Cave painting and cinema are both similar and different. Their similarities are superficial: both of them deal with two-dimensional mediums, as one is on a wall, the other is on a screen. Their similarities diverge at the point that cave painting regards temporality as an artifact and cinema regards temporality as an action.
Defining temporality as an artifact, as seen in the article, means that it is something that is stagnant due to the fact that it exists in the here and now. It is something that can be manipulated and played with. The different layers of the cave paintings, almost seemingly vandalizing and ruining itself, actually create an interactive and living element. A light source is a tool in which to manipulate context and imagery, similar to how the sun in the day at different times recontextualizes the Earth’s environment.
Meanwhile, cinema is a strictly linear process. Of course, there are films that toy with time, such as many of the films by the director Christopher Nolan, but these lack the interactive element and serve more as a intellectual experiment rather than something tangible. It is something that happens, an action, and the time that you started the film is different than the time that you ended it. It was an ongoing process that is now ceased.