Thinking about and creating “cave paintings” through drawing makes me consider the different types of things we communicate and the depth of communication based on what type of technology is available for use for communicating. If you did not have paint, you could draw in the dirt, but it would be likely that the messages would not last as long. This would lead communication to be more short-term based and possibly repetitive. With the use of paint and caves, the effect is that the drawing can be more permanent or at least last longer. This would change the kinds of things that could be conveyed. There is still a lot of room for misinterpretation however, especially when it comes to nuances that go beyond a basic idea. For example, in a cave drawing you could probably illustrate “Sick people here” or some thing to that effect, but it would be much more difficult to convey what the people had, how long they had been sick, and/or details like what may have caused it. Today, using words instead of pictures gives people the ability to include more details, leaving less to the imagination.
When we were designing our cave painting to convey the message “instructions for playing cornhole” we made our drawing on the pretense that our audience would “get” the message since most people had the knowledge what that game was. We attempted to convey that it was instructions by using dots instead of numbers and showing a progression of stick figures playing the game. It was not difficult to come up with the drawing, but after seeing everyone’s reaction we realized there were other things we could have added to make it more obvious and a little less literal.
Ruth I love that you took of a broader prospective because it opens the door for other ideas. I agree that cave paintings could have been a short-term form of communication like you said on your post. But, it also important to look at the significance of how that would change the course of history. Now, we write and that has allowed for people to portray things and events with more detail.
I’m not sure if you all have started talking about mass media yet, but are you familiar with Marshall McLuhan? He is a 20th century media theorist who is particularly famous for the phrase, “the medium is the message”. What made me think of this phrase was when you said:
“drawing makes me consider the different types of things we communicate and the depth of communication based on what type of technology is available for use for communicating.”
One of McLuhan’s main points is that technology itself molds and shapes the message embedded within it. In some ways he is arguing that what is being communicated (the content) is actually less important than the particular medium (technology) that is being used to communicate it. I won’t go on a ramble, but he is definitely someone to look at particularly around mass media if you are interested in the ways technology shapes our discourse.