Art history
Clyde S. Dale
says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
>and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
>works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
>this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
Ummmm...ever hear of "the dark ages?"
Flying_Naked_People
> x-no-archive: yes
> How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
> and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
> works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
> this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
Christianity (i.e. politics)
> What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
> in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
> AD1400?
In Greece - ideal beauty (perfection) was their religion. What was missing was
a bunch of live non-Christians.
> Is the praise of Classical Art acceptable, or is it just that modern
> tastes happened to coincide for a time, and actually those pots,
> sculptures, bronzes and buildings were just ordinary?
Classical art is where we need to "pick it up" again and and run with it.
> In the opinion of newgroupers, does the quality of art rise and fall?
In today's times, I think it's too individualized and temporary to determine.
If a comparison could be made between the art and today's music industry,
*most* artists are doomed to instant fame, scandal, and then burnout. As Tina
Turner once said, "Nothing lasts" (in the U.S.)
UNLess - they are able to do what *some* musicians do - and that is create a
"thing" that transcends or reflects the times. Consider musicians like
Santana, Spyro Gyro,... even Jacko bizzaro (Michael Jackson).
Also, U.S. culture frowns on copy artists. In ancient times, it might have
been honorable and a goal to paint/draw/sculpt like so-and-so. Today, people
demand a truly original quick-fix... void of possible copyright infringement.
> Is it fair to compare contemporary Western Art with the Classical Age?
No. Lol.
> Is there a "style" which future art historians can say exists in our times,
> or has our modern culture enabled the individual to produce a hotch-potch
> of changing and changeable tastes?
Individualism is "in." However, see, below.
> If so then where do they see our art going in a general sense?
> Will there ever be a style that schoolkids can recognise, (as they surely
> must have in Ancient Greece) that will still be used when they are adult?
I fear the future. If you notice, you can sense a violent, morbid, twisted,
and sick "style" emerging. (Well, in the U. S. anyway). It's in the music,
it's in the writing, the art, the clothing, the attitude, and everywhere.
Dead pidgeons and hog casings are "cool" to these nuts. So if it would upset
Grandmother, then It Is Good.
> I hope that people will not regard this as a troll, but something that is
> hoped to stimulate debate.
Um... that's what a troll does. Lol.
> Thur
Flying_Naked_People
> must have in Ancient Greece) that will still be used when they are adult?
>
One more thing...
Schoolkids in Ancient Greece must have questioned the same thing, as in, "We
have idealized life and beauty to it's perfected perfection. What more can our
future do?"
The Romans removed the idealism and replaced it with realism. Throughout the
years, we've removed realism and ultimately replaced it with individualism. -
A progression from collective effort to personal effort.
I don't think the Greek school children would have ever conceived such an
idea.
----
But back to your other question - what is the future? The pattern seems to
follow that of reproductive cells - starting with one (style) - dividing into
more and more individual cells (styles) ...
Maybe in the future, we can enjoy art produced by a single artist's multiple
personalities!
Lauri Levanto
Why Egyptians sculpted pieces like Nefertiti head
that competes with what Greeks and Romans achieved centuries later
while their paintings were schematic, almost childish.
My understanding is that the purpose of Egyptian painting was narrative,
close to hieroglyph script.
The narrative aspect was important in Byzantine and medieval church art, too.
In renaissance the representational and beauty ideals revived.
In the most recent art the narrative is in focus again.
Truth versus beauty.
-lauri
Thur wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
> and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
> works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
> this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
>
> What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
> in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
> AD1400?
> Is the praise of Classical Art acceptable, or is it just that modern
> tastes happened to coincide for a time, and actually those pots,
> sculptures, bronzes and buildings were just ordinary?
>
> In the opinion of newgroupers, does the quality of art rise and fall?
>
> Is it fair to compare contemporary Western Art with the Classical Age?
>
> Is there a "style" which future art historians can say exists in our times,
> or has our modern culture enabled the individual to produce a hotch-potch
> of changing and changeable tastes?
> If so then where do they see our art going in a general sense?
> Will there ever be a style that schoolkids can recognise, (as they surely
> must have in Ancient Greece) that will still be used when they are adult?
>
> I hope that people will not regard this as a troll, but something that is
> hoped to stimulate debate.
> Thur
judith
Thur wrote in message ...
>x-no-archive: yes
>How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
>and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
>works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
>this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
THE UNSETTLED DARK AGES.
