I have been looking at arts from different archeological periods (40000BC up to now). One pattern that I noticed consistently when looking at arts from different periods is that the accuracy of such arts is not good and everything seems to be very abstract. I have personally never seen any arts that dates back to around 10000-15000BC that looks realistic and contain lots of details. I am by no means an artist or historian but to me, it is obvious that humans could not draw detailed arts (e.g. sculptures, drawings) until around 2000BC or so. This could also be because I've never been into arts and I've not spent a lot of time looking for such arts.
So I wonder what's people's thoughts on why this is the case? Could this be because humans did not have good tools to draw things more accurately or their minds had not developed enough to pay attention to details? Or could it be because they simply did not want to be accurate purposefully and they wanted to be a bit funny (i.e. they didn't think what they do could be something important or valuable?)? For instance, I've seen lots of paintings or sculptures in which things like a human body is drawn with just a couple of connected lines or the sculpture of human body (here --> 1) does not resemble a real human body in any accurate way. In many such paintings or sculptures I've noticed that most details (e.g. eyes, breasts, muscles) are missing or have been drawn/sculpted weirdly; I've noticed this pattern in prehistoric arts for both humans, [animals] (here --> 2, 3) and other things.
Or could this inaccuracies be a result of not having peace as human species were like preys and had to constantly look for food or run away from wild animals or other humans? It's possible that if they had piece they could have spent more time on art and made nicer things, right?