The artistic design stance allows viewers to infer the complex causal history of artworks, taking into account their art historical context. How can this framework be applied to the earliest surviving artworks from the Pleistocene, including cave paintings, sculptures, and engravings? Prehistoric art poses challenges for Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) notion of artistic design stance, because contextual information on the functions and intentions of these artworks is no longer available. Inferring this information by reasoning about their causal history, formulating hypotheses about their genealogy, and relying on mental state attribution (components of the artistic design stance that B&R identify) is not as unproblematic as they purport.
The widely differing interpretations of so-called Venus figurines by expert archaeologists and art historians over the past century illustrate the difficulties of adopting the artistic design stance for early artworks. Small portable sculptures of women have been found across Upper Paleolithic Europe, from the Dordogne to Siberia, dating between 35,000 and 11,000 years ago. Except for their gender and diminutive size, these objects are diverse, coming in a variety of materials and body shapes. Archaeologists have interpreted them, amongst others, as the Paleolithic equivalent of centerfolds (Guthrie Reference Guthrie2005), self-portraits (McDermott Reference McDermott1996), and gifts used in long-distance exchange networks (Gamble Reference Gamble1982). Although not all these interpretations are mutually incompatible, their diversity indicates the difficulty in reaching conclusions on function and intent when art historical context is no longer available. Archaeologists even fail to agree on whether the figurines were intended as erotic imagery (Guthrie Reference Guthrie2005), realistic portraits of women (Nelson Reference Nelson, Nelson and Kehoe1990), or even grotesques carved with the purpose of scaring intruders away (von Koeningswald Reference von Koenigswald and Bordes1972).
Some authors (e.g., Lamarque Reference Lamarque1999, p. 2) have worried that the lack of art historical context makes early art unintelligible: “If, per impossible, a configuration perceptually indistinguishable from Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St. Anne were to be discovered on a Paleolithic cave wall and dated from the time of the animal paintings, we would literally find it unintelligible.” Paleolithic art would be unintelligible if the artistic design stance were mainly a mediate activity, that is, a process of inference. However, the artistic design stance also has an immediate component that operates in addition to the mediate causal inferences that B&R describe. As Davies (Reference Davies1997, p. 27) observes, “our acknowledgement of certain items as first art seems to rest on our direct recognition of them as such, not on abstract reasoning.” The noninferential part of the artistic design stance is perhaps best illustrated by the observation that young children tend to overattribute design spontaneously – they believe that objects, including mountains and clouds, were made for a purpose (Kelemen Reference Kelemen2004). If design attribution were a purely inferential process, young children would not take it as a default stance. In adults, this noninferential component remains important: the observation of an unknown artifact (e.g., a prehistoric tool with unknown function, like a hand axe) spontaneously triggers design attribution, which does not rely solely on explicit inferences about its intended function, identity, maker, and context. In cases like these, where we have no contextual information, this immediate design stance can act as a default.
Lehrer (Reference Lehrer, Kieran and Lopes2006) argues that we gain ineffable and immediate knowledge of an artwork by direct interaction with it. A linguistic description of its content still leaves out something essential of what that work is like: a detailed account of, say, van Gogh's intentions when painting Starry Night, based on ego documents and contextual information, still lacks knowledge about some of van Gogh's intentions. This knowledge can only be gained by perceiving the artwork itself (e.g., design intentions evident in the bold color contrasts and the whirling brush strokes). Conversely, even if all information on van Gogh's life, work, and his cultural context were destroyed, we would still know something about these design intentions as long as we have perceptual access to his oeuvre. Similarly, perception of Paleolithic artworks – indirectly through photographic reproductions, or directly by visiting collections and rock art sites – provides observers with immediate knowledge of the design intentions of past artists.
B&R argue that the artistic design stance is a prerequisite for artistic understanding. We believe that noninferential components of the design stance also contribute to artistic understanding, because design features are likely to be constrained by universal and stable properties of human cognition. Given that Paleolithic artists likely had a mind like ours, their noninferential observation of design intentions was similar to ours (De Smedt & De Cruz Reference De Smedt and De Cruz2011). Applying this to the Venus figurines, we can note the striking lack of facial features (a few exceptions like Brassempouy notwithstanding). The human visual system is naturally attracted to face-like stimuli, a propensity that is already present at birth (Farroni et al. Reference Farroni, Csibra, Simion and Johnson2002). Therefore, the lack of facial features is very likely not incidental, but an intended effect. Next to this, because even children from cultures without figurative art (e.g., in Papua New Guinea) can spontaneously draw human-like figures when asked to “draw a man” (Martlew & Connolly Reference Martlew and Connolly1996), we can infer that, at the very least, the Venus figurines were intended to represent women (though a few have ambiguous sexual characteristics). Also, roughly 50% of the Venus figurines were fashioned from mammoth ivory. A design feature that can be discovered immediately through observation is the sensuous luster of these sculptures, an effect that can also be observed in zoomorphic figurines from the same period. This effect was accomplished by polishing them with hematite, a remarkably effective metallic abrasive that is still used to accomplish the same effect by contemporary ivory carvers (White Reference White2005). It seems reasonable to suppose that this lustrous effect was intended by the artists, because mammoth ivory is a material that is difficult to work as a result of its growth rings.
To conclude, the artistic design stance is a complex conglomerate of cognitive processes that involve both mediate and immediate observation. Paying closer attention to its noninferential features can increase artistic understanding, especially for objects for which no art historical context is available.
The artistic design stance allows viewers to infer the complex causal history of artworks, taking into account their art historical context. How can this framework be applied to the earliest surviving artworks from the Pleistocene, including cave paintings, sculptures, and engravings? Prehistoric art poses challenges for Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) notion of artistic design stance, because contextual information on the functions and intentions of these artworks is no longer available. Inferring this information by reasoning about their causal history, formulating hypotheses about their genealogy, and relying on mental state attribution (components of the artistic design stance that B&R identify) is not as unproblematic as they purport.
The widely differing interpretations of so-called Venus figurines by expert archaeologists and art historians over the past century illustrate the difficulties of adopting the artistic design stance for early artworks. Small portable sculptures of women have been found across Upper Paleolithic Europe, from the Dordogne to Siberia, dating between 35,000 and 11,000 years ago. Except for their gender and diminutive size, these objects are diverse, coming in a variety of materials and body shapes. Archaeologists have interpreted them, amongst others, as the Paleolithic equivalent of centerfolds (Guthrie Reference Guthrie2005), self-portraits (McDermott Reference McDermott1996), and gifts used in long-distance exchange networks (Gamble Reference Gamble1982). Although not all these interpretations are mutually incompatible, their diversity indicates the difficulty in reaching conclusions on function and intent when art historical context is no longer available. Archaeologists even fail to agree on whether the figurines were intended as erotic imagery (Guthrie Reference Guthrie2005), realistic portraits of women (Nelson Reference Nelson, Nelson and Kehoe1990), or even grotesques carved with the purpose of scaring intruders away (von Koeningswald Reference von Koenigswald and Bordes1972).
Some authors (e.g., Lamarque Reference Lamarque1999, p. 2) have worried that the lack of art historical context makes early art unintelligible: “If, per impossible, a configuration perceptually indistinguishable from Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St. Anne were to be discovered on a Paleolithic cave wall and dated from the time of the animal paintings, we would literally find it unintelligible.” Paleolithic art would be unintelligible if the artistic design stance were mainly a mediate activity, that is, a process of inference. However, the artistic design stance also has an immediate component that operates in addition to the mediate causal inferences that B&R describe. As Davies (Reference Davies1997, p. 27) observes, “our acknowledgement of certain items as first art seems to rest on our direct recognition of them as such, not on abstract reasoning.” The noninferential part of the artistic design stance is perhaps best illustrated by the observation that young children tend to overattribute design spontaneously – they believe that objects, including mountains and clouds, were made for a purpose (Kelemen Reference Kelemen2004). If design attribution were a purely inferential process, young children would not take it as a default stance. In adults, this noninferential component remains important: the observation of an unknown artifact (e.g., a prehistoric tool with unknown function, like a hand axe) spontaneously triggers design attribution, which does not rely solely on explicit inferences about its intended function, identity, maker, and context. In cases like these, where we have no contextual information, this immediate design stance can act as a default.
Lehrer (Reference Lehrer, Kieran and Lopes2006) argues that we gain ineffable and immediate knowledge of an artwork by direct interaction with it. A linguistic description of its content still leaves out something essential of what that work is like: a detailed account of, say, van Gogh's intentions when painting Starry Night, based on ego documents and contextual information, still lacks knowledge about some of van Gogh's intentions. This knowledge can only be gained by perceiving the artwork itself (e.g., design intentions evident in the bold color contrasts and the whirling brush strokes). Conversely, even if all information on van Gogh's life, work, and his cultural context were destroyed, we would still know something about these design intentions as long as we have perceptual access to his oeuvre. Similarly, perception of Paleolithic artworks – indirectly through photographic reproductions, or directly by visiting collections and rock art sites – provides observers with immediate knowledge of the design intentions of past artists.
B&R argue that the artistic design stance is a prerequisite for artistic understanding. We believe that noninferential components of the design stance also contribute to artistic understanding, because design features are likely to be constrained by universal and stable properties of human cognition. Given that Paleolithic artists likely had a mind like ours, their noninferential observation of design intentions was similar to ours (De Smedt & De Cruz Reference De Smedt and De Cruz2011). Applying this to the Venus figurines, we can note the striking lack of facial features (a few exceptions like Brassempouy notwithstanding). The human visual system is naturally attracted to face-like stimuli, a propensity that is already present at birth (Farroni et al. Reference Farroni, Csibra, Simion and Johnson2002). Therefore, the lack of facial features is very likely not incidental, but an intended effect. Next to this, because even children from cultures without figurative art (e.g., in Papua New Guinea) can spontaneously draw human-like figures when asked to “draw a man” (Martlew & Connolly Reference Martlew and Connolly1996), we can infer that, at the very least, the Venus figurines were intended to represent women (though a few have ambiguous sexual characteristics). Also, roughly 50% of the Venus figurines were fashioned from mammoth ivory. A design feature that can be discovered immediately through observation is the sensuous luster of these sculptures, an effect that can also be observed in zoomorphic figurines from the same period. This effect was accomplished by polishing them with hematite, a remarkably effective metallic abrasive that is still used to accomplish the same effect by contemporary ivory carvers (White Reference White2005). It seems reasonable to suppose that this lustrous effect was intended by the artists, because mammoth ivory is a material that is difficult to work as a result of its growth rings.
To conclude, the artistic design stance is a complex conglomerate of cognitive processes that involve both mediate and immediate observation. Paying closer attention to its noninferential features can increase artistic understanding, especially for objects for which no art historical context is available.