SURVIVING LEFT LITTLE TIME FOR CONTEMPLATION. HOWEVER MANY LIFE PRESERVING
TOOLS (for agriculture and war) WERE DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. SOME SMALL
CRAFT ITEMS PRESERVED CERTAIN MEDITERRANEAN SKILLS, IF NOT IMAGERY.
>What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
>in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
>AD1400?
ANCIENT GREECE PROVIDED A STABLE SOCIETY (despite wars) UNDERPINNED BY A
UNIFIED BELIEF SYSTEM ALL COULD PARTICIPATE IN, ONE THAT REFLECTED THE
HIERARCHIES OF LIFE
>Is the praise of Classical Art acceptable, or is it just that modern
>tastes happened to coincide for a time, and actually those pots,
>sculptures, bronzes and buildings were just ordinary?
IT IS ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE TO PRAISE INNOVATION, AND THE WANT TO EXCEL IN ALL
ACTIVITIES, IN EVERY AGE AND CULTURE WHETHER OF NOT IT IS IN LINE WITH OUR
PERSONAL TASTES.
>In the opinion of newgroupers, does the quality of art rise and fall?
YES, ALONG WITH THE QUALITY OF SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND ENVIRONMENT. IT APPEARS
THAT EVERY MAJOR CIVILISATION HAS IT'S ASCENDANCY, IT'S APOGEE, AND IT'S
DOWNFALL. THE LENGTH OF THESE PHASES DIFFER BUT THE ART STYLES SEEM TO
REFLECT THE EVENTS.
>Is it fair to compare contemporary Western Art with the Classical Age?
WHY NOT? IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL EXERCISE.
BESIDES, WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT CLASSICAL GREEK ART AND THE EUROPEAN
'RENIASSANCE' YOU'LL NOTICE DIFFERENT STYLES BETWEEN REGIONS OF (Classical)
GREECE AND THE NORTH & SOUTH OF (Renaissance) EUROPE. THERE IS EVEN A
DIFFERENT STYLE BETWEEN MAJOR CITIES IN ITALY IN THE 1500's.
>Is there a "style" which future art historians can say exists in our times,
>or has our modern culture enabled the individual to produce a hotch-potch
>of changing and changeable tastes?
THE 'STYLE' OF THE 20th (AND SO FAR THE 21st) CENTURY IS INDEED A
'hotch-potch' BUT THEN IN WHAT OTHER CENTURY OR ERA HAS THERE BEEN SUCH EASE
OF LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL AND 'INSTANT' COMMUNICATION AVAILABLE TO ALL LEVELS
OF THE SOCIAL PYRAMID.
>If so then where do they see our art going in a general sense?
PERHAPS THIS hotch-potch MAY BE SEEN BY FUTURE ART HISTORIANS AS THE
BEGINNING OF A 'WORLD' ART STYLE WHICH IS ONLY NOW IN ITS INFANCY.
>Will there ever be a style that schoolkids can recognise, (as they surely
>must have in Ancient Greece) that will still be used when they are adult?
THE ANCIENT GREEK SCHOOL CHILD LEARNED ONLY OF HIS (girls didn't attend)
CULTURE THEREFORE PERPETUATED IT. SO TOO DID THE CHILD OF CHINA, PERU,
INDIA, etc. THE MODERN SCHOOL CHILD HAS ACCESS TO ALL FORMS OF MAKING VISUAL
ART AND WILL DEVELOP AN ECLECTIC EYE. PERHAPS IT IS THE WAY OF LOOKING, NOT
WHAT WE LOOK AT, THAT WILL DECIDE 'ART' IN THE FUTURE.
>I hope that people will not regard this as a troll, but something that is
>hoped to stimulate debate.
>Thur
>
CHEERS
J
Thur
too.<
However, I think that Byzantium was far away, especially after
Rome became the centre of the Church, and the Western Empire.
My greatest interest is on the one hand, what were the forces that
shaped this culture to produce such art, and is there anything that
can be seen in the overall world of Western art today?
Your example of Egyptian art needs to be addressed to the culture,
which consisted of a supra class of priests who kept the religion
secret, and shared almost nothing with the rest of the people.
Works such as the Nefertiti head were made to be seen by no-one
but the resurrected Pharaoh.
It was the most conservative of societies, which tried over thousands
of years not to change anything, even with disasters like the loss of
Pharoahs for centuries, (several times)comparable at least with the
sacks of Rome.
Thur
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3FC91C60...@netti.fi...
judith
Thur wrote in message ...
>x-no-archive: yes
>As I said:
>>>but something that is
>> >hoped to stimulate debate.
You did start a debate, a discourse,
a discussion ~ whatever.
So let it go where others will take it.
