Zitationsvorschlag
Lizenz (Kapitel)
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International.
Identifier (Buch)
Veröffentlicht
Beyond Art?
Recent Developments in the Conceptualization of ‘Paleolithic Art’
Abstract In this paper we reflect on why the concept of ‘Palaeolithic art’ remains widely used in archaeological research even though most anthropologists and archaeologists find the term misleading and outdated. For much of the twentieth century, scholars of Palaeolithic art drew on paradigms found in modern Western art history to theorize about and distinguish between categories of cave art and mobiliary art. Yet, since the 1980s, numerous archaeologists have problematized the Western concept of ‘art’, with its emphasis on aesthetics, as inappropriate for Pleistocene art research. Consequently, in recent years, a revalorization of the term ‘art’ and the expansion of the types of material culture encompassed, along with theoretical developments such as the ‘ontological turn’, have sought to offer new avenues of enquiry that not only challenge the hegemony of traditional Western categories, but which better reflect Indigenous conceptualizations of imagery. However, the use of the term ‘Palaeolithic art’ persists in the academy. Three main factors may explain this persistence. First, ‘art’ is a polysemic term that can be used flexibly in different ways. Second, it is a familiar term for the public. Third, it has a long history of customary use within the academy. Nevertheless, despite the traditional and practical convenience of the term, it is incumbent on scholars to balance its communicative value with critical analysis and responsible usage.
Keywords Palaeolithic art, art history, anthropological and archaeological theory
