But I thought you'd studied art in Japan LS?
Surely a similarity of form could (Could) imply a similarity of intent?

Because the opposite seems to hold true doesn't it, say (hmmm) take all those amazing soviet statues of people pointing and looking heroic (albeit with ropey behaviour from the soviet state). Compare the thing that motivated the sculptor making those, with (if you like) Henry Moore and the things you think may have been inspiring him.

These amazing bits of Ice Age art, which have somehow clung on down the millennia so we can see them - they're not functional objects (though they might decorate functional objects), they're presumably Art, as we recognise it today, perhaps they are the products of those prehistoric artists expressing what was really important to them, the embodiment of ideas that they held important (or to influence the real things that the artwork depicts), or (less complicatedly) just the product of an artist wanting to Do Some Art and depict something they found interesting.

So doesn't having modern art there at the exhibition help us question whether those ancient sculptures etc are 'art' as we understand it today, or perhaps something different? Which might make us examine them differently? Or more closely?

I think it's a good idea myself.