J
Clyde S. Dale
>PERHAPS THIS hotch-potch
Gotta love it! Up here on the top side
we say "hodge podge." Now I'll use
"hotch potch" instead and when asked I'll
be able to say that's the way Aussie's
say it! Thanks! And thanks for a good
post too!
Dilettante
>
> THE ANCIENT GREEK SCHOOL CHILD LEARNED ONLY OF HIS (girls didn't attend)
> CULTURE THEREFORE PERPETUATED IT. SO TOO DID THE CHILD OF CHINA, PERU,
> INDIA, etc. THE MODERN SCHOOL CHILD HAS ACCESS TO ALL FORMS OF MAKING VISUAL
> ART AND WILL DEVELOP AN ECLECTIC EYE. PERHAPS IT IS THE WAY OF LOOKING, NOT
> WHAT WE LOOK AT, THAT WILL DECIDE 'ART' IN THE FUTURE.
This statement needs some qualification.
Ancient Greece was an empire that included much of Italy and the east
coast of what is now Turkey, as well as Crete and the islands of the
eastern Mediterranean. Ancient Greece was also a seafaring and
adventurist culture, that took in many influences from the outside
world. Not the least of these was the writing system of a non-Greek
people from what is now Lebanon called the Phoenicians. Influence from
other cultures was brought in by Greek merchant ships.
The same could also be said of China. Most of ancient China was not
China in fact but non-Chinese territory, including Mongolia,
Manchuria, Tibet, etc. China had an active seafaring culture until
about 1600, which would have brought in foreign influence.
Even those areas that were not part of the Chinese empire were
tributary states, like Thailand and Korea, with whom the Chinese had
regular relations. One foreign influence, brought in from India about
500 AD was Buddhism, which totally transformed Chinese moral,
mythological, and religious culture. Many Chinese myths are in fact of
Indian origian. Another foreign admixture was Islamic art, whose
influence is mainly seen in the fact that since about 800 AD Chinese
pottery has been a virtual copy of middle eastern motifs.
To make a comparison based on a non-cosmopolitan image of these
cultures with ours would be erroneous therefore.
American education is filtered through American textbook and media
writers who maintain a parochialism of their own. In fact many
Americans will reflexively attack the accomplishments of other
cultures in order to maintain a false image of the supremacy of
American culture. For example--very few Americans knew that Berlin
after reunification underwent the largest building project in history
since the ancient Rome. There are a tremendous number of interesting
and important things going on all over the world that Americans do not
know, are kept from knowing, or deliberately suppress from a motive of
national chauvinism.
Since it is parochialism, not cosmopolitanism, that defines much of
the American school room, the former and not the latter, will define
art in the future as it does now.
Dilettante
Clyde S. Dale
says...
>I do not want to turn this into a general history
>debate
That's a peculiar statement, followed up in
the next post from you with this history lecture:
>Yes, I read that Byzantium had influence, along with Germanic taste.
>However, I think that Byzantium was far away, especially after
>Rome became the centre of the Church, and the Western Empire.
>My greatest interest is on the one hand ... blah blah blah"
The term "dark ages" is not something I coined.
It is a term applied to that era when war,
plague and general depravations would very surely
have impacted art patronage, to say nothing of
the artists themselves. And in the past, without
patronage, artists starved (from whence we got
the term "starving artists").
Perhaps it's too simplistic an explanation to
satisfy you, but it's what medieval times were
all about. Plenty of money for war, and paying
tribute to feudal masters, but not a penny or
farthing for the arts!
judith
normally I'd say 'a dog's dinner'
Cheers
J
Clyde S. Dale wrote in message <3fc9...@news.zianet.com>...
Paul Mesken
wrote:
I think Thur was refering to your reply written in all caps. This
gives one the impression of shouting :-)
Clyde S. Dale
says...
>I think Thur was refering to your reply written in all caps. This
>gives one the impression of shouting :-)
I assumed the 'all caps' was some Aussie phobia
brought on by kangaroo dandruff. You know,
trying to keep from "jumping" from lower to
upper case and back again...
Now ain't that a dog's dinner!
Lauri Levanto
"Clyde S. Dale" wrote:
> ...
> Perhaps it's too simplistic an explanation to
> satisfy you, but it's what medieval times were
> all about. Plenty of money for war, and paying
> tribute to feudal masters, but not a penny or
> farthing for the arts!
maybe Art was not seen as a commodity
to be sold as such. The medieval cathedrals
employed hundreads of skilled artists and craftsmen.
Some of them were even imported to my distant northern country
- with all costs paid!
