Your U.N. at Work

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne. Will you ever understand the meaning of "brevity"? The correct answer for you was "Sorry Equinoxe is right and Cloudy gave me the kick in the backside I deserved"

Try it on for size.

Cloudy was right to give me a kick for speaking less than respectfully of a different tradition, and Equinoxe was right to point out the acheivements of that tradition. The interesting debate began after that, when the issue turned to the relative sophistication of an artistic tradition in a much older civilization compared to a fairly young one.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am no art scholar (which is probably a good thing), so I'll just respond with my gut feeling.

While pure's delivery is ill done, his point is valid. This discussion should have had lots of "in my opinions" and "insufficient datas" instead of being a blanket value judgment while comparing a highly studied piece of art to one whose history has been mostly lost. We know little about much of the early art, so we work on assumptions (which never fly in a comparative discussion).

Personally, I love the early art because it seems to often be a spiritual celebration of life that I rarely experience from the more cerebral works--I submit that those early artists from cultures like those in N. and S. America could have developed "better" tools or techniques, if they had wanted to. Assuming them incapable is probably what got cloudy pissed (though, I am not saying that was your assumption, only your implication, Rox).

The pursuit of art is a magnificent human endeavor, and comparing completely different routes together, to label one as "more sophisticated" than another is unfair. To say: "I like this one better and here is my personal reasons" is far more fair to those who do not share your opinions. IMO.


PS--pure, it's obvious that Rox won't respond to your other links (and the challenge for comparative analysis), because she is (usually) too smart/cautious to be badgered. -I- get your point; I daresay that most who take the time to read it get the point--you really ought to leave it at that.


PS#2--as for the UN...oofa! (ie, not even worth discussing)

Kev, you make the same mistake that several have here, which is to ascribe a normative, value-judgement meaning to the word "sophistication," when in the context of art it is not a normative term, for reasons you have described very well, which is that what moves a person is subjective. It is a noun with a definition, which I have posted. It is present to a greater or lesser degree in different artistic works and traditions, and that is not a matter of "in my opinion," until you get into fine gradations, and we are not even close to that. The reason I did not respond to Pure's challenges on the other artworks is because I had already done so, twice, to the same challenge posed by 3113 with Pollock. Pure apparently did not read those posts, or didn't really think about what I said there, because the analysis I offered applies to any serious work of modern art, including the ones he cited. (Instead he tried to equate me with a stereotypical rube who unthinkingly criticizes what he does not understand. Which is a complete reversal of everything I wrote in those posts.) I recommend to you my first response to 3113, which has the excerpts from an interesting article.

 

[gauchecritic]

I've been searching my mind (rather than googling) to support my own contention (which happens to parallel Roxelby's) that representational art is less sophisticated by a kindergarten child than by a 6th former (9th grade? 11th? I have no idea) and that modern (say in the last 500 years because I did happen to google and it's far too complex for me to present anything 'worthier' than my own simple taste) modern art is more 'sophisticated' than previously.

Even as late as the 18 century, consider Stubbs and his paintings of horses at gallop
http://join2day.com/abc/S/stubbs/stubbs30.JPG

I submit that the action of this horse as it appears is not a sophisticated representation. It's a still horse in mid-air. I realise that we are spoiled these days by photography, but we are talking about comparison here, the only real way to judge sophistication.

As with children's images (as Pure mentioned before I think) a child is limited by their age, their musculature and their extremely narrow view of the world. Stubbs (and most others as far as I can tell reaching back at least to the Bayeaux Tapestry and even Egyptian reliefs) represent horses as flying flat out through the air. But look at the painting. No one has seen a horse in that position yet they insisted on representing it as literal, in an effort to indicate movement.

That is not sophisticated, that is more akin to a child's view. Compare the above even to this by Dianne Russel:
http://www.horsepaintingsdrawings.com/images/Airtime-Matted.gif

And tell me that they are equally sophisticated in their presentation.

