Art, antique and artifact
FundyMaine
On the Victoriana newsgroup there was a short discussion on the
meaning of the term antique, as to whether it's been so watered down as to
be useless.. Look at it this way. We can all readily agree on what a
horse is. Can we so readily agree on what an antique is?
Let's say, for example, that we would include both shop and studio
productions - whether furniture or pottery. What of hand-made items from
a factory system? Or mass-produced items? Old reproductions? Is it
either necessary or useful to draw a distinction between art and antique?
And what do you call an artifact - say a hand tool, or other items of
everyday use?
John Owen
Fundy Maine House Antiques
Ronnie McKinley
On 8 Apr 1997 13:41:06 GMT, fundy...@aol.com (FundyMaine) wrote:
>On the Victoriana newsgroup there was a short discussion on the
>meaning of the term antique, as to whether it's been so watered down as to
>be useless.. Look at it this way. We can all readily agree on what a
>horse is. Can we so readily agree on what an antique is?
>
Well John as seeing the discussion in Victoriana was mainly between
you and me, I'll put my point again :-)
An antique, is a relic or 'old' (what does 'old' mean? ;-) ) object
having *aesthetic*, *historic*, and financial value. Formerly, it
referred only to the remains of the classical cultures of Greece and
Rome; gradually, decorative arts - courtly, bourgeois, and peasant -
of all past eras and places came to be considered antique.
_________________________________________________________
Antiques have been *variously* defined by law for **tariff** purposes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 exempted from duty specified antiquities
and objects of art produced prior to 1830, and that year became more
or less internationally accepted as an appropriate terminal date in
defining *antique.* Next, 1952 the Florence Agreement, sponsored by
UNESCO and signed by 17 countries, agreed to "facilitate the free flow
of educational, scientific and cultural materials by the removal of
barriers that impede the international movement of such materials,"
and antiques were affected by subsequent legislation adopted in the
participating countries to implement the agreement.
The United States, then for instance, passed a new tariff act in 1966
permitting the **duty-free importation** of "antiques made prior to
100 years before their date of entry"; comparable regulations had
already gone into effect in other participating countries
In general usage, antiques frequently are now defined as objects of
artistic and historical significance, and by MODERN GOVERNMENT
AGREEMENTS - they are at least 100 years old.
But that does not really define what an antique is, now does it?
Ronnie
glenb...@dial.pipex.com
===================================
Improvement makes strait roads;
but the crooked roads without improvement
are roads of Genius.
===================================
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/glenbourne/contents.htm
Ronnie McKinley
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 14:20:15 -0400, LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com>
wrote:
>definition of antique - an item made before the industrial revolution
>- that's my definition - truthfully,
LeAnne
What was the date (ie the year will do) the 'industrial revolution'
started?
And when did it end?
And the 'industrial revolution' did it start in America the same time
as it started in England?
Did it end in America and Europe when it ended in the Far East?
Was there an 'industrial revolution' everywhere in the world?
And why should the 'industrial revolution' be a date by how one
defines an antique?
>to me, artifacts are much older than the average antique - although,
>they are certainly a subset of the grouping "antique" - we collect
>fossils - they are certainly antique since they were originated before
>the Industrial Revolution, but it goes beyond antique when you consider
>that mausosaur vertebrae is millions of years old
artifact [L arte by skill (abl. of art-, ars skill)] is something
created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially an
object remaining from a particular period, so would a fossil or a
vertebrae be an artifact? or more strictly would not a fossil or such
like be better referred to as, physical remains?
Ben Weed
Weed's Rules of Subjectivity:
============================
If you can't eat it or bear to throw it away, then surely it must be a
collectable? If you show it to someone else and they want it, then it must
be valuable? If someone else owns it and they won't sell it to you then it
must be an antique?
(C) 1997, Ben K. Weed
P.O. Box 4643
Stockton, CA 95204-0643 USA
http://members.tripod.com/~oldflagswanted/usa.html
http://www.collectoronline.com/collect/wb-old-flags.html
**************************
PRO...GLORIA...ET...PATRIA
**************************
LeAnne Davis
FundyMaine wrote:
>
> On the Victoriana newsgroup there was a short discussion on the
> meaning of the term antique, as to whether it's been so watered down
> as to be useless.. Look at it this way. We can all readily agree on
> what a horse is. Can we so readily agree on what an antique is?
doubt it...I've been reading this group since - uhmmm, August of 1995
and this topic has come up before & never been resolved...
