Your U.N. at Work

[cloudy]

I'm sure you have much greater knowledge than I do in this area, but I am not totally at sea, either. I'm rusty, but many years ago I absorbed many books on the subject, and as an undergrad took a course on North
American Indians. I know that there were thousands of languages and cultures up and down the Americas, some primitive and some very complex. I know that there were several civilizations, as defined in a preceeding post, which gave a list of characteristics that make up such a thing.

This discussion is about the artifacts of civilizations, and it has gotten into the role that interactions between civilizations play in generating greater sophistication in those artifacts, which to repeat, in the area of art is not a value-term. When I say there were far fewer civilizations in the Western Hemisphere and thus far fewer opportunities for enriching interactions between them, I am not wrong.

We have been tossing around the words "culture" and "cultural influences" a lot and perhaps this is misleading, because we are really discussing civilizations. A culture is not a civilization, and the distinction matters for this discussion.

I'm sorry if it gives you pain to hear someone say what I have said about pre-Columbian civilizations, but I don't think it should, although that may be easier said than done. In that regard, if someone started talking aboiut how crude the works of my ancestors were in pre-Christian Ireland were compared to their Roman and Greek contemporaries, I would laugh and agree. But that's probably easier for me, given that the effects of the the horrendous persecutions against the Irish in later eras are in the past, whereas analogous effects still weigh heavily on Native Americans. Whether or not statements about the accomplishments of pre-Christian Ireland give me pain has no bearing on the accuracy of those statements.

It doesn't give me pain. Sorry, no. And reading about something in a book isn't even close to living it.

It's erroneous to state that there are less traditions in the Americas than in Europe. I don't know why that's quite so hard for you to accept.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It doesn't give me pain. Sorry, no. And reading about something in a book isn't even close to living it.

It's erroneous to state that there are less traditions in the Americas than in Europe. I don't know why that's quite so hard for you to accept.

Traditions? I'll translate that as cultures. Alright: It's erronneous to say there were fewer cultures in the Americas than in Eurasia: We really don't know, and never will, because cultures don't necessarily leave evidence of their existance. It is not erroneous to say there were fewer civilzations, and this we do know, because one of the hallmarks of civilizations is that they leave lots of evidence.

 

[cloudy]

Traditions? I'll translate that as cultures. Alright: It's erronneous to say there were fewer cultures in the Americas than in Eurasia: We really don't know, and never will, because cultures don't necessarily leave evidence of their existance. It is not erroneous to say there were fewer civilzations, and this we do know, because one of the hallmarks of civilizations is that they leave lots of evidence.

Could still be wrong. They've not even begun to scratch the surface, and are finding cities quicker than they can excavate them down in the Amazon basin.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Could still be wrong. They've not even begun to scratch the surface, and are finding cities quicker than they can excavate them down in the Amazon basin.

Well, it's a stretch, but never say never. If I am wrong, and yet undiscovered treasure troves of artistic splendor were uncovered, then I'm sure I would be delighted by the sensual pleasures that beholding them would provide, as I have by the examples I've been exposed to since this discussion began, both posted here and in my own poking around. And also that I would glory in the artistic achievements of my fellow humans, in whatever hemisphere.

 

[Equinoxe]

The reason I cited those distant cultures and civilizations was to point out the potential cumulative effects of indirect influences, such as that of Babylon on the Hebrews, to cite one obvious example - and there will be many that are not obvious or are invisible. When you start working backwards you encounter questions like, why did an obsure group of Semitic pastoralists develop philosophies and texts that have had such a profound effect on the world, and the answer to that encompasses Bablyon, Egypt, and whole lot more. Examine the influence of the Greeks and suddenly you're thinking of Persian influences. Consider the effects of Islamic scholarship on the era, and there are indirect influences suggested by that, historical, intellectual and cultural. I don't think your analysis gives enough weight to such things, which multiply geometrically as cross-cultural interactions expand. An analogy might be, things like that thicken the cultural broth, even if they are not discrete, identifiable items in the stew.

There are indirect influences from Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian culture (the influence of Islamic scholarship on Renaissance art, except as a preservational tool of Greek and Roman works is questionable, but we'll allow it) and these shaped Renaissance art, yes. There are no less influences both direct and indirect from a host of differing ethno-linguistic groups and nation-states in Mesoamerica (chiefly the Olmec, Zapotec, the Tlatilco culture, the Totonacs, Teotihuacan, etc.) which influenced Mayan art, dating back to circa 2000 BCE.

Also, I don't think sufficient weight is given to the accumulation of texts from many different sources over some 2,500 years by the time of the Renaissance, and the magnifying effect that writing gives to these things. All of this is no guarantee that there will be an explosion of creative innovation like what happened in Italy in the cinquecento and succeeding two centuries. But if other elements come together to cause such an explosion (other elements which themselves may largely be a product of the same thing), they provide a rich source of cultural nutrients for it to draw on.

Firstly, at the time of the aforementioned Mayan paintings, there was an accumulation of writing, with traditions going to numerous sources in Mesoamerica: even Mayan writing itself constitutes a multitude of traditions given the lack of a monolithic Mayan state and the divergence of the Mayan family of languages. The Maya did not invent writing in the Americas, though they did take it to greater complexity than those before them—as was the case with numerous other things, including many of the celebrated mathematical and astronomical feats of the Maya (who were in those fields amongst the most creative in the world at their height). Unfortunately, the once extensive library of Mayan writing is greatly reduced. We have something like 10,000 Mayan texts, but only 3 Mayan books; the Spanish burnt the vast majority of the Maya literary canon. Does that constitute the same volume of text as was available to a Baroque painter? Probably not, no. Does that particularly matter? Also no. The Baroque repetoire of art, insomuch as it is derived from literary sources, is largely limited to a single book. That which does not derive from that book, and yet still ties into the literary history of Europe, is limited to mythological scenes and a few major works of literature. Now, Baroque artists did do illustration for works of literature, but so too did Mayan artists.

The result of all these things was that the sheer quantity of images, texts, and other cultural influences that would have influenced Baroque artists directly and indirectly are orders of magnitude greater than what would have influenced the Mesoamerican artists we've been focusing on.

I would still disagree. The number of texts available to a Baroque artist was greater than the number of texts available to a Mayan painter: the relevance of that to the sophistication of the paintings in terms of story and theme is questionable. If you wish to argue that Caravaggio was more well-read than a unnamed Mayan painter, I really don't know what to say to that: it may make Caravaggio more sophisticated, but it doesn't make his paintings. The literary tradition of Europe at that point was not that grand, and while there were undoubtedly more technical treatises available, that has nothing to do with influences on story and theme. The quantity of cultural influences I have already addressed (and I think you overestimate the influences on Renaissance European art and underestimate the influences on Mayan art). So that leaves the quantity of images available to a Baroque artist, in which I am not so certain you are correct either. Baroque artists had essentially no Greek or Roman paintings to view, and absolutely no access to Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, or Ancient Jewish art. They had a minor amount of Greco-Roman statuary [which, in a technical sense, they misunderstood], a good deal of Roman architecture, Christian artwork, and art from the Renaissance tradition which spawned them.

I am not, in fact, arguing about whether a given Mayan painting is as sophisticated as a given Baroque painting, using your definition of sophisticated. What I am arguing is that the stories, themes, and traditions of Baroque art are not more sophisticated or even more varied in origin. The story in The Conversion on the Way to Damascus is plain unsophisticated: there is no subtlety, there is no depth of emotion, there is no real conflict: God appears before Paul and tells him that he is wrong and Paul says, "Yes, Lord. Right on that, Lord." There is no slow horrid realisation about what he has done, no pondering am-I-right?—it's deus ex machina. The painting itself is visceral, the story banal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There are indirect influences from Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian culture (the influence of Islamic scholarship on Renaissance art, except as a preservational tool of Greek and Roman works is questionable, but we'll allow it) and these shaped Renaissance art, yes. There are no less influences both direct and indirect from a host of differing ethno-linguistic groups and nation-states in Mesoamerica (chiefly the Olmec, Zapotec, the Tlatilco culture, the Totonacs, Teotihuacan, etc.) which influenced Mayan art, dating back to circa 2000 BCE . . .