 

[Kev H]

Kev, you make the same mistake that several have here, which is to ascribe a normative, value-judgement meaning to the word "sophistication," when in the context of art it is not a normative term, for reasons you have described very well, which is that what moves a person is subjective. It is a noun with a definition, which I have posted. It is present to a greater or lesser degree in different artistic works and traditions, and that is not a matter of "in my opinion," until you get into fine gradations, and we are not even close to that. The reason I did not respond to Pure's challenges on the other artworks is because I had already done so, twice, to the same challenge posed by 3113 with Pollock. Pure apparently did not read those posts, or didn't really think about what I said there, because the analysis I offered applies to any serious work of modern art, including the ones he cited. (Instead he tried to equate me with a stereotypical rube who unthinkingly criticizes what he does not understand. Which is a complete reversal of everything I wrote in those posts.) I recommend to you my first response to 3113, which has the excerpts from an interesting article.

I did read those bits of the article, and probably understood about half of the implications (especially when the ellipses had me scratching my head trying to figure out what was omitted). And, I also understand that you are not trying to be judgmental in any way. But I am missing how that is possible--this isn't some scientific study, so how can it not be a value judgement? Answer that in very clear terms, and I think we will get at the heart of this (mis)understanding.

 

[Kev H]

...by Dianne Russel:
http://www.horsepaintingsdrawings.com/images/Airtime-Matted.gif

And tell me that they are equally sophisticated in their presentation.

Good god! Tell me this horse isn't really a Borg! What are those machine-looking parts on its front legs?

PS--I could not access your first link.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I did read those bits of the article, and probably understood about half of the implications (especially when the ellipses had me scratching my head trying to figure out what was omitted). And, I also understand that you are not trying to be judgmental in any way. But I am missing how that is possible--this isn't some scientific study, so how can it not be a value judgement? Answer that in very clear terms, and I think we will get at the heart of this (mis)understanding.

What is "better" in art? What is the purpose of art? Well, it has a zillion of them, I'm sure, and I'm not going to try to define it, if that's even possible. But it seems clear that when it comes to art, "better" is purely subjective, and that makes it easy: "Better" is what an individual likes more. You can define "likes" in a zillion ways too, but I'll offer one that's relevent to art: It's what moves you, what stirs your soul, what inspires you. I am moved by the cave paintings at Lascaux, and by the paintings of the Renaissance. The latter are much more sophisticated, for all the reasons I've described. But they are not "better" in any objective sense.

One minor addendum: Within a particular genre, technical skill may be a valid measurement of "better," if technical skill is important to acheiving the internal logic of that genre. But even this moves onto a slippery slope: The French Academists who froze out the Impressionists from their club and derided their works as "sketches" look pretty silly today. But even there, it was their club (genre), and they had the right to define the entry criteria. The ugliness came from the fact that they had political power, and used it to in effect "blackball" the Impressionists, but that is a different issue.



PS. The ellipses in that article are mostly paragraphs in which he laid out in detail the essential points that I pasted. I was trying to keep the post concise. The link was posted too if anyone's sufficiently interested.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Good god! Tell me this horse isn't really a Borg! What are those machine-looking parts on its front legs?

PS--I could not access your first link.

Me niether, but here's the link: http://join2day.com/abc/S/stubbs/stubbs30.JPG

 

[Equinoxe]

(Instead he tried to equate me with a stereotypical rube who unthinkingly criticizes what he does not understand. Which is a complete reversal of everything I wrote in those posts.)

I am not entering the debate, I am— hmm, merely acting as an interpreter. Yes, an interpreter.

In your analysis of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio's The Conversion on the Way to Damascus [ED - Incidentally, a personal favourite and a wonderful representation of what is, historical significance aside, actually a rather banal story.], you did a fine job of illustrating what is sophisticated about the painting: Caravaggio is indeed a most sophisticated painter.

However, that was not entirely the issue at hand. The issue was not the objective sophistication of Caravaggio, but rather the relative sophistication of Caravaggio as compared with a Mayan bas relief—any Mayan bas relief. Comparing a painting to a a work of sculpture, though, seems to me somewhat less than ideal and so I have instead chosen a Mayan painting with which to compare it: it is a fresco and not a work on canvas, but it shall have to suffice. Without further adieu, here is that Mayan painting.

It is certainly, at the very least, a rather busy scene. Since the Caravaggio painting, amongst other reasons, shows greater sophistication because:
- It tells a complex story that is itself a sophisticated expression of the human experience.

- It is the product of complex interactions of many cultures over many centuries, the effects and influence of which are magnified by writing.

