|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments' |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 07:38
|
||
|
I don't have any real concerns with modern monuments. If records are lost and a modern 'reproduction' is accepted as genuine, it doesn't change much, if anything at all. I'm relatively sure that it's already happening. Not forgetting those sites of disputed antiquity, where some people are going to believe they are the genuine article, while others disagree, and yet others don't know or don't care.
|
|||
Rockrich 448 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 07:54
|
||
|
Hob wrote: One possibility of indicating modernity whilst staying in keeping with the general vibe would be to accompany the motif with a series of small cups and grooves, along the lines of: 011100100110111101100011011010110110000101110010011101000111010101101011 Which is the text 'rockartuk' expressed in binary. It's obviously a bit too long to wrap around the CnR motif, but might make a good line if wrapped further down the outcrop. You could peck out a QR Code next to it.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 08:15
|
||
|
You're not communicating with aliens though (hopefully). Something simpler might suffice. People produce replica coins and put a single small letter on them to indicate they aren't original. I still think this is a single special case though and any overt indication of what it is would sort of detract from it as an appropriate memorial.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 09:24
|
||
|
This thread is making me smile. :) I do hope the internets doesn't break, or I'll be out of a job! :D And I'm pretty certain that other methods of recording information haven't, as yet, ground to a halt. I think anything added to the memorial is totally unnecessary, for what it's worth (ie nowt ;) ) for pretty much all the reasons stated by everyone else. It's a magnificent tribute, beautifully rendered, and a continuation of a tradition of sorts. Can't wait to see it meself! G x PS - I can't see a connection between the carving and climbing Silbury, etc.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 10:29
|
||
|
LOL. On the subject of America. The amount of flint work advertised for sale created by people that could be only described as very talented, does kind of concern me. Those pieces, in time, might one day be confused with the pukka article and distort the market. Although of course they would have no provenance
|
|||
|
Rockrich 448 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 10:32
|
||
|
Hob wrote: At this juncture, I'd like to point out that faking CnRs is quite easy if you can be arsed to spend a few weeks weathering them artificially. If anyone feels like starting a line up on ebay, flogging genuinefakeprehistoricmodern rock art, I think there'd be a market, especially in California. Postage costs for large boulders to be sent across the pond might be a problem though ;) You're doing a disservice to your skill and knowledge here Hob sir. It might be easy to create a CnR, but 'tis certainly another matter when it comes to being stylistically right. Next time we go up Blaewarie, if you bring the yoghurt, I'll bring the Karcher ;-) Joking aside, this CnR will be known to the HER by now, so there's no fear of it being mistaken as a prehistoric dobry.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 11:05
|
||
|
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 . Contrasting our perceptions of a fake ,which we had initially believed to be genuine ,with a later view of the same site/ artefact in the realisation that it is a fake , provides a convenient insight into our subjectivity , a sort of instant epoché , one of the few positives to come out of phenomenology in archaeology . Basically ,fakes are good to think with .
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 11:35
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: 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 . Contrasting our perceptions of a fake ,which we had initially believed to be genuine ,with a later view of the same site/ artefact in the realisation that it is a fake , provides a convenient insight into our subjectivity , a sort of instant epoché , one of the few positives to come out of phenomenology in archaeology . Basically ,fakes are good to think with . In layman's terms then. Fakes help you tune in to what is genuine. I assume that the clues are not just in the 'art itself but also in it's location and general landscape. A building might appear to be Tudor, but the clues will tell you it's Victorian
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 12:11
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 . Contrasting our perceptions of a fake ,which we had initially believed to be genuine ,with a later view of the same site/ artefact in the realisation that it is a fake , provides a convenient insight into our subjectivity , a sort of instant epoché , one of the few positives to come out of phenomenology in archaeology . Basically ,fakes are good to think with . In layman's terms then. Fakes help you tune in to what is genuine. I assume that the clues are not just in the 'art itself but also in it's location and general landscape. A building might appear to be Tudor, but the clues will tell you it's Victorian What I was getting at was more to do with fakes , (as long as they are believed to be genuine ) giving us an insight into what we contribute subjectively and creatively to reality . e.g. it's impossible to listen to Wagner without the experience being coloured by our knowledge of his politics and it's associations but if you are unaware of these problems the experience can be quite different , or a visit to what is believed to be a Bronze Age stone circle will produce different emotions to the same configuration of stones if it is understood to be the result of medieval boundaries .
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 12:31
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: tiompan wrote: 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 . Contrasting our perceptions of a fake ,which we had initially believed to be genuine ,with a later view of the same site/ artefact in the realisation that it is a fake , provides a convenient insight into our subjectivity , a sort of instant epoché , one of the few positives to come out of phenomenology in archaeology . Basically ,fakes are good to think with . In layman's terms then. Fakes help you tune in to what is genuine. I assume that the clues are not just in the 'art itself but also in it's location and general landscape. A building might appear to be Tudor, but the clues will tell you it's Victorian What I was getting at was more to do with fakes , (as long as they are believed to be genuine ) giving us an insight into what we contribute subjectively and creatively to reality . e.g. it's impossible to listen to Wagner without the experience being coloured by our knowledge of his politics and it's associations but if you are unaware of these problems the experience can be quite different , or a visit to what is believed to be a Bronze Age stone circle will produce different emotions to the same configuration of stones if it is understood to be the result of medieval boundaries . Ah, yes, I think I understand. It's not the party, it's what you bring to it.. A Medieval church will evoke a different emotion to a Victorian one, but not if the Victorian 'Repro' is believed to be Medieval.. Human nature is fascinating.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
