This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have deleted the section “Relationship to Music” because it is deeply shallow. The argument consists of two sentences. There are two references. The first is to a web page that is insubstantial, hardly worth consulting. I have not read the article referenced second, because it is not online. The author of this section needs to summarize the argument in this paper, if the section is to stand. Two sentences, to repeat myself, does not a separate section make. Other problems: The figurine is supposed to correspond to the modern Dorian mode. Why the modern Dorian mode? Isn’t it more likely, if we are to accept this far-fetched hypothesis for argument’s sake, to correspond to the ancient or medieval Dorian mode? But this is stupid, there is no precedent cited for any other work of art organized on modal principles. What possible reason could the creator of the figurine have had to adhere to a musical scale in designing the proportions of the figurine? What use would it have served? It is well known that mathematical proportions have been applied to the visual arts in all media since antiquity, e.g. the Golden Rectangle. It is aesthetically pleasing even if it mainly operates on an unconscious level. It is doubtful that anyone viewing the Lespugue Venus from the back would have made a connection, conscious or unconscious, with the Modern Dorian Mode, if it even existed nearly 30k years ago (which is doubtful); and unclear how this would have enhanced appreciation of the art, if was even designed to be appreciated aesthetically, and not function as some sort of amulet. No, the whole thing is absurd. It is in our nature to try and make sense of the unknown, to make connections, however tenuous, to better understand the unknown—unknown in this case because the figurine is ancient and antedates writing (which could conceivably shed light on these artifacts) by some 25k years. But the prevailing approach among experts of prehistory is to resist making such connections. They treat prehistorica as an unknown language—as unknown as the language spoken back then. OK, I’m done, if the section is to be restored it will have to be much expanded and include more arguments in support of its thesis (paraphrased presumably, no original research, blah blah) and more compelling ones.Prohairesius (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)