- It combines all the above in a work that conveys complex and nuanced psychological meanings and interpretations.

- It is just one work from a very large and rich outpouring that developed many mediums, styles and techniques over hundreds of years, many of which built on both artifacts and written sources from previous high points of creative expression and development.

Then the Mayan painting must be suitably less sophisticated (completely accepting that there is no ill intent thereto) on account of the story it tells, the psychological themes and interpretations contained, and the history and culture of the Mayan civilisation which produced it as well as the cultures which influenced the Maya and with whom they interacted.

So, tell us about the story in the fresco and its themes, and tell us about the Mayan artistic tradition and how the Maya interacted with their predecessors and neighbours such as the Olmec and the people of Teotihuacan.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am not entering the debate, I am— hmm, merely acting as an interpreter. Yes, an interpreter.

In your analysis of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio's The Conversion on the Way to Damascus [ED - Incidentally, a personal favourite and a wonderful representation of what is, historical significance aside, actually a rather banal story.], you did a fine job of illustrating what is sophisticated about the painting: Caravaggio is indeed a most sophisticated painter.

However, that was not entirely the issue at hand. The issue was not the objective sophistication of Caravaggio, but rather the relative sophistication of Caravaggio as compared with a Mayan bas relief—any Mayan bas relief. Comparing a painting to a a work of sculpture, though, seems to me somewhat less than ideal and so I have instead chosen a Mayan painting with which to compare it: it is a fresco and not a work on canvas, but it shall have to suffice. Without further adieu, here is that Mayan painting.

It is certainly, at the very least, a rather busy scene. Since the Caravaggio painting, amongst other reasons, shows greater sophistication because:
- It tells a complex story that is itself a sophisticated expression of the human experience.

- It is the product of complex interactions of many cultures over many centuries, the effects and influence of which are magnified by writing.

- It combines all the above in a work that conveys complex and nuanced psychological meanings and interpretations.

- It is just one work from a very large and rich outpouring that developed many mediums, styles and techniques over hundreds of years, many of which built on both artifacts and written sources from previous high points of creative expression and development.

Then the Mayan painting must be suitably less sophisticated (completely accepting that there is no ill intent thereto) on account of the story it tells, the psychological themes and interpretations contained, and the history and culture of the Mayan civilisation which produced it as well as the cultures which influenced the Maya and with whom they interacted.

So, tell us about the story in the fresco and its themes, and tell us about the Mayan artistic tradition and how the Maya interacted with their predecessors and neighbours such as the Olmec and the people of Teotihuacan.

Gosh, Equi, it's a marvelous picture, but I can only guess as to the answer to your question, so if it's a trick one you got me. Obviously there's a lot of symbolism involved, the fantastic heads or masks or whatever they are, and I don't know what those represent, so can't interepret the content much at all. On the surface it appears to be a ceremonial exchange between different peoples, whether trade or tribute I can't say, involving maize and perhaps other goods, in a celebratory setting. It certainly is sophisticated using the definition I've posted, and certainly far exceeds the visual artistic expressions of groups that are not part of a civilzation.

My analysis of the Caravaggio (and the Pollock) refers to many elements that are not present here. Also, I was careful in how I described the beneath-the-surface elements, such as the the work being the product of hundreds and thousands of years of interactions between cultures and different sources, to avoid suggesting that such interactions were not present in a younger civilization, and one without an extensive written tradition. The breadth, depth and duration of such interactions varies a great deal - by orders of magnitude, in fact - and extensive written records magnify those differences. This is very significant for this discussion.

 

[Equinoxe]

Gosh, Equi, it's a marvelous picture, but I can only guess as to the answer to your question, so if it's a trick one you got me. Obviously there's a lot of symbolism involved, the fantastic heads or masks or whatever they are, and I don't know what those represent, so can't interepret the content much at all. On the surface it appears to be a ceremonial exchange between different peoples, whether trade or tribute I can't say, involving maize and perhaps other goods, in a celebratory setting. It certainly is sophisticated using the definition I've posted, and certainly far exceeds the visual artistic expressions of groups that are not part of a civilzation.

