Comments on: “Pornographic” Statue Could Be World’s Oldest Piece of Figurative Art

By: kate sisco

kate sisco — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:31:52 +0000

In college I was thrilled to learn that perhaps civilization began with a woman-centered city. No war, Mohenjo Daro, etc. Sadly, the happy feeling faded when I read about the coco de mer whose original form was copied into these ‘woman goddess’ statues; note the lack of heads.

Actually the single species of ‘us’ resulted from our nature of rapid reproduction (as compared to the Neanders, Archaic, etc) and our intolerance. I see no altruism in history.

As an interesting aside, consider why cave art was practiced deep inside caves requiring much planning for lighting, pigments, etc which has led to almost any theory being considered. Here I offer mine: the practice of representational ’seeing’ painting was a forbidden practice and why? Because it was deviant. It was not normal. What was normal was ’seeing’ as an out of body experience. Thirty years ago history/natural art books included strange depictions of what seemed to be the scene as seen from above. One assumes since the Neanders possessed this quality, the ability in the CroMagnons was seen as evidence that some crossover occurred, perhaps in cannibalism. In as much as this out of body art was made long after civilization started, one can consider that the out of body ’seeing’ became a ‘talent’ defining a shaman or wizard, etc., slowly disappearing from the remaining homo species, us. The new normal, representational painting from a standing on the ground point no longer had to be hidden, it was as everyone saw.

By: bigmamared

bigmamared — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:21:23 +0000

Maybe “she” was having a time of self actualization in which she did a self portrait of how she felt she was seen or how she saw herself. Why would one assume the maker of the piece was male? women also use tools…this could be more about power than porno.

By: Joe from the southwest

Joe from the southwest — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:53 +0000

Well sex is nothing new it has been around since creation. I am pretty sure that the same nerves in the genital area that exist on man and woman today existed back then. I think some people are short sight it that they can not see beyond the present. Overall, this is a great discovery and it tells us that sexual fantasies are nothing from the present. In the present however, they may be on some kind of steroids.

By: FILTHpig

FILTHpig — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:36:21 +0000

Pornographic for who? Looks like a frozen chicken from Safeway… mmm, chicken.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:41 +0000

The “zaftig” female body shape was glorified up until the 1900s. It used to be a full-bodied woman was indicative of fertility and the ability to rear healthy children. It was only from about 1920 on that thin women becamse the new “ideal.”

In concert with the Rubenesque idealization was the desire to be pale. Only poor people were thin and tan, since they worked outside and never got enough to eat. Now we all want to be skinny and leathery. Go figure.

By: arkonbey

arkonbey — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:22:02 +0000

@MichaelG. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. First, it is true that the researchers have no idea as to the true nature of the piece. Their judgment of ‘borderline pornographic’ is based on what they see. Oversized/exaggerated genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics can truly be considered ‘borderline pornographic’; Jessica Rabbit comes to mind.

But, your other assertion, that we should compare this to ‘classical’ art is flawed. There was plenty of borderline- and total pornography in ‘classical’ art. In the Roman section of the Boston MFA there are tiny, exquisitely carved figurines of dwarfs with gigantic penises and quite a few Ukiyoe prints feature men with large penises and women with over-sized vaginas. How would you classify them?

To recognize that something has the potential to titillate is not the sign of a dirty mind, especially in an anthropological setting.

By: Jumblepudding

Jumblepudding — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:34:59 +0000

Was it just the limitations of the materials to carve with, or does it seem like primitive man glorified a fairly “zaftig” female body shape in his sculpture?

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:13:49 +0000

MichaelG — you should see the quotes I didn’t use!!!

mb — actually, the researchers believe the statue was created by early Homo sapiens, not Neanderthals.

By: MichaelG

MichaelG — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:44:25 +0000

Would you consider David or The Thinker “bordering on pornographic”? Is a crucifix an example of sadomasochismic art? What’s next for Discover Magazine, toilet jokes and bathroom humor to describe the results of
research at Bath, England? How about breast jokes as part of reporting on
the protection of Native American Mounds?

Eliza Strickland, you should apologize for your bad taste in this writing.
The fact that Paul Mellars has a one track mind that is derailed is no excuse for your own writing.

By: mb

mb — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:05:42 +0000

and the scientists say the creators of this piece were neanderthals. i would direct them to the previous two posters for the real missing links!

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:39:16 +0000

Hot. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen anime with figures like that in it.

By: Socratic Method Man

Socratic Method Man — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:34:49 +0000

One really begins to worry about how universal this lunge towards puritan ideals is when “experts” – presumably professionals – feel compelled to hang terms like “pornographic” and “sexually explicit” on something as shorn of context as a prehistoric representation of the female form. It gives the impression that they just see it as some kind of paleological spank material, with all of the value and charm of something scribbled on bathroom tile.

By: A Non Name

A Non Name — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:29:58 +0000

Boobs!