Cinematic Aspects Of Cave Art Essay, Research Paper
Kristine McCarthy October 1, 2000
Cinematic Aspects of Cave Art
by Edward Watchel
I think Watchel formed a very good, accurate
arguement in saying that cave paintings are cinematic.
Much like movies, when cave paintings are seen in a
certain way they show qualities that can be seen as
cinematic. Once you look at cave paintings under a
firelight things are seen much differently. They seem to
move, disappear, reapper, and even change shape and
color, just like a movie. When seen in this light these
paintings no longer seem to be scribbled and disorderly,
but rather very well thought out. Because of the
irregular surfaces on the cave walls, light sources that
flicker, and a moving eye, movie-like effects are created
in the paintings. This makes images visible from some
viewpoints and not from others. When surfaces are
irregular and unpredictable, and when the cave painter
has intentionally used these surfaces as part of his
work, even the trained and restricted eye of modern man
can be fooled and delighted under the proper conditions.
Maybe these paleolithic artists had this cinematc style
of cave painting in mind from the start. It’s amazing to
think that people thought to paint “movement” so long
ago.
If expression in oral cultures tends to be
redundant, why would it change when writing is invented?
Well, once writing rolled around there was no need to be
repetitive when actually writing because the words are
there for the reader to look at over and over as much as
he or she wants. Writing changed many features of oral
thought and expression. Redundancy was already
discussed, however, another thing writing changed was a
rhythmic pattern. The pattern was used to make it easier
for listeners to remember what was said. However, once
things are written down there is no longer a need to
remember it; it’ll always be right there for you to see.
Another feature of oral communication that writing
changed was how formulaic it was. It needed to be this
way in order for listeners to follow without getting
confused, because unlike with writing a listener can’t
“go back” to see what was missed. Writing isn’t as
emotionally involving as oral communicaiton is. When
someone is actually speaking to you the sound and tones
to that persons voice really captures a listener, whereas
with writing it is easier for the mind to just wander off
the topic or to not be as interested in it. Writing has
changed so many aspects of oral thought and expression,
but for the most part it has made life much easier.