My analysis of the Caravaggio (and the Pollock) refers to many elements that are not present here. Also, I was careful in how I described the beneath-the-surface elements, such as the the work being the product of hundreds and thousands of years of interactions between cultures and different sources, to avoid suggesting that such interactions were not present in a younger civilization, and one without an extensive written tradition. The breadth, depth and duration of such interactions varies a great deal - by orders of magnitude, in fact - and extensive written records magnify those differences. This is very significant for this discussion.

[Clarifying, not debating]

I am not especially well versed in Mesoamerican art or history, but for the record, it is a fresco from the Temple of Murals at Bonampak which was painted c. 800. At that point, Mayan culture was 2600 years old, but what we would characterise as "Classical" Mayan civilisation had only begun perhaps 600 years earlier, although recent discoveries of cities which we didn't even know existed suggests it may be as much as 1000 years earlier. By comparison, Italic culture at the time of Caravaggio's death was about 2600 years old and the artistic and intellectual tradition of the Renaissance was perhaps 300 years old.

Italian civilisation, at the time of Caravaggio, had been influenced by Etruscans, Italic peoples, Greeks, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, and (as they were called) Saracens, and the Italians in turn influenced them. Mayan civilisation, at the time the Bonampak Temple of Murals was created, had been influenced by the Olmecs, Zapotecs, Totonacs, and Mixtecs, and the Mayans in turn influenced them.

The Maya, at the time of the temple's construction, had been literate for some 1000 years, and literacy had existed in Mesoamerica for 1400. The Italians, at the time of Caravaggio's death, had been literate off and on for about 2100 years and literacy in Europe had a sketchy if somewhat contiguous tradition of literacy for about 2400¹.

In Caravaggio's day, European civilisation, inasmuch as one can lump European civilisation together, had existed in fits and starts for 4200 years and with relative consistency along differing ethno-linguistic lines for about 2400 years¹. In the days of the height of Bonampak, Mesoamerican civilisation, inasmuch as one can lump Mesoamerican civlisation together, had existed with relative consistency along differing ethno-linguistic lines for 2600 years.

[I admit it, it is a trick question. I don't know exactly what is going on in the painting either. Some variety of ceremony, invoking a number deities and involving a whole host of cultural assumptions of the Mayan people, it would seem.]

______________________________________
¹ There had been literate European civilisation prior to 800 BCE, but the Minoan and Mycenaen civilisations had been overtaken around 1100 BCE and the intervening period is often known as the Greek Dark Ages. The relative sophistication of Greece (and Greece is the site of the first civilisation in Europe) after the end of the Mycenaean period and prior to the Archaic period was in significant decline (for that matter, the relative sophistication of Mycenaean Greek civilisation was less than that of Minoan civilisation). In any case, while we can't speak about Minoan literacy, since their script remains undeciphered, Mycenaean literacy involves no literary tradition and seems to consist mostly of inventory records.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

[Clarifying, not debating]

I am not especially well versed in Mesoamerican art or history, but for the record, it is a fresco from the Temple of Murals at Bonampak which was painted c. 800. At that point, Mayan culture was 2600 years old, but what we would characterise as "Classical" Mayan civilisation had only begun perhaps 600 years earlier, although recent discoveries of cities which we didn't even know existed suggests it may be as much as 1000 years earlier. By comparison, Italic culture at the time of Caravaggio's death was about 2600 years old and the artistic and intellectual tradition of the Renaissance was perhaps 300 years old.

Italian civilisation, at the time of Caravaggio, had been influenced by Etruscans, Italic peoples, Greeks, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, and (as they were called) Saracens, and the Italians in turn influenced them. Mayan civilisation, at the time the Bonampak Temple of Murals was created, had been influenced by the Olmecs, Zapotecs, Totonacs, and Mixtecs, and the Mayans in turn influenced them.

The Maya, at the time of the temple's construction, had been literate for some 1000 years, and literacy had existed in Mesoamerica for 1400. The Italians, at the time of Caravaggio's death, had been literate off and on for about 2100 years and literacy in Europe had a sketchy if somewhat contiguous tradition of literacy for about 2400¹.

In Caravaggio's day, European civilisation, inasmuch as one can lump European civilisation together, had existed in fits and starts for 4200 years and with relative consistency along differing ethno-linguistic lines for about 2400 years¹. In the days of the height of Bonampak, Mesoamerican civilisation, inasmuch as one can lump Mesoamerican civlisation together, had existed with relative consistency along differing ethno-linguistic lines for 2600 years . . .

[Debating, because I just can't stop myself from doing so. And hopefully clarifying along the way.] The sources that Caravaggio had to draw upon are actually broader and deeper than even those you mention. For example, you left out the Hebrews, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and all the civilizations that influenced those, including Egyptian, the ancient civilizations of the middle east, and indirectly through intermediaries, even those of India and the far east. Most of these had their own extensive bodies of fine arts, written literature, philosophy, theology, etc. Indeed, just being in Eurasia was a huge advantage in terms being subject to the enriching cross-cultural interactions that are important wellprings of artistic development, and other kinds of development too. There was just a lot more of everything, in every sense of the word, beginning with people and generations.

As I said here yesterday, an argument could be made that given their relative isolation, their insulation from as vast an array of cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel), it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished. It would be patronizing for me to try to make that case, because I don't know very much about the subject, but that seems a more constructive tack than some of what's gone on here. Because at the end of the day, pre-Columbian cannot be said to have the same degree of sophistication as Europe from the Renaissance on. And that is what this discussion is about.

Sophisticated: to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous. It does not mean "better" when applied to art.

 

[Pure]

nope

As I said here yesterday, an argument could be made that given their relative isolation, their insulation from as vast an array of cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel), it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished. At the end of the day, though, their art cannot be said to have the same degree of sophistication as Europe from the Renaissance on. And that is what this discussion is about.

None of the criteria really account for sophistication. The issue of time is also fudged by Ms. Rox: it's a *younger,* more insular civilization that made the "sophisticated" H bomb.

Sophisticated: to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous.

A poor definition, indeed, especially since it applies to a verb, not the adjective in question. The best one word defintion of 'sophisticated' that applies in this discussion, is 'complex.'

In the above and all her postings, Roxanne argues from her ignorance, having no idea or evidence regarding the complexity of influences on the Olmecs, Mayas or others.

She still can't figure if a Matisse is more or less sophisticated than a Caravaggio!

 

[Equinoxe]

[Debating, because I just can't stop myself from doing so. And hopefully clarifying along the way.] The sources that Caravaggio had to draw upon are actually broader and deeper than even those you mention. For example, you left out the Hebrews, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and all the civilizations that influenced those, including Egyptian, the ancient civilizations of the middle east, and indirectly through intermediaries, even those of India and the far east. Most of these had their own extensive bodies of fine arts, written literature, philosophy, theology, etc. Indeed, just being in Eurasia was a huge advantage in terms being subject to the enriching cross-cultural interactions that are important wellprings of artistic development, and other kinds of development too. There was just a lot more of everything, in every sense of the word.

As I said here yesterday, an argument could be made that given their relative isolation, their insulation from as vast an array of cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel), it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished. At the end of the day, though, their art cannot be said to have the same degree of sophistication as Europe from the Renaissance on. And that is what this discussion is about.

Sophisticated: to make less natural, simple, or ingenuous.

And what I am not arguing, because I am clearly not having an argument, is that Native American cultures were not isolated and are in fact cosmopolitan collections of diverse groups with varied ethnic and linguistic backgrounds which have influenced each other over the span of millennia. If we look, for example, at the major historical peoples of Mesoamerica, we find that they speak languages in the Mixe-Zoquean, Oto-Manguean, Mayan, Uto-Aztecan, and Totonacan languages, all of which are from distinct families but show areal influence in a Mesoamerican sprachbund. We find that they share cultural elements, religious concepts and practices, deities, artistic traditions, architectural traditions, even sports (the ubiquitous ballgame of Mesoamerica developed some 3600 years ago by the Olmec). The native peoples of the Americas hardly have any more of a monolithic cultural history than the peoples of Eurasia.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And what I am not arguing, because I am clearly not having an argument, is that Native American cultures were not isolated and are in fact cosmopolitan collections of diverse groups with varied ethnic and linguistic backgrounds which have influenced each other over the span of millennia. If we look, for example, at the major historical peoples of Mesoamerica, we find that they speak languages in the Mixe-Zoquean, Oto-Manguean, Mayan, Uto-Aztecan, and Totonacan languages, all of which are from distinct families but show areal influence in a Mesoamerican sprachbund. We find that they share cultural elements, religious concepts and practices, deities, artistic traditions, architectural traditions, even sports (the ubiquitous ballgame of Mesoamerica developed some 3600 years ago by the Olmec). The native peoples of the Americas hardly have any more of a monolithic cultural history than the peoples of Eurasia.

