Introduction
In Whitney Davis’ article “The Beginning of the History of Art,” the author points out a glaring hole in the academic study of ancient art that no one seems to see. This hole is the lack of information or study of the historicity of ancient art. It is pictured, described and its meanings are speculated about, but not much is said about the climate or environment, the culture, of the people that made it much before about 10,000 BC. This is first because it has always been assumed that this type of ancient history cannot be known and thus ideas are generated but never debated and secondly because it is easier to discuss ancient art history in terms of its history of discovery by modern humans. However, he argues that it is important to look more closely into this ‘original’ art in order to realize its true meaning. He illustrates his point by discussing the differences between how we of the modern age see the cave paintings of Lascaux as a running narrative in stable, equilateral light, its original painters and viewers were only ever able to see it in small segments by the light of a small, flickering flame.
Main body
Having established his subject, Davis then goes on to explore the concepts involved in the idea of a “Figure 1” in art history. This figure, whether a cave painting, a sculpture or an engraved tool of some kind, is typically used to represent a starting point from which all the rest of the art in that history is then considered to have sprung. “This ‘figure 1’ has a complex status. On the one hand, it is tied to art history’s conception of artworks as essentially historical … On the other hand, however, ‘figure 1’ is also tied to art history’s counterthrusting conception of artworks as essentially ahistorical, leaning on certain definably modern but apparently inescapable aesthetic doctrines and critical conceptions” (Davis 328). In other words, art is, at least today, necessarily influenced by its history, but the artwork used to represent the beginning of this history was both influenced by its own past and, at the same time, had its own originality in the artist’s conception and execution of the work as an emergent, ahistorical conception. These ideas are then used as the basis from which Davis attempts to identify a means of discovering a ‘true’ ‘figure 1’.
The first criteria for identifying a ‘figure 1’ artwork, for Davis, is that the art must be beyond compare. This means the artwork cannot be directly comparable to anything else made during its time period or before, meaning it is necessarily pre-historic in every sense of the word. Secondly, there must be recognition of the gaps between artworks. Even though an artwork created in 1960 was strongly influenced by the artist’s encounter and interpretation of art created in 1690, this is not a part of the ‘figure 1’ artwork. It is, however, a part of the ‘figure 2’ artwork whether the artist intends it or not. In spite of this, this connection is often used to provide histories of the earlier works. Davis argues that this process leads to art historians making impossible, and sometimes improbable links, between the more modern ideas and the original conceptions of the original artists of figure 1 art. They are credible links within the modern context, but they need to be understood as modern interpretations based on modern understandings shaped by modern ‘knowledge’, but cannot be considered the full history of the figure 1 work in and of themselves. Instead, he points out that there is a missing link within this art history that prevents our knowing what the real motivations, understandings and history are behind these works. Realizing that they are often painted over previous works reveals that they, too, are representational and are also expressions of conceptions inspired by what was understood of yet earlier conceptions.
Conclusion
Davis rounds out his argument by suggesting several forms of art that might properly be considered as ‘figure 1’ art. These include depictions in which objects that resemble other things were altered to more closely resemble them, signs or indications of related artistic styles and marks or evidence of the object’s creation.
Works Cited
Davis, Whitney. “Beginning the History of Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Vol. 51, N. 3, Philosophy and the Histories of the Arts: 327-350.