That's very good, Equi, you are clearly a very learned and cosmopolitan individual.

Two points, one a quibble, the other substantive: First, when I mentioned Islamic influence I was actually thinking of math, algebra, zero, etc., and the influence this had on Renaissance art both directly (perpective) and indirectly (contributing to a focus on science, worldly things and humanism.) Plus of course the transmitted learning of the ancients.

Second, the kind of influences we have been discussing are both subtle and pervasive. I have no idea whether Caravaggio was a reader, and it doesn't matter. Here's why: Like all of us, as a member of a complex culture he was the recipient of all the vast array of influences that go to make up that culture, which are orders of magnitude greater within an advanced civilization. I used an analogy of soup or stew, but in this domain we don't just drink it, we swim in it. More than most, artists are highly attuned to all those influences.

This point is subtle and may be unmeasureable, but it's why I don't think I overestimate the influences of other civiliations and eras on Renaissance art, regardless of how much of it someone like Caravaggio actually got to see. In a sense, he was the product of all of it. And notwithstanding your recitation of influences that would have affected a Mayan artist in the same way, they were still far fewer and had less breadth and depth.

I recognize that what I'm proposing here is moving into fuzzy territory and could easily be abused. I hope I'm not doing that. It does seem that the more we learn about psychology, sociology and related fields, the more plausible become propositions like that I've offered, which envisions individuals, society and culture interacting in extremely complex ways, where influences are often very indirect, and very hard if not impossible to fully disentangle. Am I wrong about this?


PS. The episode of the conversion of Paul was simple if taken in isolation as you did, but to anyone who knows the full story and can place that episode in context, it is filled with meaning. That may be a quibble, but in a way your distillation of that episode is analogous to your description of the limited exposure to other influences that a Caravaggio would have experienced - it doesn't give the full context, which is very important for this discussion.

 

[Equinoxe]

That's very good, Equi, you are clearly a very learned and cosmopolitan individual.

Thank you.

... I recognize that what I'm proposing here is moving into fuzzy territory and could easily be abused. I hope I'm not doing that. It just seems that the more we learn about psychology, sociology and related fields, the more plausible become propositions like that I've offered, which envisions individuals, society and culture interacting in extremely complex ways, where influences are very hard if not impossible to fully disentangle. Am I wrong about this?

I am going to shorten it to this much, by what I address should cover it all.

You are not wrong in that individuals show a whole host of influences from the society around them, no. Indeed, no one ever escapes the influences of the society in which they were born, raised, and ultimately live and die. This goes for you and I, for Caravaggio, for Pacal the Great, for Murasaki Shikibu, and for Wenamun (if he actually existed). However, it becomes meaningless to argue about that which cannot be expressed: if we are not talking about quantifiable differences in demonstratable artistic influences, we may well be discussing the artistic traditions of a parallel universe. That everything had to be as it was at that time to produce Caravaggio, or any other artist in the history of humanity, is simply true (possessing of, as my interests list, Zweifellosigkeit)—philosophically interesting, but not especially useful to the Art Historian, casual or otherwise.

Having said all of that, I have enjoyed the conversation. Since I am not, as established, debating the topic, but I nonetheless seem to be addressing something, I am instead, perhaps, illustrating a point: though I shan't say that it is all a lesson.

And so I shall leave you now with a short little story that I, due to the beautiful cross-pollination of cultures which so characterises modernity, know and no 16th-century Italian nor 8th-century Mayan could say the same:

Nasrudin walked into a shop one day, and the owner came forward to serve him. Nasrudin said, "First things first. Did you see me walk into your shop?"

"Of course."

"Have you ever seen me before?"

"Never."

"Then how do you know it was me?"

 

[cumallday]

I think the answer is all them, Cum, but reason first, given the definition of "sophisticated," which is really rather simple (on the surface): to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous.

