Max Raphael and a Marxist perspective on art (Part 2)

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Max Raphael and a Marxist perspective on art (Part 2)
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Max Raphael and a Marxist perspective on art (Part 2). The discussion was initiated by baboon.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

The first picture

Just a couple of points on the first painting, the section of the Lion Panel:

The lioness in the top left-hand corner is not in fact a deliberate distortion. The distortion comes from the limits of the camera and the way the artist has expertly used the shapes of the rock face in order to paint a very realistic image of a lioness. The fixed camera is unable to show the curvatures and the image therefore appears distorted. There are deliberately distorted figures but this is not one of them. Note the two weasel-type lion figures in a confrontation/meeting just to the left-centre. It has just occurred to me that there appears to be no lions in the Lion Panel but the big cats seem all to be lionesses. These big cats would have been about 20-30% bigger in this period so the distinctive mane of the male lion would have been even more pronounced. There’s no indication or remnants of it in this panel as far as I can see. In the context of this particular “procession” that fact that they are lionesses and not lions could be significant.

I’ve seen a blown-up photo of one of the bison in the “wall” in front of the advancing lions. In an asymmetrical pose it appears to have the “evil” or “magic eye”. The look is piercing and unsettling.
To the bottom left-hand corner of this picture is part of the “aperture” which both separates and enhances the whole procession. A part of a mammoth can be seen emerging and other animals are out of the picture..

john... is that you?

The lioness in the top left-hand corner is not in fact a deliberate distortion. The distortion comes from the limits of the came

As Parmigianino did it, the right hand
Bigger than the head, thrust at the viewer
And swerving easily away, as though to protect
What it advertises. A few leaded panes, old beams,
Fur, pleated muslin, a coral ring run together
In a movement supporting the face, which swims
Toward and away like the hand
Except that it is in repose. It is what is


all verses all

which makes me wonder how much i would love to write an article on poetry hah.....


i can take or leave art

the origins of writing


The above article pointing to the origins of writing is from palaeoanthropologist Genevieve von Petzinger. She has studied the geometic "signs" in the Aurignacian caves between 28 and 40,000 years ago and suggests that these origins of writing must date back to Africa. This was also the suggetion made by Max Raphael above and David Lewis-Williams.

The "eternal nature" of Upper

The "eternal nature" of Upper Paleolithic art is raised again in a piece in the Daily Mail today

It points to the links between one of the techniques of the ancient art, making up representations by dots, and those of Van Gogh and Seurat, both of whom have a claim to be profound artists. The techniqe is shown in several caves in southern France 35-odd thousand years ago, but also in the 40,000 year old expressions in Salawest, Indonesia. This too must have had its roots in Africa.

Picture 5 of 7 in the article shows the partial engraving of a mammoth I think using natural shapes in the rock..

Just to add, the similarities

Just to add,

the similarities with this technique in the oldest Australian cave art, probably older than Salawest.