funny how some of us keep running into each other & how discussions
start in one place go to another group & end up back in the original
discussion location completely evolved... ;)
definition of antique - an item made before the industrial revolution
- that's my definition - truthfully, I don't have any antiques - I have
quite a number of period items though for different eras such as the
Victorian Period & the Great Depression...Now, if I had the Bible that
records the birth of my Luther ancestor born in 1759 in Maryland, then
I'd have an antique...and, it'd be guarded ferociously and, I'd know
who his parents were rather than wondering if he were a space alien...
now, as to the definition for this newsgroup - the charter indicates
50 years or older so I honor that definition in this setting even though
I DO NOT AGREE... ;>
to me, artifacts are much older than the average antique - although,
they are certainly a subset of the grouping "antique" - we collect
fossils - they are certainly antique since they were originated before
the Industrial Revolution, but it goes beyond antique when you consider
that mausosaur vertebrae is millions of years old - same goes for points
(aka arrowheads) or items from archeological excavations like pottery
shards & such...
art is not limited to age, IMHO, there many art classifications if
one must divide it - some of it may be antique (created pre IR) in
several of those classification...
and, like a Venn diagram, these groups overlap, so that an item may be
all three or only one...
LeAnne
--
LeAnne Davis e-mail: LeAnne...@ti.com
Configuration Management
Texas Instruments 972-952-5386
Std Disclaimer: My opinions are not TI's except by coincidence!
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1894/haden.html
LeAnne Davis
(Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 14:20:15 -0400, LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com>
> wrote:
>
> >they are certainly a subset of the grouping "antique" - we collect
> >fossils - they are certainly antique since they were originated
> >before the Industrial Revolution, but it goes beyond antique when you
> >consider that mausosaur vertebrae is millions of years old
>
> created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially an
> object remaining from a particular period, so would a fossil or a
> vertebrae be an artifact? or more strictly would not a fossil or such
> like be better referred to as, physical remains?
you are absolutely correct, but so many of us who hunt fossils also
hunt points (arrowheads) & thusly, the terms become "fuzzy"
so does a fossil qualify as an antique? it's truly not an artifact
unless it was modified by a human at some point in history...such
as an early North American continent resident stringing fossilized
fish vertebrae together into a necklace....
LeAnne Davis
(Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 14:20:15 -0400, LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com>
> wrote:
>
> >- that's my definition - truthfully,
>
>
> What was the date (ie the year will do) the 'industrial revolution'
> started?
aw, c'mon Ronnie, now you're asking me to remember the stuff I only
memorized long enough to take exams over & then promptly forgot...
seems like it was in the early-mid 1800's when the steam engine became
the hottest (pun intended) thing in manufacturing processes - it took
a few years from the time the steam engine was invented in the late
1700's until it was put to practical everyday use (much like electricity
- though electricity was discovered - not invented...)
> And when did it end?
not sure it ever ended, but historians would probably give you date as
well as a new era's name picking up where the Industrial Revolution
left off...seems like I vaguely remember our school history texts being
divided into these kinds of - perhaps arbitrary - periods...
> And the 'industrial revolution' did it start in America the same time
> as it started in England?
I believe it was very close...It seems the American inventors/engineers
were always competing against European inventors/engineers to be the
first & claim they invented something - it's still done, but more global
> Did it end in America and Europe when it ended in the Far East?
hmmmm, there are probably some areas in the Far East that have never
had this era in their history though they were greatly impacted by
the European/American inventions & discoveries...I can't off-hand think
of any inventions during the 1800's from the Far East which made a
lasting impression in my studies, however, I can think of many from
America & Europe...
> Was there an 'industrial revolution' everywhere in the world?
most of our history lessons over here in the States tend to focus on
the American history and the European (including some colonies) history
rather than the "world" history. For example, I don't remember studying
much on Japan until we began studying WWII. It wasn't until I was an
adult & prepping for a trip to Japan that I really began learning about
the Japanese culture.
> And why should the 'industrial revolution' be a date by how one
> defines an antique?
I tend to favor that definition purely from the perspective that items
were hand-crafted, whereas, after the IR, machines mass-produced items
that had been hand-crafted in the previous years...
My next favored definition (which I didn't offer in the previous post)
of "antique " is that which the Customs officials tend to favor - at
least 100 years in age.
And, I can even live with the r.a charter of over 50 years, though
I don't agree, but, by no means do I consider items from the 1964
World's Fair, GIJoe, Barbie, Hallmark ornaments or Precious Moments
figurines to be antiques. As far as I am concerned, they are
collectibles & even by Customs' rules will not be antique until
after I'm dead (unless I outlive my Aunt Josie who passed away at
the tender age of 106)...
Ronnie McKinley
On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 07:33:31 -0400, LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com>
wrote:
>> LeAnne
>>
>> What was the date (ie the year will do) the 'industrial revolution'
>> started?
