The structuralist approach
From the 1950s onwards, studies by Max Raphaël, Annette Laming-Emperaire and André Leroi-Gourhan developed a structuralist interpretation of decorated caves. It was no longer a question of searching for a meaning that necessarily eludes us, but of grasping the symbolic significance of this art, its compositional logic that makes it possible to propose, according to Leroi-Gourhan, the "ideal layout of a Palaeolithic sanctuary" (article by Jean Clottes in the CNRS history journal: http://histoire-cnrs.revues.org/553).
This interpretation is based on observations that many current researchers consider to be largely subjective: the sexual typology of the animals, the counting of figures prior to statistics, the division of caves into distinct zones, etc. Recent discoveries have also revealed collections of images that do not perfectly fit the theoretical model.
Other interpretations
There have been a number of critics of the structuralist hypothesis, including Denis Vialou, who believes that each cave is unique, and Michel Lorblanchet, who defends the concept of the participating cave. Other interpretations have also emerged, describing cave art as a system of territorial marking (Margaret Conkey) or linking it to shamanic practices (Jean Clottes).
This multiplicity of interpretations reflects the impossibility of determining the fundamental message conveyed by cave art. However, it also demonstrates its richness, allowing approaches that are now sometimes considered to be complementary.