If you think about that for a minute you get a sense of how potentially multilayered it can be. Also, it's interesting to note the affect of that "less natural." "Natural" is such a marketing buzzword, it takes a second to realize that "not natural" is not a bad thing, in many contexts. For example, a shampoo/conditioner that has "natural" written all over the bottle is actually a very sophisticated chemical soup designed to make hair look anything but natural.

That raises an issue that should be noted, which is that while I have been careful to say that "sophisticated" is not a normative term in the context of art, it is normative in many other contexts. Shampoo is a trivial example. Agriculture is not - I want my food supply to come from a sophisticated system that provides plenty of it very reliably, rather than a more "natural" one that provides scant amounts with frequent interruptions (Gauche's "digging stick," for example.)

So reason comes first and sophistication is not a normative term in the context of art?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This point is subtle and may be unmeasureable, but it's why I don't think I overestimate the influences of other civiliations and eras on Renaissance art, regardless of how much of it someone like Caravaggio actually got to see. In a sense, he was the product of all of it. And notwithstanding your recitation of influences that would have affected a Mayan artist in the same way, they were still far fewer and had less breadth and depth.

I'm moving into fuzzy territory, but the more we learn about psychology, sociology and related fields, the more plausible become propositions like that I've offered, which envisions individuals, society and culture interacting in extremely complex ways, where influences are often very indirect, and very hard if not impossible to fully disentangle.

One important addendum to what I wrote here: In their training, what artists are taught incorporates explicitly or implicitly much of what has been learned in the past, in that knowledge is cumulative. Further, when any of us, including a Baroque artist, sees a work or art, we are also looking on something that reflects the accumulation of what has been developed over preceding generations, and in other places within our civilization or tht that have touched it. Looking on many works multiplies this effect. So it's not necessary for me to move quite so far into "fuzzy territory" to carry the point.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So reason comes first and sophistication is not a normative term in the context of art?

Sophistication is not a normative term in the context of art, and it is a term with a specific definition. You look at a thing and apply the definition, using reason to answer questions that determine whether the thing meets the definition. In some cases, such as modern art, you need to know a lot about what is not on the canvas to be able to do so, but that's a side issue.

 

[cloudy]

So reason comes first and sophistication is not a normative term in the context of art?

Roxanne will never, ever admit she's wrong unless she adds a caveat at the end that says she's not really wrong, everyone just misunderstood her.

I have yet to see it happen otherwise.

I'm out of this discussion on that note.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I missed the part where I've been shown to be wrong. Equi and I have an unresolved disagreement on a specific point would not necessarily prove me to be "wrong" on the main point even if it were resolved in his favor.

To restate the issue, the visual art of the Renaissance and subsequent eras was more sophisticated than that of pre-Columbian civilizations. It acheived more in terms of what it was able to convey, and in terms of technical skill. One might speculate that pre-Columbians knew all that stuff and self-consciously chose not to use it in the way of modern artists, but that would not be credible. One might speculate that as individuals they were not a "good" as Western artists, but that would be insulting and untrue.

I have argued that the cause is found in the fact that their civilizations were relatively newer and had less opportunity to absorb enriching influences from other civilizations, simply because there were fewer of these in the Western hemisphere. The basis of that argument is factual; whether that factor is the primary or even an important explanation for why Aztec art was less sophisticated than Baroque art is speculation. That it was less sophisticated is fact.

It is also fact that the art of pre-Christian Ireland was less sophisticated than that of its Greek, Roman or Olmec contemporaries. Similar comparisons can be made about any given body of work. Sophistication in the context of art is not a value-term. It is a characteristic with a specific definition. "Complex" is a part of that definition, but is not all of it. Whether one is inspired more by art with a greater or a lesser degree of sophistication is purely a matter of taste and preference.

 

[Pure]

Reminder:

In all the detail, i think we lose sight of what's behind the "sophisticated" debate:

Here are the postings beginning with

"I am a western chauvinist mutton" to

[caravaggio's painting] "is more sophisticated [than a Mayan bas relief] in many dimensions, however. That is a fact."