To be sure. Nevertheless, the sheer breadth, depth, sustained duration and pure quantity of sources in Eurasia is orders of magnitude greater, and that is very significant for this discussion.

 

[Equinoxe]

To be sure. Nevertheless, the sheer breadth, depth, sustained duration and pure quantity of sources in Eurasia is orders of magnitude greater, and that is very significant for this discussion.

Except that you wouldn't know that by virtue of the fact that you don't know on what order of magnitude the sources in the Americas are, and that, too, is very significant for this discussion—of which I am not a part.

That, by the way, is not to imply that you are an "unthinking rube" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Except that you wouldn't know that by virtue of the fact that you don't know on what order of magnitude the sources in the Americas are, and that, too, is very significant for this discussion—of which I am not a part.

That, by the way, is not to imply that you are an "unthinking rube" by any stretch of the imagination.

Hmmm - that is not quite the same as saying that I am incorrect in this. It wouldn't be with you, because you are not part of this discussion , but I would be willing to bet real money that I correct in this. Although precise quantities are not possible (and irrelevent anyway), on this point what the the "big picture" was in each hemisphere is not obscure or ambiguous.

 

[Equinoxe]

Hmmm - that is not quite the same as saying that I am incorrect in this. It wouldn't be with you, because you are not part of this discussion , but I would be willing to bet real money that I correct in this. Although precise quantities are not possible (and irrelevent anyway), on this point what the the "big picture" was in each hemisphere is not obscure or ambiguous.

As the discussion is art, I shall sum it up thusly: if by the big picture you mean canvases, oil paints, and sable tipped brushes with steel ferrules: it is not ambiguous. If by big picture, however, we mean the themes and stories told, the related storytelling traditions, the spiritual elements, and the cultural implications and interactions: it is incredibly ambiguous.

I would also give you a bit of advice: you are not as careful with your words as you would like to think you are. Nor are connotations individual things which can be freely ignored with the expectation that everyone else will do the same. Words have implications beyond that which the dictionary says and it would be irrational not to take that into account.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As the discussion is art, I shall sum it up thusly: if by the big picture you mean canvases, oil paints, and sable tipped brushes with steel ferrules: it is not ambiguous. If by big picture, however, we mean the themes and stories told, the related storytelling traditions, the spiritual elements, and the cultural implications and interactions: it is incredibly ambiguous.

I would also give you a bit of advice: you are not as careful with your words as you would like to think you are. Nor are connotations individual things which can be freely ignored with the expectation that everyone else will do the same. Words have implications beyond that which the dictionary says and it would be irrational not to take that into account.

That last is good advice I'm sure. This thread has provided multiple examples of that.

On the other, I'm talking about all of the above, and more. The bottom line is, in the Old World there were just plain more people, more cultures, more civilizations, more generations of civilations, more traditions, more texts, more pictures, more sculptures, more buildings, more styles, more genres, more technologies, more interactions, more everything. That is not ambiguous and not even a close call. It says nothing about the relative worth of those in either hemisphere, it is mostly just an accident of geography, but it matters for the relatively narrow issue that is being discussed here.

 

[Pure]

what's wrong here?

RA The sources that Caravaggio had to draw upon are actually broader and deeper than even those you mention. For example, you left out the Hebrews, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and all the civilizations that influenced those, including Egyptian, the ancient civilizations of the middle east, and indirectly through intermediaries, even those of India and the far east. Most of these had their own extensive bodies of fine arts, written literature, philosophy, theology, etc. Indeed, just being in Eurasia was a huge advantage in terms being subject to the enriching cross-cultural interactions that are important wellprings of artistic development, and other kinds of development too. There was just a lot more of everything, in every sense of the word.