-lauri
judith
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
break while doing a project and Caps Lock was on. Guess I was 'deaf' to the
look of it at the time. Apologies to the offended. Cheers J
Clyde S. Dale
>maybe Art was not seen as a commodity
>to be sold as such. The medieval cathedrals
>employed hundreads of skilled artists and craftsmen.
>Some of them were even imported to my distant northern country
>- with all costs paid!
>-lauri
I thought about the cathedral constructors
after I posted that comment. There was a
need, of course, for cathedral (and church)
building in order to fulfill the religious
expansion in those times. And many of the stone
masons were indeed fine "artisans." Later there was a
need to fill those same cathedrals with art
work that reflected the "new" religion(s).
So maybe one could look on the medieval period
as one of constructing the buildings, and
the "Renaissance" as a period when the art to
fill those buildings was commissioned.
Flying_Naked_People
> Subject: Re: Art history
> From: clip...@dontemailme.com (Clyde S. Dale)
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Does this answer Thur's question?... Or are you two just chit-chatting?
FYI (naah - FWIW), Renaissance art was not created to fill churches.
Paul Mesken
Dale) wrote:
LOL! Kangaroo dandruff? ;-)
Talking about Aussies : the Aussie Quinten Hann (nicknamed the "Wizard
of Oz") did pretty well in the UK Snooker Championship which ended
tonight (Stevens won). Hann reached the quarter finals but was
defeated by Ronnie "The Rocket" O'Sullivan in top form. Probably
nobody in Australia noticed because AFAIK they don't watch it there
even though Hann is a great top 16 player. So, I'm telling this so
Judith now knows :-)
Hann was born in Wagga Wagga....
I'm wondering what went on inside the head of the person who named
this city. The mind boggles ;-)
I wouldn't want to live in Australia. National Geographic and
Discovery always show these creepy animals that live over there. If
you're not teared apart by dingo's then you'll either be eaten by a
shark or bitten by a poisonous spider or snake. New Zealand is safe
though, the worst that can happen to you there is being picked at by a
dumb kiwi ;-)
Erik A. Mattila
There's an old Maori aphorism: "A Dutchman, properly cooked, tastes like
a ripe banana."
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I think you hit the key by "patronage." The Middle Ages (please, not
"Dark Ages" ((without going into the eruption of Krakatau around
Heingist and Horsa's time, or was it a comet?)) artists were patronized
by kings and popes, often jointly. But I'd like to point out that there
was a lot of art patronage going on, and subseqently a lot of great art
was produced in Europe during this thousand year period. You know, the
cathedrals, the Book of Kells, and Lindisfarm manuscript, The Book of
Hours, well, just punch "medieval art" into Google and you'll see plenty
of wonderful examples.
There are a couple of things to consider: one) attrition rates. It's
estimated, for example, that approximately 5 percent of the art produced
in Italy during the period of the "Renaissance" has survived. The
figure is estimated based on the study of references to works of art
cited in surviving documents. The same historical, economic and
political factors that produced the Renaissance also produced
bureaucracies and paper-work and records and all that, so it's possible
to make such an estimate. Furthermore, the works that have survived
have done so because they ended up in the hands of institutions that
could provide the means to survive. Of course the Church was one, but
also private bankers such as the Medici and Alberti and even civil
ownership, such as the city of Florence or Venice.
So you can imagine the attrition rate of medieval works, considering
greater antiquity and the social and economic uphevals of a thousand
years of history. Add to this the lack of records and manuscripts, and
it seems an impossible estimate to make with any historical credibility.
But there's no reason to expect it was not as high as the Renaissance,
so 95% attrition is not unreasonable. But of the five percent that
survived, it represents a splendid body of works of art.
The second factor, just to ponder, is the lack of authorship connected
to medieval art...in most cases. This puts the whole idea of "art" into
a different context, as we are accustomed to link works of art with
artists, museums and galleries. It pretty exciting when an art
historian links two or three examples with a particular artist, albeit
unnamed, but to ever identify that specific person with a biography is
next to impossible, except in the rare cases where some record has
survived identifying an artist.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
Ah, yes, I did read that sauna stones had been discovered embedded in
the western facade of Rheims Cathedral. That explains it.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
> and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
> works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
> this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
If you want to make it an art history debate, Thur, I think you have to
do some house-cleaning on the topic: you wouldn't be using terms like
"inferior" and if you do use terms like "level of skill" and "artistic
interpretation" you really need to define what you mean very carefully,
to avoid ambiguities.
