|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments' |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 18:41
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Just to be devil's advocate though June, why do you think a contemporary addition needs labelling as such? To help some poor confused archaeologist in 3500AD? Why do they need help? Won't they have lots of advanced techniques to investigate things? Won't they twig that Hob's carving wasn't done with a stone? I'm not really advocating deliberately 'forging' rock art, you know, like trying to make new ones and pass them off as old. But I'm not sure it matters even if people do do that? I think an archaeologist thousands of years in the future would be intrigued as to why people were still making the carvings now, thousands of years after their heyday. They might wonder why people like Hob were doing it. (I wonder if he truly could explain why himself, other than for this memorial example). But that's for them to wonder about isn't it. I'm not sure we're obligated to leave them any clues. The original carvers certainly weren't worried about leaving clues for their far off descendants (well, maybe they were, maybe they thought it was that obvious what they meant, but who can say). I don't think it's important. I don't think there are enough people doing it to worry about (whatever it is you're worried about). Does it matter if people are confused -even now- if they come across a new carving? I happened across a new stone circle the other day. The stones didn't look right (to my fairly inexperienced eye), they looked too newly hewn. But if someone in years hence wants to wonder why someone from our time made it, then I dunno, let them. Mine isn't really a position to argue from, but I'm not sure it isn't any less clear than yours? Anyway varied opinions, that's what we want eh. As always Rhiannan your post is well thought through and persuasive. I accept what has been said thus far but stand by my view the carving (which I know was carved with skill and love) would have more integrity if it was easily identified as 'modern'. Not just for future archaeology but for people in the present time who may come across it while out walking and may not be experienced enough to know the difference. I think someone said in a previous post that if they can't tell the difference then fuck them (not a direct quote) - sorry I don't agree - that feels like elitism.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 19:03
|
||
|
I can't imagine what horrendous happening would mean information wasn't available in the future a thousand-fold more efficiently than now or that something that was recorded electronically now would be "forgotten" in future. The world would probably be in such a mess it wouldn't be bothering with luxury items like rock art. In any case, this isn't a memorial to a poet or politician, it's to remember someone whose very essence was studying rock art in minute detail - so a notice explaining exactly what it was to lay people seems a bit out of place. Shouldn't the mystery of his memorial be his memorial, if you see what I mean? Or am I rambling again?
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 19:16
|
||
|
tjj wrote: Rhiannon wrote: Just to be devil's advocate though June, why do you think a contemporary addition needs labelling as such? To help some poor confused archaeologist in 3500AD? Why do they need help? Won't they have lots of advanced techniques to investigate things? Won't they twig that Hob's carving wasn't done with a stone? I'm not really advocating deliberately 'forging' rock art, you know, like trying to make new ones and pass them off as old. But I'm not sure it matters even if people do do that? I think an archaeologist thousands of years in the future would be intrigued as to why people were still making the carvings now, thousands of years after their heyday. They might wonder why people like Hob were doing it. (I wonder if he truly could explain why himself, other than for this memorial example). But that's for them to wonder about isn't it. I'm not sure we're obligated to leave them any clues. The original carvers certainly weren't worried about leaving clues for their far off descendants (well, maybe they were, maybe they thought it was that obvious what they meant, but who can say). I don't think it's important. I don't think there are enough people doing it to worry about (whatever it is you're worried about). Does it matter if people are confused -even now- if they come across a new carving? I happened across a new stone circle the other day. The stones didn't look right (to my fairly inexperienced eye), they looked too newly hewn. But if someone in years hence wants to wonder why someone from our time made it, then I dunno, let them. Mine isn't really a position to argue from, but I'm not sure it isn't any less clear than yours? Anyway varied opinions, that's what we want eh. As always Rhiannan your post is well thought through and persuasive. I accept what has been said thus far but stand by my view the carving (which I know was carved with skill and love) would have more integrity if it was easily identified as 'modern'. Not just for future archaeology but for people in the present time who may come across it while out walking and may not be experienced enough to know the difference. I think someone said in a previous post that if they can't tell the difference then fuck them (not a direct quote) - sorry I don't agree - that feels like elitism. ooops ,that was me , I don't have a problem with elitism but not sure it's applicable here as it was aimed at archaeos ,as it would be up to them to decide if you didn't know . The point was and also mentioned "did you like it ? " meaning how much of the (hypothetical ) experience was due to an imaginary authenticity and not the thing in itself ?