>
>aw, c'mon Ronnie, now you're asking me to remember the stuff I only
>memorized long enough to take exams over & then promptly forgot...
[snip]
>
>> And when did it end?
>
>not sure it ever ended,
[snip]
>
>> And the 'industrial revolution' did it start in America the same time
>> as it started in England?
>
>I believe it was very close...It seems the American inventors/engineers
>were always competing against European inventors/engineers to be the
>first & claim they invented something - it's still done, but more global
>
>> Did it end in America and Europe when it ended in the Far East?
>
>hmmmm,
[snip]
>
>> Was there an 'industrial revolution' everywhere in the world?
>
>most of our history lessons over here in the States tend to focus on
>the American history and the European (including some colonies) history
>rather than the "world" history.
[snip]
>
///////////////
The process of change from an agrarian, handicraft economy to one
dominated by industry and machine manufacture began in England in the
18th century and from there *gradually* spread to other parts of the
world. Aware of their head start, the British early on forbade the
export of machinery, skilled workers, and manufacturing techniques.
The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English
economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852-83) to describe England's
economic development from 1760 to 1840.
Some historians have questioned whether the term Industrial Revolution
can really be applied to the economic transformation of late 18th- and
early 19th-century Britain. They point out that in terms of employment
the industrial sector may not have overtaken the agricultural sector
until the 1850s and that even then the average unit of production
employed *only* 10 people. Large, anonymous factories did not become
common until the late 19th century. Other scholars have argued,
rightly, that industry did not suddenly take off in the 1780s and that
even in 1700 Britain was a more industrialized state than its European
competitors. But, despite all these qualifications, the available
evidence suggests that by 1800 Britain was by far the most
industrialized state in the world and that, because of this, its rate
of economic growth must have accelerated in the last third of
the 18th century.
The speed of western Europe's Industrial Revolution should not be
exaggerated. By 1850 in Britain, far and away the leader still, only
half the total population lived in cities, and there were as *many*
urban craft producers as there were factory hands. Relatively
traditional economic sectors, in other words, did not disappear and
even expanded in response to new needs for housing construction or
food production. Nevertheless, the new economic sectors grew most
rapidly, and even other branches displayed important new features as
part of the general process of commercialization.
Geographic disparities complicate the picture as well. Germany, for
example, despite vast resources of coal and iron, did not begin its
industrial expansion until after national unity was achieved in 1870.
France, poorer in coal, concentrated somewhat more on increasing
production in craft sectors, Scandinavia and The Netherlands joined
the industrial parade seriously only *after* 1850. The eastern
European countries were behind early in the 20th century. It was not
until the five-year plans that the Soviet Union became a major
industrial power The mid-20th century witnessed the spread of the
Industrial Revolution into hitherto nonindustrialized areas such as
China and India. Despite considerable overlapping with the "old,"
there is mounting evidence for a "new" Industrial Revolution in the
late 19th and 20th centuries.
>> And why should the 'industrial revolution' be a date by how one
>> defines an antique?
>
>I tend to favor that definition purely from the perspective that items
>were hand-crafted, whereas, after the IR, machines mass-produced items
>that had been hand-crafted in the previous years...
>
I would question your means as how to define an 'antique' by using the
Industrial Revolution as a reference point - it is somewhat confusing.
LeAnne, why do you need to define or dateline in the first place?- can
you not just judge each object on its own merits and the historical
significance?
Better still can you not just say - "hey love that - must have it" :-)
LeAnne Davis
(Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
snip-snip...
> Better still can you not just say - "hey love that - must have it" :-)
actually, if you look at my "junque", that's exactly what I've done...
but, I still say circa 1964 AIN'T ANTIQUE!!!!! ;>
LeAnne
(who will not likely ever admit c. 1964 is antique since - oh well,
nevermind - ladies don't admit age or weight, right???)
Gerald Clough
(Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
>
snip, purely for length, good question and discussion of the "industrial
revolution".
The other half of the discussion was LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com.
>
> >> And why should the 'industrial revolution' be a date by how one
> >> defines an antique?
> >
> >I tend to favor that definition purely from the perspective that items
> >were hand-crafted, whereas, after the IR, machines mass-produced items
> >that had been hand-crafted in the previous years...
> >
>
> I would question your means as how to define an 'antique' by using the
> Industrial Revolution as a reference point - it is somewhat confusing.
> LeAnne, why do you need to define or dateline in the first place?- can
> you not just judge each object on its own merits and the historical
> significance?