For example, I would say that classic Greek art involved "less artistic
interpretation" than, say, early Christian sculpture, on the basis that
the "model" is more faithfully represented in classical Greek art and
more "idealized" in early Christian art. Even when the Greek art is
distorted from a purely "in situ" observation to meet the axioms of a
mathematical proportion, I would say the Christian symbolisim infused in
representations were more "interpreted" (if we're using nature as the
standard of measure.)
>
> What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
> in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
> AD1400?
Again, you're making the kind of value judgement which really isn't part
of the work of art history. It would be an aesthetic argument. Like I
could say, "I disagree, art got much more supreme once it was liberated
from the stigma of Greek Classical conservatism." That's not art
history, though.
> Is the praise of Classical Art acceptable, or is it just that modern
> tastes happened to coincide for a time, and actually those pots,
> sculptures, bronzes and buildings were just ordinary?
Yes, it's acceptable...of course. It's just has very little to do with
the nuts and bolts of "art history." From a historian pov, the
transitional periods are of the greatest interest, when the old form is
debased from the standards the older forms aspired to, and the new form
had not reached it's zenith of refinement.
>
> In the opinion of newgroupers, does the quality of art rise and fall?
Mark Twain wrote "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs,
if we had some eggs." Along this line, you could say "yes, the quality
of art rises and falls." But, of course you have to have something in
your head about what constitutes "quality." Once you have it, and see
that all art does't reach it, your statement then becomes a truism.
What's really afoot is change. If you want to say that you like Roman
art better than late Roman art, then what you are really expressing is
your preference between art that represents observation over art that
represents ideas. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It's your
preference, if you make such a claim. But what's really interesting is
that for the last 5000 years or so, humans have been making art that
addresses observation, and art that represents ideas. That's
fascinating, in my opinion. And to add to the mystery, it plays off
both ways in known historical sequences of art productions of specific
cultures. For example, the sequence of Neolithic Greek art to
Hellenistic art represents a step by step development from a purely
idealized and abstracted human form, such as a Cycladic sculpture
http://harpy.uccs.edu/greek/crete/cyclad1.jpg to an Archaic
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21101m/00/lk01m015.jpg to a classic
http://www.greeklandscapes.com/images/athens_museum/DSC00860.jpg to a
Hellenistic http://harpy.uccs.edu/greek/sculpt/miloven.jpg .
It creates this neat little art-darwinism with its ingrained ideology of
"progress" and superiority gained by accumulate effort over time and so
on. Yet, the Romans adopted the sequence, and did a fine job of
recapitulating Hellenic sculpture and even adding splashes and dashes of
their own with spendid results. But then they played an anti-darwin
game and contorted the fine art of observation back to abstraction. The
Mayas did the same thing with Olmec art. There's also an 800 year
seqence of rock art in Baja California where the oldest are very fine
representations based on careful observation and the newest are very
abstract and ideological.
> Is it fair to compare contemporary Western Art with the Classical Age?
Fair? You either do it or you don't. I think there is some value in
it, but it may have more to do with anthropology than art. But really,
it's pretty interesting, because ultimately it brings you to the
question of why certain works of art are produced and under what
conditions etc.
> Is there a "style" which future art historians can say exists in our times,
> or has our modern culture enabled the individual to produce a hotch-potch
> of changing and changeable tastes?
I think this is where art historians do us a disservice - or maybe more
fairly editors of art history tomes. There's an idea of the "spirit of
the age" which circulates in academic thinking, and to enshrine the
"spirit of the age" all evidence that contradicts the notion gets
suppressed. People at any given time seem to produce a lot of diversity
in artistic representations, and, as we know, only a few survive over
years, centuries and beyond. I found a volume "American Indian
Pornography" in a dark corner of a library (naturally) once - now how
many of us ever imagined that the nobles tribes and nations had a
healthy porn industry going on? It's one of those things that gets
repressed. Like Nazca pornographic pottery - we never hear about that,
even though it was the rule rather than the exception.
> If so then where do they see our art going in a general sense?
> Will there ever be a style that schoolkids can recognise, (as they surely
> must have in Ancient Greece) that will still be used when they are adult?
There's no answer to that, I think. It's something the people of the
future will decide. If you encase all your work in atomic-age resin you
might get on the "spirit of the age" list in 3003.
Erik
>
> I hope that people will not regard this as a troll, but something that is
> hoped to stimulate debate.
> Thur
>
>
Lauri Levanto
The magnificent gothic architecture was modernisized in barock.
It did happen, as it does nowadays, with lot of money and no respect.
