But these are facts one simply knows by reading ancient history, anthropology, and archaeology.
The notion of art in our sense was quite absent in most cultures of the past - including Western culture prior to the Renaissance. What sense would notions such as 'line of ownership' etc have in cultures such as those? In quite a number of them even the idea of preservation was unimportant. This requires reading a bit of history beyond Europe since 1500. I realize many theorists of art are reluctant to do so. But since the contents of today's art museums tend to go a little beyond this time frame and geographical frame (!!) it seems a good idea, don't you think? Do you ever read any ancient history, anthropology, and archaeology? DA On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Saul Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you substantiate this in some manner that goes beyond your empirical > understanding - of your present analysis which seems to lack any real > cogent perspective - for the most part you seem to want to reduce this to a > he says she says arguement > Chair, Visual Arts and Technologies > The Cleveland Institute of Art > > > > >> From: Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:10:55 +1000 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Presence >> >> This is so hopelessly shaky historically speaking. For vast stretches >> of history and for large numbers of objects we now regard as art, the >> question of 'line of ownership' was entirely irrelevant. Ditto the >> notion of 'exhibition.' The statues at Chartres were not on >> 'exhibition', or Buddhist sculpture or so much else. That is Western >> post-Renaissance thinking. Authenticity?? The very notion would not >> have made sense. Ditto a million times over for 'cultural value'. > > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
