are cave paintings realistic or abstract?

Answer 1

realistic to the best of their abilities at the time.
abstract:"of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another."

i don't think these people were trying to make a great composition, they were just trying to tell a story as straightforward as possible.

Answer 2

First, you have to define what you understand as realism and abstraction. It is my opinion, and that of the art world, that all art that depicts a real person, place, thing or even if it doesn't, it is still abstract. Because the way I see the world is different from the way you see the world, no one way could be correct.

Naturalism is the actual term for art that is representational and tries to reproduce the illusion of a facsimile of real life.

Realism is actually a term used to describe the content of the work, and is most easily described as the opposite of idealism.

Representational art uses recognizable imagery gathered from reality.

So, my answer is ultimately that the cave paintings are representational, but abstract.

Answer 3

Personally, they were not realist or abstract, there is another category called STONE AGE ART. If this was a school project I would be challenged NOT to put something down like.

“Only a person with limited education in art would consider cave drawings and prehistoric art in the category of either abstract or realistic. If this were the case a baby sitter that plays educational video games with their charge should be considered a teacher. You are now looking at a highly educated mind with quality training and comparing it to a person that has limited experience in educating children. By definition realism does refer to these crude depictions as being everyday life without exaggeration. So, do we now compare Leonardo Da Vinci with UG? “


But then again, I’m an artist. Maybe an art critique or teacher would have a different viewpoint.

BUT here is MY TAKE.

A child of lets say 8 years old draws a tree in lines. Is it realistic? NO. It is their child like mind. A child of 8 that is gifted draws a tree that LOOKS like a real tree, it IS REALISTIC. Same age of children so how could you call BOTH realistic in the art world? I’m not one of those people that believes calling someone who draws stick figures a prodigy. So how could you give them the same category in art.

Answer 4

Real Cave Drawings

Answer 5

Oi! They are not ethier...they are primative...abstract and realistic styles came many many many years after cave paintings. Cave paintings were one of the first art forms.

(I am no art history novice! Im not guessing on this, I know)

Answer 6

Oddly they qualify as both from a critic's point of view as well as a draftsman's. Look at the sinuous line quality and then a good repro of someone like either Callot or Watteau and the only difference will be the amount of visual information communicated in a few, deft, strokes.

Answer 7

Gorg lived 141,000 years ago in Germany's Neander Valley. At the age of 19, he had an idea for a new weapon which had never been used before, a bow and arrow. He tried to draw a picture of it on a rock wall, but others thought it looked like abstract art so they killed him.

TOO MANY THUMBS DOWN. YOU All SUCK.

Answer 8

Some are realistic others are abstract. The ancient painters drew prey and predators as well as religious symbology.

Answer 9

Realistic because they showed life as they saw it and how they experienced it. Sure the weren't sophisticated or detailed, but they got hte point by.

Answer 10

Abstract. You couldnt mistake them for being real.