Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

Littlestone

5386 posts

Re: Slaggyford Stones .

Sep 10, 2011, 15:30

Jeeze... c’mon fellas take a step back. I know feck all about rock art but the crux of your argument seems to be between rockart (manmade) and non-rockart (natural). Isn’t that looking at things from a slightly modern perspective? Where do you place found art in the prehistoric context, or does that just get kicked into the long grass?

Wiki defines found art as an art which, “...derives its identity as art from the designation placed upon it by the artist...” Sure, the best manmade rockart has a wow factor that simpler manmade or natural cup and rings don’t but that doesn’t preclude them from being a form of art (if we can even use that term here). Where would you place the Alphamstone stuff? Probably natural but found on a Christianised site and perhaps brought and incorporated there because they looked ‘artificial’ (manmade or otherwise) or at the very least looked interesting and different enough for use at an important site. Ditto the ammonite at Stoney Littleton, the holed stones down by the river at Pewsey, the twisted stones used at Rollright, the puddingstones used up in this (Essex) neck of the woods.

Sorry if I’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick – just wanted to say that art doesn’t have to be manmade but that it becomes art when we make it so.

In reply to:
Slaggyford Stones . (tiompan)

Replies:
Re: Slaggyford Stones . (tiompan)
Re: Slaggyford Stones . (tiompan)
Re: Slaggyford Stones . (StoneGloves)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Slaggyford Stones » Slaggyford Stones .	Log In to post a reply

170 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded