Marching on to the "abstract" question...

Roy bombarded me with questions about "Homo Aestheticus," so here's a return fusillade of answers! (Really I should say "responses," since none of the questions are settled, but "question" seems more elegantly styled...)

"Is there a fundamental difference between representational and abstract art? Or just a continuum from obviously focusing on one thing to leaving it all up to the reader?"

This question gave me a discovery...amazingly (to me) the word "abstract" barely figured in the book, at least if you believe the index. Here is how it did appear: "The earliest graphic images, found in Aurignacian sites dating from 35,000 B.P., include abstract simple redundant designs such as Xs, notches, incisions and punctuations. Because natural forms (animals, female genitals, and phallic images) occur as well, Randall White speculates that the abstract designs maybe representational of natural objects, as some "abstract" marks on ivory pendants appear to imitate natural marks found on seashells."

So... I would say "continuum" is the answer. Since she's dealing with such a vast range of times and cultures, perhaps that's not surprising....she's hypothesizing/looking for fundamental impulses that could apply to all human art, from Islamic tile to Mr. Duchamp.