Hell, Salvador Dali had it, Picasso had it, Disney had it … artists can be identified by their unique ‘style’.


how about this famous image?

Cave art.png

—purloined from one of the books I’m currently reading and/or re-reading. Nobody ever mentions the obvious, that the buffaluff pic is a totally different ‘style’ from the image of the falling man in front of it.


to reconcile what I’ve read/viewed of cave art and cavern artefacts (some going back forty thousand years or more) with your bog-standard brutish cave men. Brutish cave men? Hardly …


really think that we are looking at two different styles in this image—

Field Museum 6.jpg

—although the significance of the wee duck on a stick eludes me still.

Obviously some earlier genius created that buffalo image, and some wag with the equivalent of a spray can came along later and added the wee sketch. Hell, he/she may have done so thousands of years after the original artist shuffled off; who knows? Who cares?


elsewhere that the slobbering primitive brutes that created cave art here and elsewhere could well have been not brutes but brutesses.

Apparently some clever modern person with nothing better to do took a closer look at some of the many hand-printed walls around the world and concluded that they were too feminine to have been male brutes. If not male, they had to be female brutes, no?

Here, have some hands—


—actually spray painted silhouettes. Nothing new there either … the significance of the tattoos and/or markings is a mystery to me but some knowledgeable archaeologist can doubtlessly explain.

(Bugger … I was going to repost a pic of a very modern wall in an alleyway in Gore (NZ) but find I can’t find it. Damn~! Maybe later …)



6 thoughts on “STYLES

    1. Boom boom!
      I’m gonna purloin and use that image with a completely clear conscience~ yay!

      No wonder Waxy o’Shea’s bar in town was fair jumping yesterday when I strolled by. (There was a time I’d have strolled in …) (and been carried out. Aaaaah, the Oirish, they know how to do it!)

      Liked by 1 person

  1. The drawings at Lascaux and Altamira are simply astonishing. I studied them at uni and the idea generally held was that they were part of an initiation ceremony…. the first full immersion theatre.


    1. Initiation … everything gets blamed on religion and/or rites. Even grafitti …

      But when we look a little more into it and ponder the whys and hows, it gets more than impressive. I suppose some future civilisation might look at some of our own graffiti and define it as ‘rites of passage’.

      Cave art is a subject worthy of more than a cursory glance. For myself I’m also fascinated by OOPARTS (out of place artefacts) even though most can be written off as hoaxes (intentional or otherwise).


      1. The thing is, the majority of the galleries are 20 or so meters underground, in complete blackness. If you consider the initiant is perhaps drugged a little (although I hardly think it would even be neccessary) then taken underground, in complete, utter blackness, with rythmic chanting, then torches are lit and placed in speficic spots thoser “paintings” would quite literally come to life with the light dancing off the natural curves of the stone. Pfieffer wrote extensively on it all. Look him up.


      2. Clever, in that everything we don’t understand promptly becomes ‘ritual object’ or similar.

        I read some interesting guff on the GP of E being an ‘initiation centre’ and very convincing it was too (makes better sense than it being a tomb). The good news is, any guess is as good as any other.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s