A good question that I thought deserved an answer:

Originally posted by Versa
I have probably misunderstood what you said or you worded it badly? What you are saying here implies that pre Macedonian or Roman peoples didn't have time to create art...

No... life was different then. Everyone had a trade or profession they were expected to follow -- usually the family profession unless you showed exceptional talent in another field (and your parents were influential.) Life was "get up, work like the dickens from sunrise to sunset with lunch (maybe) and then dinner and fall asleep after the sun went down". Even the wealthy had things they did -- went to oversee farms, settle quarrels between their tenants, etc, etc.

Trades accepted only the most proficient ones as apprentices. Children who showed early talent as artists were taken to masters to see if they would accept these children as apprentices. You worked for decades before (if ever) being judged good enough to have your own studio. We do have records of a few drawings/paintings (in the form of graffiti) around, but in general people didn't have the time to do art. If you were a shepherd you would have to spend weeks making the paper (or trimming a wood panel or making a brick panel) and grinding pigments just to do one "fancy" piece of art. You could (and people often did) grab a charcoal and sketch out a drawing or a slogan but it wasn't something you practiced and got really good at.

Pieces found in the tombs of the wealthy and of rulers are pieces from the best craftsmen, and it was considered an honor to be chosen to make a piece of jewelry or art for these people. Those pieces that accompany the article are on the level of craftsmanship of graffiti and wouldn't have been buried with or near an important person.

Of course none of that changes the fact that Alexander the Greats tomb is not on the American continent

Originally posted by Versa
I understand what your saying, but in my opinion people probably had more spare time than your giving them credit for and a person who is naturally talented doesn't have to spend years practising to become 'good at art'. The major works of art are obviously the result of years of studying but the people of Pompeii certainly appear to have some spare time in order to create graffiti art some of which shows a lot of talent.

I also think that what is considered 'artistic' expression can be very snobbishly dismissed by archaeologists because it seldoms survives at the lower end of the class structure. Textiles in particular, embroidery, weaving, all were imbued with artistic individuality before such practices became commodotised and homogenised, with laws to dictate what one could and could not wear according to social status. These expressions would be retained on a domestic level, the artist still finding expression, but it would be utilised and therefore they are not preserved for the 'record'. They like their creators, worked and died, then rotted away in some unmarked spot.

Same with the pictoral art, I am sure that those employed to paint the fancy stone built villas that survive for our study expressed their talents more freely in their own homes and painted the walls and ceilings of their less durable structures, there were no doubt some wonderful works of art in more humble abodes that have long since been burnt and trampled under foot on the way to the pillaging or just simply leveled to make way for the new, as is more often the case, really.

Wow, just wow.

So after conquering the known world (the Meditteranean thru to India), he suddenly boarded a ship and made his way to America?

My god the ignorance/arrogance is astounding........

Originally posted by Kryties
Wow, just wow.

So after conquering the known world (the Meditteranean thru to India), he suddenly boarded a ship and made his way to America?

And dying first. So he was probably put on the boat. Which is technically loading, as opposed to boarding.