P: Lists of "influences", near and remote, do not 'do it' for me as regards 'sophistication.' There is an implication of some cumulative effect.
In Literature, perhaps Saul Bellow has more "influences" than Faulkner; I'm not sure there's a plus in *complexity* in general, as opposed to "complexity of influences."

In W. Europe, arguably some of the establishment(academy) painters had the most complexity of background, whereas the persons who 'broke the mold', the Courbets and the Monets may have had fewer. One is talking about "refinement" perhaps; hence the "fauve" painters were thought to have less. Is their "complexity" or "sophistication" less? I don't think so, unless there's a lot of convenient defining one's way to victory in debate.

Another key element missing in the analysis of Ms. Roxanne is regarding simplicity.
This may arise quite late, as in my example of the Japanese rock garden. What of painters who *simplify*? I gave the example of Picasso's "La Reve." Or one might look at Matisse's woman's face with the 'green line.' These represent simplifications, compared to Reynolds' potraits, for example.

At heart, I think Ms. Rox notion of complexity is some view of progress as monotonic upward trending, with accumulation of good-making characteristics.
Some of her own examples refute any such notions. For the progress minded person, Indian (subcontinent) or Chinese culture and civilation stagnate; there is no advantage in the long accumulation of "influences". If Western Science is the prototypical success story of "increasing sophistication, this has been achieved in a relatively *short* period-- from, let's say Galileo to Einstein. From the acceleration of balls on inclined slopes, to the atomic bomb--from 1600 to 1945. 345 years.

From a point of view such as Roxanne's, a 'steady state' is stagnation; three hundred years in Egypt China or India--in certain periods, including 1600-1945, yield nothing, in her terms. Riding horses at the beginning and at the end. Whereas the west went from large sailing ship to the Queen Mary and the Nuclear Submarine; from the horse, to the (today's paper) 600 mph electric train.

This brings in other models beyond the scope of the posting, such as the relation of humans to environment. Roxanne's model is conquest, consumption of resources; the American Plains Indians just 'live there'; hell, in a few hundred years didn't develop the wheel, or iron implements. there were likely the same number of buffalo, give or take, for centuries (apart from climatic oddities). Roxanne admires the ones who cleared the buffalo and the trees, set up the cattle ranches of grass, and the stockyards and the slaughterhouses that led to the mass marketing and production of meat. Which is more "sophisticated" by way of supplying food? A buffalo hunt by some Indians, or a modern slaughterhouse operation?

For myself i find the field of biology, in which i'm no expert, very relevant: the triumphalists like to place "Man" *humans* at the top of a ladder. not merely descriptively. But natural selection does NOT necessarily proceed "UP"-- toward greater neurological complexity. Species succeed in their niches. Cave dwelling creatures have lost their eyes. Some very simple designs are *VERY* sturdy, be it the cock roach or the tortoise. There is no simple "complexity" of life functioning to measure by: Roxanne's hypothetical comparison of man and wolf on the basis of rocket making ability is an example of this limited approach. The wolf is complex enough to succeed in his niche. Man may so befoul his planet, he is pressed to leave and figure how to build rockets to do so (whether "he" can reach other solar systems, and preserve his species remains to be seen.)

 

[cloudy]

more traditions

no. In this, you're very wrong.

it is mostly just an accident of geography

Mostly? That's all it is.

Again, Roxanne, please consider carefully what you say. I believe that you have good intentions, but your biases are showing very clearly to some of us.

(and you know what they say about good intentions...)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby: . . . more traditions

no. In this, you're very wrong.

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby: . . . it is mostly just an accident of geography

Mostly? That's all it is.

Again, Roxanne, please consider carefully what you say. I believe that you have good intentions, but your biases are showing very clearly to some of us.

(and you know what they say about good intentions...)

On the first item, Equi said there is much ambiguity about many of the differences I cited. I don't agree with that for most of them, but this would be at the top of the list of items that it does apply to.

On the second item, I already acknowledged that the differences I listed have nothing to do with the worth of those in either hemisphere. The reason I left in that qualifier was to leave room for some of thost Guns, Germs and Steel-type things, and other thing I may not have thought of. The former are perhaps already covered by geography, but they are more detailed, like the presence of many more animal species suitable for domestication, and the secondary effects of that. Perhaps I'm quibbling, and should just pay more attention to Equi's advice.

