Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:19:07.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The artistic design stance and the interpretation of Paleolithic art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Johan De Smedt  and
Helen De Cruz
Johan De Smedt
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Ethics, Ghent University, 9000 Gent, Belgium. [email protected]://ugent.academia.edu/JohanDeSmedt
Helen De Cruz
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, University of Leuven and Somerville College, University of Oxford, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected]://www.some.ox.ac.uk/206-4361/all/1/Dr_Helen__De_Cruz_.aspx
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The artistic design stance is an important part of art appreciation, but it remains unclear how it can be applied to artworks for which art historical context is no longer available, such as Ice Age art. We propose that some of the designer's intentions can be gathered noninferentially through direct experience with prehistoric artworks.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 139 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Davies, S. (1997) First art and art's definition. Southern Journal of Philosophy 35:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smedt, J. & De Cruz, H., (2011) A cognitive approach to the earliest art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69:379–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F. & Johnson, M. H. (2002) Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:9602–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamble, C. (1982) Interaction and alliance in Paleolithic society. Man 17:92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, R. D. (2005) The nature of Paleolithic art. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D. (2004) Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science 15: 295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamarque, P. (1999) The aesthetic and the universal. Journal of Aesthetic Education 33:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K. (2006) Knowing content in the visual arts. In Knowing art: Essays in aesthetics and epistemology, ed. Kieran, M. & Lopes, D.M., pp. 1–18. Springer.Google Scholar
Martlew, M. & Connolly, K. J. (1996) Human figure drawings by schooled and unschooled children in Papua New Guinea. Child development 67:2743–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, L. (1996) Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female figurines. Current Anthropology 37:227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, S. M. (1990) Diversity of Upper Paleolithic ‘Venus’ figurines and archaeological mythology. In Powers of observation: Alternate views in archaeology, ed. Nelson, S. M. & Kehoe, A. B., pp. 11–22. American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
von Koenigswald, G. H. R., (1972) Early Homo sapiens as an artist: The meaning of Paleolithic art. In: The origin of Homo sapiens/Origine de l'homme moderne, ed. Bordes, F., pp. 133–39. UNESCO.Google Scholar
White, R. (2005) Prehistoric art. The symbolic journey of humankind. H. N. Abrams.Google Scholar