The medieval Europe was more developed society than you
think. There were no 'starving artists' as making art objects was not
a profession. The crafsmen like sculptors and goldsmiths
had rich guilds with strong price cartells.
These guils couls provide a social security net
to less succesful members.
The art has many dimensions. The beauty and craftsmanship are but two of
them.
The Greek art degenerated toward pretty in Hellenistic period.
The Byzantine art developed towards more readable narrative,
The medieval minatures and sculptures developed to
more convincing symbolism.
The modern art degerated from renaissance to romantism,
untill there was a social demand for impressionism.
What you see as progress and digress depends on your
point of you. What goes toward your goals appears
as progress.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
It is a pity. The Norwegian wooden sculpture and architecture
both on sea and on shore, exceeded all but Pasific works
in skill and beauty.
-lauri
judith
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3FCAD259...@oco.net>...
>On 30 Nov 2003 16:05:43 -0600, clip...@dontemailme.com (Clyde S.
>Dale) wrote:
>
>>In article <aedksvop43m2ap26l...@4ax.com>,
usu...@euronet.nl
>>says...
>>
>
>Discovery always show these creepy animals that live over there. If
>you're not teared apart by dingo's then you'll either be eaten by a
>shark or bitten by a poisonous spider or snake. New Zealand is safe
>though, the worst that can happen to you there is being picked at by a
>dumb kiwi ;-)
>
Seen a few sharks, snakes and spiders around even swallowed a fly or two.
But believe me, roos are the worst. If a red 'boomer' bounces against your
car while you're driving at high speed it can cause lotsa damage. I'm
talking kangabloodyroos, not drunks in utes (pick-up trucks). Still, not as
scary as some of the streets of New York where I grew up.
I believe Wagga Wagga is an indigenous term. Lots of towns were named after
Aboriginal words for the particular region. Here in the West, we have a
place named Salmon Gums ~ no it has nothing to do with the inside of a
fish's mouth, it's the name given to Gum (Eucalyptus) trees with pink bark.
As for New Zealand, if you ever saw their rugby team preform a 'hakka' prior
to a game it would scare the sheep out of ya!
Cheers
J
Thur
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3FCAF32F...@oco.net...
> Thur wrote:
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > How can it be explained that the Classical Art of Greece,
> > and Rome, was replaced by what seems like very inferior
> > works, but also that it took so long before anything approaching
> > this level of skill and artistic interpretation reappeared.
>
> If you want to make it an art history debate, Thur, I think you have to
> do some house-cleaning on the topic: you wouldn't be using terms like
> "inferior" and if you do use terms like "level of skill" and "artistic
> interpretation" you really need to define what you mean very carefully,
> to avoid ambiguities.
>
> For example, I would say that classic Greek art involved "less artistic
> interpretation" than, say, early Christian sculpture, on the basis that
> the "model" is more faithfully represented in classical Greek art and
> more "idealized" in early Christian art. Even when the Greek art is
> distorted from a purely "in situ" observation to meet the axioms of a
> mathematical proportion, I would say the Christian symbolisim infused in
> representations were more "interpreted" (if we're using nature as the
> standard of measure.)
>
> >
Whilst I don't agree with some of your post, this is just what I had hoped
for.
Thanks for contibuting.
On the statements:-
> > What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
> > in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
> > AD1400?
>
> Again, you're making the kind of value judgement which really isn't part
> of the work of art history.
Historians of all kinds are not just data compilers, and I don't believe
that
you are saying this.
Historians have to assess data and select.
For example, they would not be interested in an object that was inferior in
skill
to a similar object, unless that inferiority had something to say - in this
case
about art.
So Art Historians actually sift through their data and present it to support
their
views which are offered to us in noted books.
The avoidance of all judgement cannot be supported.
So where does your view and mine differ? Perhaps my views and judgements
go further. What use would any knowledge of Art History be if it were not to
put views and styles from different eras in context?
When we look at a Renaissance work, we are much better able to see the work
in say, the way the painter saw it, and be more capable of forming a view or
opinion on the worth of it when we use comparisons with other works, other
eras and styles.
Art History is not only about history, or the emotionless accumulation of
data,
but essentially emotional, and not likely to be understood if not containing
views that allow such "value judgements".
I know that some academicians will, if reading this, jump from a great
height,
but I would like to know how much use is Art History without judgement?