[Roxanne's original statements remarks and claims, up to 'Caravaggio.'


4-02a
I too am a western chauvinist mutton. (Mutton?) I like what Gauche likes. Pre-Columbian is bor-ing. Japanese and Chinese are wonderful, but remember I am a mutton, so Italian Renaissance, baroque, Dutch, French neo-classical and romantic, Impressionism, etc. are my bag. I sing odes to Greek urns, and marvel at the glory that was Rome, architecture-wise. I would also defend Northern Italian cuisine against all barbarian invaders.

So sue me.
=====


Originally Posted by cloudy
Boring?

=====


4-02b
OH, me and my big mouth.

Alright, alright, much of the tragically tiny remnant that remains is wonderful. As are many forms of primitive art. But my personal preferences definitely run to the works of western civ, and to me the art of any well established civilization is much richer and more interesting than that of any pre- or proto-civilizational culture. The Aztecs, Mayas and Incas were definitely in that last category. If they'd had a couple thousand years to develop they would surely have rivaled any of the other major world civilizations in the richness of their arts. As it was, they only had achieved the level of the early Tigris and Euphrates agricultural communities before they were tragically snuffed out. Or that of my own ancestors in pre-Christian Ireland. And my reaction to the remaining Celtic art artifacts is the same as it is to pre-Columbian.


=======
4-02c
There is nothing confrontational or disputatious in pointing out that an early-level civilization that had less than 1500 years to develop was less sophisticated that ones that had 5000+ years to develop.

If one wanted to make a more sophisticated argument about pre-Columbian civilizatons one could point out that given their relative isolation, their insulation from cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel) compared to early Eurasian civilizations, it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished, and in that sense, they were far more advanced than those on the other landmass at a comparable period of development.

It's silly to have any affective response (like/dislike) to the simple statement that much older civilizations are more sophisticated than much younger ones. To take this as some kind ethnic slur is absurd.

====

4-03
Alright Pure, Mr. Smartypants, go ahead and assert that the bas reliefs of the Olmecs are equivalent in sophistication to Baroque painting or Michelangelo's sculpture.

Saying that a thing is less sophisticated does not mean that it is intrinsically less praiseworthy. The absence of steel chisels may make the accomplishment even more admirable. There is nothing intrinsically superior about representational art than stylized. Those are normative statements and value judgement.

Asserting that Baroque painting is more sophisticated is a simple matter of fact.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f.../caravaggio.jpg


A sophisticated Baroque painting. Is it "better" than a Mayan bas relief? That is a matter of taste and preference. It is more sophisticated in many dimensions, however. That is a fact. {end excerpts}

=====

If we analyze what being said, it's two things, and a linkage: "I like sophisticated Western stuff" "Certain Western stuff is more sophisticated." That is why I like it.

This simple point is that the "liking" or preference, as pure subjective, would never be in dispute. The argument arises in her attempt to objectively ground her liking.

To give a simple example: Suppose I prefer Bach to James Brown. Pressed, I say, "Bach is more complex; despite all the emoting, Brown music is simple."
Pressed further I tell a story of the influences that may have led to Bach's complexity; i tell of the origin of fugues, of the development of claviers, and so one, not to say 'equal temperament' and harmonic ratios dating back to the Greeks.

What of poor James. At first blush, a melody appears simple; the words of the "passions" are more complex than "I gotta have you, baby." Indeed they derive from the King James Bible.

But a closer look makes the picture much less clear; James' Blues have a history;
African American music has a history dating back to slave 'calls' and work songs.
These in turn, are said by those who know, to reflect West African melodies and forms. West African forms too, have a history.

Further it's not entirely obvious that James vocalizations are 'less sophisticated/complex' than those of Emma Kirkby, in a solo part of a Bach Oratorio, despite Ms. Kirby's admirable classical training. Might there be *great complexity* in Mr. James B's yells, moans, and screams?

