|
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, 12:47
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: 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. I find myself having little or any interest in relatively modern churches, but medieval churches fascinate me. Until I identify the age of the church, I find I have mixed feelings about it. It might be aesthetically pleasing. It might have a sense of age and history. But, if it turns out to be Victorian. No emotional response.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 12:56
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: 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. Yep , it's a what an art critic might say of a Tom Keating Rembrandt believing it to be genuine minus what the same critic would say about the same painting knowing it be a fake = what you bring to the party , which is useful to know .
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 13:07
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: 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. Yep , it's a what an art critic might say of a Tom Keating Rembrandt believing it to be genuine minus what the same critic would say about the same painting knowing it be a fake = what you bring to the party , which is useful to know . Very. Tell me, are you normally alone it your travels or do you normally go with somebody.. Again, that can be a very different experience.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 13:19
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: 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. Yep , it's a what an art critic might say of a Tom Keating Rembrandt believing it to be genuine minus what the same critic would say about the same painting knowing it be a fake = what you bring to the party , which is useful to know . Very. Tell me, are you normally alone it your travels or do you normally go with somebody.. Again, that can be a very different experience. If it's looking for rock art then almost always alone . General walking ,hills , munros , looking at sites etc sometimes with partner , son did a fair bit of walking , from seven to mid teens , never in a group unless it's a RAM or dig . All quite different .
|
|||
|
lintelman 2 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 14:27
|
||
I'm new but I think your discussion should be broadened: if you take something like Wansdyke, or Offa's Dyke, Hadrian's Wall, and Stonehenge as ancient monuments, I suggest that the earthworks and durable elements (not concrete and steel which will spall and rust) for any of our motorways or railways will, eventually, fall into the same definition. In fact, I've written a novel about exactly that theme. It's not to be taken too seriously, in fact it might even raise a smile. It's called Defective Gods - which, the story goes, is what Stonehenge and the M4 are both dedicated to. It's an ebook at present. Under £2. Give it a try, you might find the ideas intriguing.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 14:39
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: Harryshill wrote: 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. I find myself having little or any interest in relatively modern churches, but medieval churches fascinate me. Until I identify the age of the church, I find I have mixed feelings about it. It might be aesthetically pleasing. It might have a sense of age and history. But, if it turns out to be Victorian. No emotional response. The earlier English saxon to medieval village churches (sometimes not in the villgae )are pretty special but even Gothic revival churches tend have more character than what we have in Scotland .In many respects you could say much the same about village pubs .
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 14:53
|
||
|
I have no experience of Scottish churches or pubs, although I have visited the lowlands a couple of times. So I will take your word for it. My favourites are Saxon, with Norman a close second It makes it sound that pre-history is of little interest to me which is not so
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 14:56
|
||
I see where your coming from. I will take a look at your book.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 15:36
|
||
Time to comtemplate
|
|||
|
lintelman 2 posts |
Oct 02, 2012, 16:36
|
||
I hope you will find the themes relevant to the discussion, Harryshill. I'm suggesting that even a blue plaque is more about the values of the culture that erected it than about a fond memory of a person. Although this becomes an extremely delicate issue in war memorials and the like so I should like to add 'in time'.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
