The re-dating of these Indonesian cave paintings has aroused controversy among those who already knew of them and delight in newcomers to these, what would we call them, tracks of our tears, aides memoire, expressions of our need to express ourselves, early signs of our boundless image-ination.
It seems that there was, hitherto, an expert belief that the creation of the earliest European (Spanish) cave art, dated at 10,000 years ago, represented, coincided with an increase in the brain size of homo sapiens, was an embodiment, in a way, of EuroSupremacy. It turns out that the nig-nogs were doing it long before the white folks and now, with the reassignment of these Indonesian works to a period 40,000 years ago, the art historians' house of cards collapses. Well, it would wouldn't it, history being bunk, art history being snobbish bunk.
Following some online commentaries and discussions about this re-dating one finds academic vitriol and showy Know-It-Allism mixed with quite understandable sentimentality, newcomers, as I said, confessing to floods of tears, at the sight of these images, touching them, across millennia. I know in which group I belong.
I was intrigued, further, to read that Australian aboriginal art, 75,000 years old, is being destroyed by GlobaCorp's mining activities in Western Australia, doing the right thing, creating wealth and employment for hard-working families. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised.
I was intrigued, further, to read that Australian aboriginal art, 75,000 years old, is being destroyed by GlobaCorp's mining activities in Western Australia, doing the right thing, creating wealth and employment for hard-working families. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised.
However impossibly complex it becomes, what we call technology can be understood as - for it is - an amplification of an existing, opposable-thumbed, humanoid bodily function; rock, club, hammer, pile-driver and so on, these amplify the fist; the earliest saw, an animal's jawbone, complete with teeth, amplifies the tearing of fibres with our own canines and incisors; the wheel amplifies the foot; the spyglass or the Hubble telescope, these amplify the eye; writing amplifies the voice, in fact replacing the previously rhymed and remembered knowledges of pre-histoire, that vast passage of time before the symbologies of language could be chipped from stone, written on skins, scratched on papyrus or stored, magically, in digital retrieval systems, like this one.
Sometimes, it all seems so simple, technology; Art, though, that's a whole other barrel of monkeys, Art, unlike a club or a stone axe, serves no readily perceptible practical purpose; nobody needs to make Art but something drives us, most of us, to do it or consume it or both. And it isn't just the Whatever-You-Can-Get-Away-With tossers, like Tracey Emin, worthless, in it for the money; decent people, too, are driven to make something they have imagined, something that hadn't been imagined before.
It may have been seen, originally, as magic, representational art, may have been an adjunct to shamanism, as is so much Christian art and architecture - you know, knowledge kept secret from the laity, like priests and lawyers and doctors do; it might just have been clever-monkey curiosity and while there is certainly technology in finding and using the colouring materials, the urge to do it, for its own sake, that, like the need for God, 40,000 years ago or today,
is something else.
God and Art, just my imagination,
running away with me.
































.jpg)