--
In a word, what looks so simple, the assertion of 'more sophistication/complexity' as a ground for merit [in someone's eyes], crumbles in terms of an objective basis.
These are the assertions common in "101" classes in english music, art, and so on, up to the 1960s. The Canon was established; only the ignorant might disagree: we don't read "slave diaries" in the same course as Hawthorne.

In the example from music, above, it comes down to "I prefer the influences of Monteverdian opera, to those of Western African musical forms."

In a word, back to square one: "I am western chauvinist mutton."

 

[Pure]

Reminder:

[...]
dupe

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Gosh, Pure, you really put a lot of work into that last post. Really a lot, considering that you didn't say a damned thing there, and it's only purpose was to attack and tear down.

Meanwhile, some of us have had an interesting and educational discussion. It got kind of emotional at times, people including yours truly said some thoughtless things and some feelings may have been a little bit hurt, but we worked it all out, and as always, while no one ever gets to claim victory, hopefully everyone learns something, deepens their understanding, and has a good time.

 

[Pure]

i wasn't addressing you, Roxanne. rather, those with an interest in and aptitude for philosophy of literature, art, music.

i've had good time.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i wasn't addressing you, Roxanne. rather, those with an interest in and aptitude for philosophy of literature, art, music.

i've had good time.

Ah, of course. Obviously I have none of those things. Must be because I'm a right-wing conservative neocon Rothbardian militarist Randroid libertarian Fallwellite fundamentalist Objecivist mutton.

 

[Pure]

i see you've started your autobiography!

 

[Equinoxe]

Since the thread is still active and about art, after the fashion, I feel like posting two pictures. They are not of Native American art, but rather Roman, and I am posting them in order to illustrate something I find neat about Greek and Roman art and our perceptions of it.

So, here is the first, attached below. It is the head of a statue of the Roman Emperor Caligula. It displays a high degree of realism and is a wonderfully developed example of Roman statuary. Now, knowing what we know about Caligula, the depth of meaning which we impart on the statue is undoubtedly much greater than if we did not know who he was, but that is another conversation.

The statue is stark and austere marble, with occasional bits chipped off, but there is something more to it that shows a bit, especially in the eyes. Anyway, I shall quiet down and post it and return in a bit to post the second.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Since the thread is still active and about art, after the fashion, I feel like posting two pictures. They are not of Native American art, but rather Roman, and I am posting them in order to illustrate something I find neat about Greek and Roman art and our perceptions of it.

So, here is the first, attached below. It is the head of a statue of the Roman Emperor Caligula. It displays a high degree of realism and is a wonderfully developed example of Roman statuary. Now, knowing what we know about Caligula, the depth of meaning which we impart on the statue is undoubtedly much greater than if we did not know who he was, but that is another conversation.

The statue is stark and austere marble, with occasional bits chipped off, but there is something more to it that shows a bit, especially in the eyes. Anyway, I shall quiet down and post it and return in a bit to post the second.

Very nice, and now I'm out for a few ours. (Doing research on my autobiography. )

 

[Equinoxe]

Very nice, and now I'm out for a few ours. (Doing research on my autobiography. )

Yes, but I am not done yet. So, when you return from autobiographical research (I suspect it's not going to be anything worth including, to be honest, but a lot can happen in a few hours), you may take a look at picture number two.

Here, then, is, likely as close as any of us will ever come to seeing, that same work of Roman sculpture more as it would have looked in Ancient Rome:

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yes, but I am not done yet. So, when you return from autobiographical research (I suspect it's not going to be anything worth including, to be honest, but a lot can happen in a few hours), you may take a look at picture number two.

Here, then, is, likely as close as any of us will ever come to seeing, that same work of Roman sculpture more as it would have looked in Ancient Rome:

Ah, very clever! Yes, it looks as tacky and "unsophisticated" as can be when displayed in the painted form that the Romans and Greeks preferred, while due to our aculturation it appears elegant and "civilized" in the white.

