In my opinion, Mel Brooks comically displayed this point hilariously in “ history of the world part1” ….
the birth of the artist was shortly followedby the inevitable afterbirth of the art critique .
Being an artist myself , this comical exchange struck me as a universal experience most artists endure in their early exploration of their talents .
What I find intriguing about cave paintings, they are completely unschooled, untrained artists , yet they captured information about their daily lives in the simple images quite well .
Of course, by this definition that is specific to our culture, the cave painters were unschooled and untrained. Applying this anachronistic definition to the cave painters gives the impression that they had received no education or training of any kind, and therefore couldn’t be “real” artists.
Cultural concepts and practices of “schooling,” “training,” and even “art” vary widely over history and geography. By their own cultural standards the cave painters may have been schooled, trained, and long-experienced in their work.
I didnt say they weren’t real artists … I believe I implied they were the birth of visual art . The foundation all of our art is built upon .
I was applauding their lack of formal training, their instinctive use of things like line value , color contrast , even a rudimentary form of airbrushing .
I evidently didn’t make that clear enough , im sorry i wasnt clearer .
It wasnt my intent to insult their work , but delighted at how well they produced pieces despite the lack of formal schooling .
I honestly wasn’t expecting to need to defend my opinion about cave paintings… lol