>
> Better still can you not just say - "hey love that - must have it" :-)
>
> Ronnie
> glenb...@dial.pipex.com
At the risk of being guilty of breach of netiquite by posting an "I
agree", I must agree that any approach to deciding what is of value that
is based strictly on age, era, or any other absolute measure tends to
make the field conserned with formal validation than appreciation. I
would like to think that to most people "antique" means something that
represents a past style, way of life, worldview, or attitude to objects
that attracts us in a way that we can often not articulate. We may not
even find the period or attitude exemplified by the object to be
admirable, but it seems important that we take note of it.
Although, we are looking back over a significant number of years, age is
certainly not the prime criteria. It takes something more substantial
for an object to carry with it something significant from the past. We
will all be attracted to many different things, many different times,
many different modes of catching the essence of something that has come
before. For some, it is quality of workmanship. For others, it is
design. For many others, the attraction is to objects that, through
daily use by people who dealt with life in a different environment,
carry the marks of that use.
Excessive consern with fiscal value spoils the experience. (Unless one
is just coldly dealing with antiques as a sort of commodity.) Likewise,
rejecting a object or class of objects because they were not produced
before an arbitrary year is to a declaration that age is being used in
place of appreciation.
Assuming Ronnie takes the approach that I (and many others) take, that
we are at our best when dealing in things that make us personnaly
enthusiastic, and having viewed his web site, I suspect we have very
different tastes. But, what most of us share is that we are touched by
the past in a way that we don't really need to understand. That is our
common ground and our understanding of each other.
So, "hey, love that - must have it" is a most honest and useful measure
of an antique - one I think we all understand and an attitude that
accepts others' enthusiasm for the past, however it is expressed.
Gerald Clough
--
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
roger
On 8 Apr 1997 22:05:54 GMT, Ben Weed <B.K....@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
here's mine
--
http://www.every-era.com ro...@every-era.com
The difference between an antique and a collectible is that in
an antique shop they would prefer you not carry around cans of
coke. In a collectibles shop they sell them.
Ben Weed
Weed's Rules of Subjectivity
============================
4. If you own it and have turned down loads of cash for it, then it must
be a family heirloom, or at least your decendants will think so.
5. If someone else owns it and is willing to sell it too cheep, then it
must be fake!
Rule number five brings up the subject of my article about the dark side
of collecting that a certain antique trade publication wouldn't print! If
anyone is interested in reading the article just send me an e-mail and
I'll gladly send your back a "free" copy of it.
Sincerely, Ben K. Weed
P.O. Box 4643
Stockton, CA 95204-0643 USA
http://members.tripod.com/~oldflagswanted/usa.html
http://www.collectoronline.com/collect/wb-old-flags.html
*******************
E...PLURIBUS...UNUM
*******************
Michael Dougherty
LeAnne Davis wrote:
>
> (Ronnie McKinley) wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >to me, artifacts are much older than the average antique - although,
> > >they are certainly a subset of the grouping "antique" - we collect
> > >fossils - they are certainly antique since they were originated
> > >before the Industrial Revolution, but it goes beyond antique when you
> > >consider that mausosaur vertebrae is millions of years old
> >
> > artifact [L arte by skill (abl. of art-, ars skill)] is something
> > created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially an
> > object remaining from a particular period, so would a fossil or a
> > vertebrae be an artifact? or more strictly would not a fossil or such
> > like be better referred to as, physical remains?
>
> you are absolutely correct, but so many of us who hunt fossils also
> hunt points (arrowheads) & thusly, the terms become "fuzzy"
>
> so does a fossil qualify as an antique? it's truly not an artifact
> unless it was modified by a human at some point in history...such
> as an early North American continent resident stringing fossilized
> fish vertebrae together into a necklace....
>
> LeAnne
> LeAnne Davis e-mail: LeAnne...@ti.com
> Configuration Management
> Texas Instruments 972-952-5386
> Std Disclaimer: My opinions are not TI's except by coincidence!
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1894/haden.html
An artifact is _anything_ made or modified by a human being - including
both my laundry and those nifty projectile points (for us archaeologists
anyways). An antique is any object you attach the death penalty to for
breakage (that's a joke by the way...)
:)
Lydia P-D
P.S. As always, any commentary/opinions are applicable to only the 50
several states...
Rudolph H. Niessink
Maybe not for everyone, but my rule is:
European antiques 100 years old.
North American *antiques* pre 1940.
Heh, I said not for everyone....
Rudolph
FundyMaine wrote:
>
> On the Victoriana newsgroup there was a short discussion on the
> meaning of the term antique, as to whether it's been so watered down as to
> be useless.. Look at it this way. We can all readily agree on what a
> horse is. Can we so readily agree on what an antique is?
>