=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Log In to post a reply
120 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Rhiannon
5291 posts

Re: but...
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.)
In reply to:
Re: but... (tiompan)		 Replies:
Re: but... (Hob)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index