Chris: I haven't read Lehrer's book, so quite possibly I've got something to
learn. In the meantime ...
"A scientific view of looted artifacts" makes no sense to me. Not that I
can't imagine some different perspective. I just don't see how a methodology
which is supposedly value-free can pronounce on the value of artifacts.
Science might suggest a date of creation, a way of removing them from the
earth, conditions of storage, what value most of the population would place
on the objects, what their composition is. Again, I understand science to be
a set of rules for investigating phenomena or observations and coming to
conclusions.
I could see a discussion between someone taking a culturally sensitive
perspective on "looted" artifacts and someone taking a legalistic position:
If they aren't ours we should return them to the owners or their relatives
(genealogic or national) versus "finders keepers, losers weepers". I can
imagine an ethical versus aesthetic debate, but not a science versus
aesthetic debate.
I'm also not so sure that some of us aren't provocateurs much of the time
(not to the exclusion of sincere reactions - It's how you say it as much as
the content).
Geoff C
From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Beautiful and Intriguing Knickknacks
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:11:29 GMT
Since several of us want to now examine "Lehrer's stated goal of creating a
unified third culture in which science and literature can co-exist as
peaceful, complementary equals" ---- perhaps we should examine a little
further how a scientific view of looted artifacts conflicts with an
aesthetic one.
Or -- even conflicts with a literary view -- if we ask whether Keats had
any
idea where his beloved Grecian Urn was excavated.
Were William and the Archeology professor just being provocateurs when they
called all un-scientifically excavated artifacts "knickknacks"?
I don't think so.
I think it's consistent with a scientific approach to culture - as well as
with the historicist approach that dominates art theory.
And yet -- nobody really wants to dismiss all the un-scientifically
excavated
artifacts in our art museums. do they ? (and that would amount to way, way
over 50% of everything allegedly made before 1500.)
I can't even think of a single exception in the A.I.C. collection --
William,
can you ?
____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your
business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmSpShhFaE4NQyteSob8iRnj
GhQS8Qks90at396ekmGU30mY/
