Re: "Parietal art"

John A. Halloran (
13 Jan 1997 12:27:04 -0700

In article <01bc0019$5f362e60$1cce75c2@ego> "Ego" <> writes:

>mankind and his esthetics origins. Considered from the metaphysical point
>of view, "parietal art" is very common. It certainly has a religious basis,
>in its meaning and fonction. But its form is so complex... There is a
>structure in "parietal art" which includes links between animal figures
>(bull-horse as a "leitmotiv", some other animals as goats as a "pattern"),
>and between animal figures and signs( large and ovals or linear). Those
>links certainly represent the key of the prehistorical man psychology. This
>man had to built a civilisation. It was a necessity. The only way of
>surviving was society, and the result of this necessity and this society is
>certainly that form of art. As soon as we talk of civilisation, of a
>civilisation work, we have to talk of esthetic. Human being can't civilize
>or get civilized without an idea, some values: a form. This is the all
>problem of my studies.

>I would be very interested in any discussion about it...

The French scholar Claude Levi-Strauss has written a couple of books that
discuss how early peoples all had totemic symbols with which particular clans
identified. Namely 'The Savage Mind' (La Pensee sauvage) and 'Totemism'.
This preoccupation with clan identity was very likely represented in their art.


John Halloran