ROCK ART, PERCEPTION AND THE SUBJECT/OBJECT BINARY

Headnote

Abstract. In what perceptual circumstances does a representation qualify as a 'scene', i.e. something we 'see' as a scene? There is a common assumption that we see subjectively and therefore need to bypass everyday intuitive seeing in order to see objectively. This paper outlines a reception theory approach to perception based on phenomenology. It examines problems generated by attempts to apply objective criteria to rock art classifications, as well as by a subjectivist appeal to 'original intention'. In so doing, it offers a new and detailed definition of 'scene' and associated concepts, arguing for a view of perception as neither subjective nor objective.

KEYWORDS: Perception - Intention - Composition - Juxtaposition - Association - Scene

There is a widespread tendency in rock art (and many other) studies to conflate meaning with intention, that is, meaning with original meaning. Thus the meaning of a representation is the meaning intended by its maker(s). At which point? When the makers made the representation! But what if they did not know, or changed their intent, or forgot it altogether? The difficulties of the criterion of original meaning are analogous in the situation of seeking to ascertain another person's meaning in a contemporary situation. The maker may not know their own meaning or may give an explanation which does not satisfy me. Even if I know the maker, taphonomic logic applies (since meaning begins to change with changing circumstances from the moment of its inception) and all the hermeneutic difficulties of the archaeological situation are present from the start. They will be reproduced, greatly magnified, when we are dealing with representations removed from the interpreter in place and/or time. 'Exactly', someone will say: 'meaning is inaccessible'. However, that would be a hasty deduction. Original intent may well be inaccessible, and for any interpreter, including the original audience and, conceivably, even the maker. But meaning should not be limited to original meaning. After all, there is the text/artwork, whether the Mona Lisa or Chauvet. 'But', someone will object: 'you cannot extract meaning from the artefact alone'. Certainly I am not saying that it is not relevant to know as much as possible about the context of the artefact, whether that be taken as the mind of its maker or the...