Please post by Tuesday, September 11.
Drawings like the one above in Chauvet were created thousands of years ago. The people who produced them had to undergo difficult conditions to draw them. In spite of the challenges, there are many caves throughout Europe with these masterpieces of the ancient world. Today, we refer to these paintings as "cave art." However the term itself makes the paintings seem inferior. It is as if the quality of compositions are lower than the quality of the art of Picasso or Leonardo Da Vinci. Should the modifier "cave" be removed? Should we refer to these drawings simply as art on the same par as the art of the Classical Age, the Renaissance, or even the modern period. Explain your reasoning and address what makes something art.
Please post by Tuesday, September 11.
19 Comments
Neriah B
9/9/2018 15:02:10
“Cave art” must have been very hard to draw. The term cave art should stay as is. This is because this art was from a long time ago and if the art is on a cave wall then there you have it cave art. But this art shouldn’t be modified as bad art. The art on the cave walls must have took a long time of patience, precision, and skill. The people in the old days didn’t have a paint brush, they had to work with their hands and rocks. The term “cave art” should stay as is but not be judged as less as other people’s art is judged.
Reply
Giuseppe Lisi
9/10/2018 21:28:16
I think we should still refer to these drawings as “cave art.” They should remain the same name because these masterpieces are in fact art and in a cave so it only makes sense to name these cave art. The quality of this art is not a lower quality because it is done in a different way and takes a lot skill. It takes a lot of skill because it isn’t on paper it’s on the wall of a cave. I think what makes something art is the fact that it is unique and is done in a different way every time. No matter where or what it has been done on if it has those characteristics it should be considered art.
Reply
Evan
9/17/2018 14:32:42
I think these paintimgs are art. They definitely required skill considering the bad surface and lack of supplies so why wouldnt it be art?
Reply
Yip
9/19/2018 09:37:26
Please be more expansive in your response. Describe the SPECIFIC qualities that make it art. Was it the creative idea behind the painting? the skill it took to accurately draw the animals? the meaning these paintings may have had for the artist?
Reply
Elaijah C
9/17/2018 14:35:50
We should refer these as “Cave Art” because they must have been hard to draw because the cave isn’t a smooth canvas there will be bumps and curves and the people that drew this had to find some kind of rock that will have the “paint” for the art and they had to make sure that there were no bears or sabertooth tigers in the cave as well. Most people can’t even draw this well with paint and a smooth canvas, so I believe that we should consider this art because of all the things the people had to get to do this.
Reply
Zachary L
9/17/2018 14:42:50
I think we should still refer to this picture as cave art. I believe we should because there is still some skill in this painting and you cant fully see some of the drawings. Also i think that if there is still some skill involved that its art.
Reply
amanda v
9/17/2018 14:47:54
I think that these cave paintings should not be removed because they are a important part of our history. These cave paintings are one of the earliest examples of art. These should be considered art because even though they are not skillfully drawn, they have meaning and purpose. Not everyone could be able to draw these due to the texture and roughness of the surface. Art can only be considered art by one's own interpretation of art.
Reply
Jake F.
9/17/2018 15:34:23
This Cave Art is art because it has story behind it and it is very old from a long time ago and can tell a story and tells us what life could have been a very time ago. This Cave Art is very hard to paint and should be considered art.
Reply
Trinity P
9/17/2018 15:36:14
The term “cave art” should not be seen as art that is less that other types of art. These paintings must have been very difficult to make because of lack of light and rough cave walls. The people who created these artworks seem very talented because of the challenges in making the cave wall art. “Cave art” should be more appreciated.
Reply
Houstyn M
9/17/2018 16:30:09
I can understand why some people may not consider these creations to be art. Some may feel they do not show a very clear picture or that they are not well drawn. Personally, I believe that due to the creators of these drawings having to complete their art with barely no light, tools, or experience on these rugged cave walls is vastly impressive. This work should certainly be identified as art, in fact these creations portray stories and assist us in learning new things about the past.
Reply
Chase B.
9/17/2018 17:45:38
I believe that even though many people consider this art, we don't know how hard or easy it may have been to make these drawings. I disagree with people that say this is art, because this could have been done by anyone.
Reply
Sophia A
9/17/2018 17:49:09
I feel “cave art” is art because when it was created it was skillful. It wasn’t an easy task to complete due to the multiple challenges such as a bumpy surface, unlike a smooth traditional canvas, and difficult conditions. When we think about art from Picasso we see a high standard of art but when the cave art was created it was the higher standard. What makes something art doesn’t have to be skill but it also has a lot to do with the meaning of the art, which the “cave art” did it was left to tell people in the future about there life.
Reply
Isabel R
9/17/2018 19:06:57
"Cave art" should keep its name as it is not inferior, but it is different than other kinds of art and it is more naturally made, instead of using paint and a clean canvas. In order to make the art appear as it does and last many years, it needs more work and dedication. Artists in this generation have it easier than people from thousands of years ago.
Reply
Matthew R
9/17/2018 20:43:09
I believe that cave art should be considered art because the artist went and took risk like bears and other animals in the cave to paint, so there had to be a meaning other than it was just there because they wanted to do it one day but not only did they have a reason but they probably do a better job if given a smother surface to draw on.
Reply
Derek B
9/17/2018 21:05:30
I believe that this should be considered art for these reasons. First off in order to even make the cave art you'd have to usually go into a cave. Caves tend to be hard to get into, very dark, and house potentially dangerous animals. Next you'd need the skill to even make the drawings decipherable especially since they're drawing in a not well lit area with a uneven surface to paint on. And still they'd need to find the materials to make them. Next art must have meaning. And since they went through so much trouble to draw this they must've had a good reason. So i think that the art has skill, meaning and dedication. So this is art
Reply
Jordan F
9/17/2018 22:28:45
Although these cave paintings are not of the most prestigious form of art they should still be considered art. They created a small window into the past of what life was like. They created these images for many possible reasons but none can be disproved which gives it a subjective meaning. Also the effort that was put in place just to create the paintings was immense. They could not just go and find some paint and then draw what ever and when ever they wanted to. They had to make the paint then make a fire and then paint the bulls or any other animals they saw
Reply
Daniel munguia
9/17/2018 22:33:25
I believe that all cave arts should still be considered art because even though they might not look as good as other painting and drawing done with canvas and brushes. They probably take more or as much skill as Regular paintings
Reply
Yasmine H
9/18/2018 18:50:56
I believe all “Cave art” should be considered as art, although it isn’t created with the best supplies and not the greatest texture of wall, the person who made this had a lot of skill. I see it that way because the art looked very realistic especially with the disadvantage of supplies and terrible surface.
Reply
Anna R-M
9/30/2018 17:46:37
I think that "cave art" should be considered as art because it takes a lot of skill to make art on a wall that has a weird surface to deal with. It might not look good but the person who made this had a real great skill to make this so real due to the very minimal supplies and having to paint on a weird surface.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
February 2019
Categories |