Thur
Chris
Britannica has a useful outline of art history. With respect to the Dark
Ages (I know, not PC - but since PC is no longer politically acceptable, we
can return to normal English...), the following is cut & posted from the
opening paragraph on the topic:
"Ancient Roman civilization in western Europe foundered and fell apart in
the second half of the 6th century, and the changes that took place between
late antiquity and the succeeding period, the Dark Ages, were fundamental
and catastrophic. Urban life collapsed, patronage of the arts all but
ceased, and the centuries-old Mediterranean traditions of artistic training
and production died out almost everywhere. It was only in a few places in
Italy that artistic production continued unbroken, albeit much reduced.
Increasingly the cultural fabric of northern Europe was determined by the
various tribal peoples-Franks, Vandals, Goths, Angles, and Saxons-who
migrated into the western provinces of the old Roman Empire during the 4th
to 6th centuries and who established new patterns of settlement and centres
of authority. Painting was not one of the traditional arts of these
newcomers, though their craftsmen were expert workers of fine metals,
leather, wood, and semiprecious stones (known as hardstones) such as
garnet."
The collapse of Rome was to western art what that asteroid was to the
dinosaurs; not necessarily a bad thing (but not particularly comfortable for
the dinosaurs, to be sure :)
There's a lot of parallels between that period, and what's happened in
western art since the French Revolution and the rise of the United States as
the world power. In both cases society turned over, over a period of a
century or two; institutions that relied on a strong traditional hierarchy
to survive tended to suffer a similar fate.
Chris
Clyde S. Dale
>There's an old Maori aphorism: "A Dutchman, properly cooked, tastes like
>a ripe banana."
>
>Erik
Yeah, talk about nightmares - seeing one of
those fully indigoed Maori faces in my sleep...brrrr!
Clyde S. Dale
>I think you hit the key by "patronage." The Middle Ages (please, not
>"Dark Ages"
>Erik
Thanks Eric. I was hoping I could count
on you to jump in and set the record
straight. Thanks for the great post.
Erik A. Mattila
> To not from I said.
> It is a pity. The Norwegian wooden sculpture and architecture
> both on sea and on shore, exceeded all but Pasific works
> in skill and beauty.
>
> -lauri
Well, you know me: any chance for a joke and distortion isn't even an
issue. But I agree with you about the northern churches - really
beautiful works of art. And that reminds me of Kandinsky's writing
about his inspiration for abstract paintings - the Ukranian farmhouses
whose interiors were completely covered with those so-called
"horror-vacuii" designs.
But now I'm trying to remember if the Norwegian Stave Churches were part
of the Greek Orthodox influence? If so, iconoclasm may have been the
generator of those intricate carvings and designs, as iconoclasm played
such a key role in the develop of islamic architectural design.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Whilst I don't agree with some of your post, this is just what I had hoped
> for.
> Thanks for contibuting.
>
> On the statements:-
>
>>>What is it that enabled an art that rose to such a supreme quality
>>>in Ancient Greece, and what was missing from about AD500 -
>>>AD1400?
>>
>>Again, you're making the kind of value judgement which really isn't part
>>of the work of art history.
>
>
> Historians of all kinds are not just data compilers, and I don't believe
> that
> you are saying this.
> Historians have to assess data and select.
> For example, they would not be interested in an object that was inferior in
> skill
> to a similar object, unless that inferiority had something to say - in this
> case
> about art.
Yes, of course. But the object's "inferiority" always has something to
say, and often is more important from a historian's perspective. But
you're addressing an important rift in the history of art history, which
is in itself very interesting. Especially in the US, "art history"
(along with several of the "social sciences") wanted to make the
"science" grade which in fact did involve data compiling data more than
interpretation. In opposition to this trend, European Humanism
encouraged interpretation. And there's a political basis for this rift,
largely concerning Marxism and even proto-Marxism. "Historical
Materialism" more or less defines the work of art history as presenting
the past as an active principle in our present, actually affecting our
lives in intimate ways. In opposition, conventional art history treats
the past as a spectacle, such as a museum display, where the work of art
is a curiosity, but has a "otherness" that is not us.
If you want to see how this has played out, a perfect example is George
Kubler's attack on Laurette Sejourne, published in some art journals.
Kubler represented the Americanist "science" pov, while Sejorne
represents the humanist approach. Kubler is held as "the Dean" of
Mesoamerican art history, and Sejourne is a major scholar in the same
field of study. Kubler's critique boils down to Sejourne's "unsupported
speculations" while Sejourne's defense would be within the axioms of
humanism, which claims that human beings generally operate the same way,
so you can transport one human situation to the next. So Sejourne
interpreted Teotihuacan art, for example, through the lens of her study
of Aztec art, which was produced a thousand years after Teotihuacan but
used the same motifs, symbolism etc. Kubler poo-pooed this vigorously
(you almost think that he was ready to assassinate Laurette when you
read it) on the basis that it isn't science. Well, in my experience
Sejourne's writings are much more exciting to read than Kubler's, but I
like Kubler too. I can see his point, but it's handy to understand
where he's talking from.
