Paper short abstract:

Recognizing the useful transfer point that "art" may be, I suggest we use it as a communicative device, a convergence that leads to other places. I rely on "prehistoric art" as a trade zone that allows us to speak about bodily temporal practices, unique markers of effort, skill and emotion.

Paper long abstract:

In 1997 I argued for the limited analytic purchase of the term "art". I was primarily concerned with the relatively recent 19th century invention of the category; the lack of local specificity when "art" was discussed in broad classificatory lumps such as Ice Age figurines or cave paintings; and the minimal reflection on the geo-political ground of archaeological practice. My contribution to the debate was driven by interest in the history and politics of archaeology, particularly in Eastern Europe, an area with an abundance of Paleolithic sites, yet at the margins of theoretical conversations. My apprehensions have not abated over time. While I continue to find little analytic value in the term "art" to describe a broad range of prehistoric materials, I offer a defense of its transactional nature. The ease with which the word provokes questions forces archaeologists to defend the analytic ground. Art is discursively generative beyond other terms we use. Recognizing the useful transfer point that "art" may be, I suggest we use it as a communicative device, a convergence that leads to other places. I will rely on "prehistoric art" as a trade zone that allows us to speak about bodily temporal practices. It is a unique type of marker of effort, skill, technological knowledge and a measure of time. It is the temporal aspect of creativity that I focus on. It is one of the most salient characteristics of prehistoric art, one that allows us to discuss the relationship between technology, time and emotions.