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 19:41
|
||
|
Can't see any point in identifying modern from ancient. The world is full of both and it's not marked as such, nor would it be desirable to be so
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 19:56
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: Can't see any point in identifying modern from ancient. The world is full of both and it's not marked as such, nor would it be desirable to be so It's all part of fun /puzzle . I feel much the same way about "art " forgeries , if those who pay the dosh/recipients can't tell the difference then who cares if it was Tom Keating or Rembrandt .
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 20:04
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I can't imagine what horrendous happening would mean information wasn't available in the future a thousand-fold more efficiently than now or that something that was recorded electronically now would be "forgotten" in future. The world would probably be in such a mess it wouldn't be bothering with luxury items like rock art. In any case, this isn't a memorial to a poet or politician, it's to remember someone whose very essence was studying rock art in minute detail - so a notice explaining exactly what it was to lay people seems a bit out of place. Shouldn't the mystery of his memorial be his memorial, if you see what I mean? Or am I rambling again? http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/the-%E2%80%9Cbritish-rock-art-collection%E2%80%9D-has-vanished/
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 20:09
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: Can't see any point in identifying modern from ancient. The world is full of both and it's not marked as such, nor would it be desirable to be so It's all part of fun /puzzle . I feel much the same way about "art " forgeries , if those who pay the dosh/recipients can't tell the difference then who cares if it was Tom Keating or Rembrandt . That's more or less how I see it. Seeing a saxon feature in a Norman church that others miss doesn't make me wish it was all 'signed' up. It just gives me pleasure.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 20:17
|
||
|
The point is that if a simple piece of information is placed in a number of places its safe - and Hob is doing that - "I think the best way to avoid confusion is by having it clearly flagged up with those who record these things (hence posting it here as a part of that)"
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 20:25
|
||
|
Ooh I like your idea of 'integrity', Tjj. Because to me, that's an important thing about art. By which I mean something to do with the intention behind the making I think. Because when I'm making some art, I generally do take it quite seriously (perhaps that's why I don't get on with doing as much of it as I'd like!). I suppose I mean I want to make something that communicates a certain 'feel'. I don't generally like things that look like they were dreamt up in five minutes, it has to look as though it's considered, even if it's very simple visually. And I imagine (though I haven't had a go) that carving some rock art is not something you can do in five minutes. For one thing you have to choose your spot, get to your spot, and it must take quite some time and physical effort to make it? So there must be some integrity in a modern version in that sense. Maybe? But I suppose you're talking about integrity in a more straightforward 'honesty' way? and I can see that if a carver is deliberately obscuring the fact their work is modern, then that's not honest really. But then there's Tiompan's interesting mention of authenticity. That an important point about art is your direct response to it, and if you think it's old and it evokes some sort of connection-with-the-ancestors thing, maybe that's just the same as if it really were old. (But we don't want to feel duped do we, if we find out later.) But Hob's lovely carving, isn't that authentic in the sense that it's been done by someone with excellent knowledge of and experience of genuine and old rock art in the wild, in its natural locations? So he's used a metal tool. But he's put it in a place that he thinks is similar to the real ones (though curiously there isn't any there already?) And he considered it carefully and it took sweat and effort. And he hasn't done it to confuse. I don't know. It's quite complicated isn't it. But it's very interesting. (This is a bit of a tangent, but I was also thinking about how the rock art is being treated slightly differently to say earthworks and tombs? In that (I might be misinterpreting) people are implying that a new carving is 'as good' as an original. But thinking about the example of the Priddy henge, you can't just rebuilt a bit of henge and it be as good, even if it looks just the same. But I suppose in that case, it's the archaeological evidence that's been lost that's the problem. Not the potential invisible mending.)
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Oct 01, 2012, 20:29
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: Seeing a saxon feature in a Norman church that others miss doesn't make me wish it was all 'signed' up. It just gives me pleasure. Do you not think you may have missed the point ... if someone came along and 'copied' a Saxon feature then then left it somewhere where it may be mistaken for an authentic feature - it would be desirable to know it was not original. That is all I have to say on the matter as I am aware Hob is a highly esteemed contributor. However, it does make me wonder when people (not necessarily you) jump up and down about others climbing on ancient monuments or visiting Skara Brae out of hours can be ok with this. Am genuinely perplexed by these double standards. If that view makes me an outcast on this forum ... well, no change there. I stand by my view.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
