Modern versus historic


Since cave times, art has been a part of humanity and a way to connect with others and the world around us. We know though anthropological discovery that every culture participated in art in some fashion, and much of it has been recovered throughout time. What we know is that no matter the time frame in which it was created, art has always had the same impact on us as humans.

Now you have the debate about art and how and what is considered art. You get some people who think that art is a painting, a sculpture, a drawing, but you get others that say that art can be as simple as a carving on stone or a cave painting. There is no doubt that both are right, but where do you draw the line between what is modern art and what is ancient art?

The complicated part

Is that the term “modern” is often thrown around casually without the use of context or nuance. You get people that only reserve art for the strictest of definitions, and who call old paintings art, but ancient art. I have a problem with what is considered modern art due to the relativity of the term itself. Art created in prehistoric times were modern for the time, and just because we’ve changed our definition, it doesn’t mean that it can be applied to a historic context.

Ancient art will always be the precursor to modern, so it is time that we, as artists begin to think of both as one rather than separate.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *