Paleolithic Art of the Old Stone Age

Paleolithic Art of the Old Stone Age The Paleolithic (literally Old Stone Age) period covered between two and one-half and three million years, depending on which scientist has done the calculations. For art historys purposes, Paleolithic Art refers to the Late Upper Paleolithic period. This began roughly around 40,000 years ago and lasted through the Pleistocene ice age, which ended about 8,000 BCE. This period was marked by the rise of Homo sapiens and their ever-developing ability to create tools and weapons. What the World Was Like There was a lot more ice and the ocean shoreline was far different than it is now. Lower water levels and, in some cases, land bridges (which have long since disappeared) allowed humans to migrate to the Americas and Australia. The ice also made for a cooler climate worldwide and prevented migration to the far north. Humans at this time were strictly hunter-gatherers, meaning they were constantly on the move in search of food. Art of the Time There were only two kinds of art: portable or stationary, and both forms were limited in scope. Portable art during the Upper Paleolithic period was necessarily small (in order to be portable) and consisted of either figurines or decorated objects. These things were carved (from stone, bone, or antler) or modeled with clay. Most of the portable art from this time was figurative, meaning it depicted something recognizable, whether animal or human in form. The figurines are often referred to by the collective name of Venus, as they are unmistakably females of a child-bearing build. Stationary art was just that: It didnt move. The best examples exist in (now famous) cave paintings in western Europe, created during the Paleolithic period. Paints were manufactured from combinations of minerals, ochres, burnt bone meal, and charcoal mixed into mediums of water, blood, animal fats, and tree saps. Experts guess (and its only a guess) that these paintings served some form of ritualistic or magical purpose, as they are located far from the mouths of caves where everyday life took place. Cave paintings contain far more non-figurative art, meaning many elements are symbolic rather than realistic. The clear exception, here, is in the depiction of animals, which are vividly realistic (humans, on the other hand, are either completely absent or stick figures). Key Characteristics It seems a bit flippant to try to characterize the art from a period that encompasses most of human history. Paleolithic art is intricately bound to anthropological and archaeological studies that professionals have devoted entire lives researching and compiling. That said, to make some sweeping generalizations, Paleolithic art: Paleolithic art concerned itself with either food (hunting scenes, animal carvings) or fertility (Venus figurines). Its predominant theme was animals.It is considered to be an attempt, by Stone Age peoples, to gain some sort of control over their environment, whether by magic or ritual.Art from this period represents a giant leap in human cognition: abstract thinking.

Ethical Arguments Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Ethical Arguments - Essay Example Organ trade basically involves the sale of the human inner organs like the heart, liver the kidneys and other vital organs for transplant. As of now, there is a worldwide shortage of organs that are available for transplant. Essentially, a lot of wealthy people who unfortunately require organ transplant are capable of paying any amount of money to have the treatments as long as they do not have to wait in line for donated organs. Conversely, a lot of poor people will gladly sell their organs to make a living. However, a large percentage belongs to those who die will waiting for organs due to shortage (Chia, 2009). The sale of these organs has three major implications: ethical, legal and financial implications. Although the sale has had loopholes in a number of issues, there is a need to look at some of the implications since they affect the international market in which we are a part of. ... This is because, thousands of patients die yearly due to shortage in supply of organs, while others undergo painful and pricey dialysis treatments. Consequently, consenting to a commercial market in organs is highly likely to reduce the needless deaths and sufferings that are present as it increases the supply of organs. Moreover, the cash payments will increase people’s enthusiasm to donate their body parts, as well as, contributing to the fall of the same prices and making them affordable to more patients. On the contrary, the opponents for the sale of human organs argue that, although the society may claim to have the obligation of preserving life and easing human suffering, this may not be fully applicable. In particular, they argue that the society in not in a position to assume any practices that would violate the rights of its members or cause injustices. Additionally, the society has the obligation to ensure that each of its members whether rich or poor has an equal ri ght to accessing medical benefits. The issues of having the rich buying organs from the poor appear to benefit the former as compared to the latter, hence inception of unequal allotment of health becomes unjust (Wilkinson, 2011). Needless to mention, individuals have the right to live their lives with much freedom and dignity. Wilkinson, 2011 argues that, the organ market would undoubtedly lead to abuse that entails the violation of freedom and dignity of persons. In essence, they say that such a scheme will give confidence to the most defenseless, who in this case happens to be the poor through treating hemselves and be treated as commodities, as well as, giving others the opportunity to violate their rights in