OK, enough dancing around the issue, Mr. E, time to get off the fence, put your cards on the table, shi - um, you get the picture - time to state your position. You and I got off into what is really a side discusson about the sources of artistic development. This morning I capsulized the core discusson or debate or whatever it has been, and I repeat the following three paragraphs from that below. Do you agree or disagree with the next sentence (and paragraphs)?

To restate the issue, the visual art of the Renaissance and subsequent eras was more sophisticated than that of pre-Columbian civilizations. It acheived more in terms of what it was able to convey, and in terms of technical skill. One might speculate that pre-Columbians knew all that stuff and self-consciously chose not to use it in the way of modern artists, but that would not be credible. One might speculate that as individuals they were not a "good" as Western artists, but that would be insulting and untrue.

I have argued that the cause is found in the fact that their civilizations were relatively newer and had less opportunity to absorb enriching influences from other civilizations, simply because there were fewer of these in the Western hemisphere. The basis of that argument is factual; whether that factor is the primary or even an important explanation for why Aztec art was less sophisticated than Baroque art is speculation. That it was less sophisticated is fact.

It is also fact that the art of pre-Christian Ireland was less sophisticated than that of its Greek, Roman or Olmec contemporaries. Similar comparisons can be made about any given body of work. Sophistication in the context of art is not a value-term. It is a characteristic with a specific definition. "Complex" is a part of that definition, but is not all of it. Whether one is inspired more by art with a greater or a lesser degree of sophistication is purely a matter of taste and preference.

 

[Equinoxe]

...

One row down, two columns to the left, thank you.


I have no particular interest in that debate; if I had, I would have already given an answer to your question.

 

[Pure]

one last set of comments before letting the thread die.

i keep wondering what the issue is. it seems to be connected with the ideas of "advancement" and "higher levels of development".

in some cases, these concepts seem to apply: Einstein's physics is and advance over Galileo's.

OTOH is Caravaggio's work an advance over the following paintings of typical Medieval artists?

http://www.kirchen.net/upload/17510_Heimsuchung_Kremsmuenster_Web_L.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/gonyc/1/0/2/F/met_06.JPG

Taking the issue of perspective: R essentially says that it constitutes an advance.

The problem comes in the 20th century when Matisse, Kandinsky, eliminate or minimize perspective, and go for "flat." (Matisse's cut outs being an extreme case.)

http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Matiss5.jpg

To be consistent, one finds that the "advancement" folks, who come in all stripes, some liberals, some conservatives, including Objectivists and their cousins, are forced to say, "The 20th century shows an END to the advance, in the case of many artists' works."

The issue of complexity is even trickier. FTSOA, let's say Matisse's cut outs are a regression ("my child could do that").

What about Mr. Kandinsky, a favorite of mine? On the surface *very complex* arguably more so than Caravaggio. (He also planned his abstracts, they are not done Pollock style.)

http://web.sbu.edu/theology/bychkov/kandinsky_comp7_13.jpg

Does this painting represent 'advance' {=greater sophistication}

How, also, do we explain that he started out more like the following? IOW, he moved from representation to complex chaos (so it would seem); was he regressing?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Blue_Rider.jpg/260px-Kandinsky-Blue_Rider.jpg


The issue of advancement for the human sciences, the arts, music, etc. are very complex. Especially in the last 50 years, the basic answer of "yes" has been put to question. In literature, a slave narrative might be found alongside Shakespeare. A Dylan lyric alongside Byron.

IF one believes in advancement, then one will likely have a CANON, a list of recognized classics, pre eminent works in (say) literature.

Without prolonging this post-- which some readers will find sterile and/or [simulataneously] insulting-- one of the biggest "cracks" in the canon came in the 60s, when women said "Why are almost all of the classic novels by men?"

The reaction was surprise and outrage. Then lo and behold, for American novels, researchers found some neglected works, e.g. Hurston's "Their Eyes were watching God." A black woman no less.

The issue of advancement in morals is a particularly dicey one. While many Westerners are 'advanced' enough to give women equal rights [that being assumed an advance], they are not 'advanced' enough to deal with widespread violence against women and children, rape of the environment, and even massive scale slaughters of the innocent.