Discovering the Earliest Artists: First Sculpture Symposium

[@juliamargaretcameron]

Thanks very much everyone for participating in this rather unusual talk. I found all this inspiring , thought provoking and oddly enough, poetic. Especially edifying for artists because it speaks of our earliest urges .

[@rondias6625]

Outstanding presentation ! I love the concept and the way it was organized .. very informative..thank you

[@stephissteph1359]

I am about 40 minutes in, and haven’t heard anything about the America’s artifacts. I say this because I have collected all of these types that vary in construct according to timelines given here. So, if I have what was shown for example in Hand axes, every type, then mine are as old as timeline given here?

[@saintjerome23]

hell ya so good

[@alanday7934]

"Neandertals produced no depictions. There is nothing in the extensive archaeological record that could in any way be construed as a Neandertal's representation of an animal, or a person, or indeed of anything." So writes Thomas Wynn in his book "How to Think Like a Neandertal". And now Dr. Wynn, a theoretical anthropologist with little apparent understanding of lithic material, has paired up with a wealthy pop artist in producing an elaborate dog-and-pony show promoting themselves as the discoverers of iconistic expression in stone by our hominin predecessors, blatantly misappropriating the work and intellectual property of independent researchers employing a science-based methodology. Almost incredibly, they are even hijacking the term "figure stone", which fell into disuse at the beginning of the twentieth century and was revived fifteen years ago by the website daysknob.com which, along with palaeoart.com, seems to have provided much of Wynn's and Berlant's (unacknowledged) inspiration. (The likely basis for the well presented neuroscience component of their exhibit can be seen at daysknob.com/Face-Recognition.htm .) Billed as "the first museum exhibition to present ancient handaxes and figure stones as works of art", it falls well short of this, and even a modicum of due diligence on the part of the curators would have made this evident. There was, among others, the April 2000 exhibit "Werktuigen en kunst (tools and art) van de Neanderthalers uit Fontmaure, Midden-Frankrijk" at the Museon in the Hague, which displayed some of the same Fontmaure stones now shown at the Nasher. And in July 2015 there was Richard Wilson's large display at the Watford Museum near London, which, being honest, he titled "Neanderthal Art II - The Fontmaure Figure-Stones". And speaking of Richard Wilson, Dr. Wynn and Mr. Berlant visited with him during their trip to the British Museum, querying him extensively on his research but failing entirely to mention him in their big and glossy "scholarly catalog" accompanying the Nasher display. At the same time, they gush about their "stimulating talks with Dr. Nick Ashton of the British Museum", who has long been disparaging the whole figure stones concept. Giving credit where it is due, this is a beautifully configured exhibit, and it seems no expense was spared in acquiring the artifacts on display. When I visited on 22 February 2018, the staff were at all times friendly and helpful. It's just sad that the curators are apparently so disingenuous and self-serving.

[@MontyCantsin5]

I wasn't able to see this exhibition in person, but after having been made aware of the catalogue published to coincide with the show I have been reading more about it. With this in mind, I've found your criticism of interest. One question I have: Who is Richard Wilson and what exactly was the nature of this display at the Watford Museum titled 'Neanderthal Art II'? A google search throws up scant results (I can't find any academic qualifications associated with this person, install shots of the museum display, etc) although I'm probably just overlooking something.

[@Eoliths]

Nobody has added more than myself in recent times to the understanding and promotion of this claimed art and scientific proof of it's existence beyond fancy-full imagined interpretation. Granted it is not due to me being intellectually superior to anyone, it's more about having superior examples, both complex and simple and having a vast assemblage at my disposal, so myself reading your comment does reek a little of the hypocritical, IMO Richard has done more damage than good, Richard and yourself are clearly not the only ones to be studying this art, what about Ursel Benekindorf and the others who were there before you?

[@IntegralTriangle]

pareidolia, they are just random rocks

[@manystones603]

Both Gowlet’s and Deakin’s presentations are rambling and amateurish, apparently conceived the day before the symposium, unrehearsed and lacking coherence. Gowlet adds nothing to our understanding of handaxes and Deakin confuses opinions with facts.

[@Eoliths]

If Prof. John Gowlett, Is unable to recognize the Korean handaxes as genuine, he should read my work on recognition of authenticity in such finds eoliths.blogspot.com/2017/05/eoliths-flint-tools-and-figue-stones.html patina is the answer.....