 

[Equinoxe]

That last is good advice I'm sure. This thread has provided multiple examples of that.

Undoubtedly so.

On the other, I'm talking about all of the above, and more. The bottom line is, in the Old World there were just plain more people, more cultures, more civilizations, more generations of civilations, more traditions, more texts, more pictures, more sculptures, more buildings, more styles, more genres, more technologies, more interactions, more everything. That is not ambiguous and not even a close call. It says nothing about the relative worth of those in either hemisphere, it is mostly just an accident of geography, but it matters for the relatively narrow issue that is being discussed here.

Except that even if we accept that as true, it still wouldn't matter for the relatively narrow issue being discussed here, because very little of that influenced Western art, much less a specific Caravaggio. You can't claim Chinese civilisation to the benefit of Western civilisation in a comparison on an issue unless Chinese civilisation specifically influenced Western civilisation on that issue. Western art, until quite recently, was not that cosmopolitan.

For all the grand cross cultural contacts the world over, Western art draws almost exclusively on local history. The Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions, and throughout them minor glimpses of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian civilisations, are indeed influences found in Western art in Caravaggio's day, in terms of theme and story. The Conversion on the Way to Damascus specifically draws upon Christian history, and that is influenced by the history of the Mediterranean region. Now, that is a rather sophisticated mix of cultural influences, but only a fraction of what is available in Eurasia (I would point out, too, that Egypt, an important part of this triangle of influences, is in Africa). There is nothing Indian or Chinese about it; nor is there anything about its story or themes which necessitates cultural contact with the vast majority of the population of the three continents of the Old World.

Contemporary art is that sophisticated, and more so. Italian art of the Baroque period, while sophisticated in its own way and absolutely brilliant, relies on a limited and localised cultural frame of reference—as does Mayan art.

 

[cloudy]

On the first item, Equi said there is much ambiguity about many of the differences I cited. I don't agree with that for most of them, but this would be at the top of the list of items that it does apply to.

You admittedly know next to nothing about Native American traditions, etc. (and I'm including South American civilizations in this FTSOA), so how can you so confidently say that you're "correct"?

You're not.

You probably know much more than me about European traditions, but I do know some.

I obviously know more than you about the traditions in the Americas. That leaves me ahead of the game in this particular area to my reckoning.

Please explain why you are so insistant...I have no problem admitting when I don't know something. Pre-columbian Americas are something I know. You don't. Is it truly that difficult to say "I was wrong"?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Undoubtedly so.



Except that even if we accept that as true, it still wouldn't matter for the relatively narrow issue being discussed here, because very little of that influenced Western art, much less a specific Caravaggio. You can't claim Chinese civilisation to the benefit of Western civilisation in a comparison on an issue unless Chinese civilisation specifically influenced Western civilisation on that issue. Western art, until quite recently, was not that cosmopolitan.

For all the grand cross cultural contacts the world over, Western art draws almost exclusively on local history. The Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions, and throughout them minor glimpses of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian civilisations, are indeed influences found in Western art in Caravaggio's day, in terms of theme and story. The Conversion on the Way to Damascus specifically draws upon Christian history, and that is influenced by the history of the Mediterranean region. Now, that is a rather sophisticated mix of cultural influences, but only a fraction of what is available in Eurasia (I would point out, too, that Egypt, an important part of this triangle of influences, is in Africa). There is nothing Indian or Chinese about it; nor is there anything about its story or themes which necessitates cultural contact with the vast majority of the population of the three continents of the Old World.

Contemporary art is that sophisticated, and more so. Italian art of the Baroque period, while sophisticated in its own way and absolutely brilliant, relies on a limited and localised cultural frame of reference—as does Mayan art.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You admittedly know next to nothing about Native American traditions, etc. (and I'm including South American civilizations in this FTSOA), so how can you so confidently say that you're "correct"?

You're not.

You probably know much more than me about European traditions, but I do know some.

I obviously know more than you about the traditions in the Americas. That leaves me ahead of the game in this particular area to my reckoning.

Please explain why you are so insistant...I have no problem admitting when I don't know something. Pre-columbian Americas are something I know. You don't. Is it truly that difficult to say "I was wrong"?

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, Greek or Olmec 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.