once).
    - ap22213 12y ago
      It's more like if you had a server and a client. If the client understands the server packet, then it can perhaps do something with it. The packet contains some information. But, the developer may package it in an infinite number of ways. I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. It would be akin to photo-realistic paintings or perhaps photography. But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. Picasso experimented a lot with this. Take a look at his bull drawings. He started with a very representational image of a bull. Then, he said, 'what if I start taking things away - how much can I take away for it to still be a bull?' Picasso then went on similarly to experiment with different perspectives. How much can you twist or warp the perspective for it to be still representative of the thing? Can the artist take away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light.
      - drcomputer 12y ago
        When I learned about Picasso in school, I heard that his representations of people were meant to consider the planar nature of the canvas superimposed as form. Then we learned about the waves of critics, the warping of perspective, of explanations. > I would say that a 'non-abstract' packet would be one that would contain all possible state of the system. Abstraction can refer both to the process of generalizing and enumeration of state, so this is where we diverge on terms, a slight leaning in either direction. > But, I would say that an 'abstract' packet would be one that contains the least amount of structure and metadata for the primary information to be passed. For me to understand that, I have to imagine every possible state that the defined abstraction can manifest as, and only then can I feel as though I understand the abstract form (but not really because infinity). The definition gets defined. All enumerations of state up to a scope are generated. The definition is checked to make sure every enumeration fits under the associated expectations of the definition. I don't understand the idea of taking away until it is not the thing I once called it. In one state I called it a thing. Then I smashed it to bits and called it something else. They are contextually dependent, there is a bigger picture of which these things are defined in. When I called it a thing, I called it that thing because I compared it to a bunch of other things. When I smashed it, I think smashing it does something. But it doesn't have to. When I was in philosophy class, my professor asked me what I would call the overhead if he sat on it. I said "a chair". He said "you must have a lot of trouble communicating with people." > What if the artist takes away so much that it just becomes a Platonic form? Can it still communicate information (emotion)? Ooof. That one might take my entire life to figure out, in a humorously, ironically sad and overly verbose way. I surely hope not. > I'm just an amateur artist though - I'm sure an academic could shed more light. I have heard this guy has important opinions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg > Maybe it's not a good analogy - I'm just coming up with something on the fly. No. I learned a new way to call things abstract that makes sense to me in computer science from you. The usage of the word 'abstract' in CS has been bugging me for a long time. There's also all the goop under the form. A word can be like a case for which to hold an idea. So can books.
Nzen 12y ago
Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_ presents a more robust paradigm than abstract-not. He posits a triangle whereby visual communication selects a space between three poles: representative , abstract , realistic. I encourage you to look at his slideshow on the topic. http://www.scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html http://www.scottmccloud.com/4-inventions/triangle/index.html
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

drcomputer 12y ago

I find it more amazing that some of this turned into writing, communication, and the other turned in things that are sold for ridiculous prices to decorate walls with. A tool used to make a permanent mark becomes an alphabet, a word, a glyph; or ART. It is humorous to imagine that prehistoric man had tropes, hipsters, and the opposition to 'tendency'.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Why jump to the conclusion 'art'? Maybe the 'sharks tooth' used to open the shell made the marks, as it was wiggled back and forth and jammed between the halves. Maybe when the meat was scraped from the shell, same thing. Intentional doesn't mean creative.

coldpie 12y ago
It's a possibility, but the article does point out that the ends of the lines are perfectly joined, which is unlikely to happen by random chance of scraping a shell. I think such marks would also have probably turned up on more than one shell, since scraping is a pretty routine action.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Jam a knife solidly between the halves, wiggle back and forth while pushing - I think you could expect almost exactly that pattern? And the pattern was described as almost impossible to see, so who knows how many shells have the mark.
  - yawz 12y ago
    I hear what you're saying but when you check the picture, you see that the tips join perfectly, which is extremely unlikely to occur randomly, especially when there seems to be more than one zigzags. [http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22191.1417622702!/image/image1_900px.jpg http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22191.1417622702!/image/...]

sunstone 12y ago

The most common artistic medium in times past would have been a stick and sand. Unfortunately almost all of those drawings have been lost over the millennia.