> So Art Historians actually sift through their data and present it to support
> their
> views which are offered to us in noted books.
Unfortunately this does happen, but it is supposed to be the reverse,
that the views are produced by the data.
> The avoidance of all judgement cannot be supported.
I don't agree with that. I think judgement can be suspended, especially
if one is intimately involved in an academic discipline. I think it was
Alfred North Whitehead who insisted that the influence of the observer
was always active in any scientific process, and it affected that
process dramatically, so you would be correct in this sense. But this
led to the refinement of critical tools such as structuralism which
removed the observer from the process altogether, via the mechanism of
not looking at the objects themselves, but instead looking at the
functions of the object's dynamic components.
> So where does your view and mine differ? Perhaps my views and judgements
> go further. What use would any knowledge of Art History be if it were not to
> put views and styles from different eras in context?
My argument would be that viewing art history as a wave-form of
superiority on top and inferiority at the bottom occludes too much
important stuff. Let me give you an example. I wrote a paper on two
German prints in the UC Davis collection, by a relatively "minor"
printmaker, Hans Lionhard Schauffalein (Little Shovel). The object was
to properly identify the prints, which the collection described as
"bible illustrations." It turned out that this was wrong - they were
illustratons form a book called "The German Cicero" (Der Tusch Cicero)
which was published in three editions in the 15th C. There wasn't much
written about Little Shovel, but the sparse literature was interesting.
He was an art history enigma, because his early, middle and late
styles were radically different. Especially the middle style, which
looked like another artist. And it was another artist - a cousin who
also used a little shovel mark to identify his prints. The early works
were tremendously influenced by Dürer - why not? Schauffalien worked in
Dürer's shop in Nuremburg at the time. But when he set out on his own,
he moved to Augsburg and developed his own unique style.
The existing literature on Little Shovel tends to measure his work
against the Nuremburg master, and unfavorably, too. I went along with
this assessment for a while when I was researching, but later I thought
it was unfair and distorted. There are a lot of things to consider.
Dürer was quite a show-off. Look at his work and you'll see that
everything in them is meticulously rendered. You can distinguish
botanical species in his backgrounds, for example - each leaf carefully
distinguished from the next. It's quite wonderful, of course, but...can
it get boring after a while? What is the cost of such
anal-retentiveness in the long run? Dürer's work CAN become too heavy,
too imposing, too visually pedantic after you get past the wonder of his
craftsmanship. Schauffalien, by contrast, developed a large retinue of
abbreviations and shortcuts and carefully constructed abstractions.
While I did see this as "inferior" to Dürer, after a fashion I began to
see his work as very lyrical, very pleasant, and of at least equal
interests as Dürer's. Schauffalien developed his style to meet several
criteria like deadlines and productivity (he worked alone, unlike the
print shop that employed several craftsmen and artists that Dürer
required) and I like to think that he also was answering some aesthetic
concern about abbrieviating unneccessary detail.
I don't think I ever would have gotten to that point of pure art
appreciation if I had just accepted the conventional judgement that
Schauffalien's work was "inferior" to Dürer's. And it was, in fact,
that judgement itself that prevented me from seeing the sheer sweetness
of Schauffalien's work at the begining of my research. And that was
interesting...how other's ideas could actually shape what I saw.
Anyway, I think the total abandonment of ideas of superiority and
inferiority has some great value in learning for oneself how to look at
things.
> When we look at a Renaissance work, we are much better able to see the work
> in say, the way the painter saw it, and be more capable of forming a view or
> opinion on the worth of it when we use comparisons with other works, other
> eras and styles.
> Art History is not only about history, or the emotionless accumulation of
> data,
> but essentially emotional, and not likely to be understood if not containing
> views that allow such "value judgements".
But we're using the term "Art History" differently, I think. I am using
it as an academic discipline, while I suspect you are using it as a
general phrase to cover all art that has ever been produced.
> I know that some academicians will, if reading this, jump from a great
> height,
> but I would like to know how much use is Art History without judgement?
> Thur
Use for what? If you discount the notion of intellectual curiosity as
an end in itself, a lot of intellectual activity is pointless in any
utilitarian sense. Art History as an academic discipline is in fact a
sub-category of history. The idea is that works of art produced by a
given group will tell us a lot about what made these groups tick. Since
the Renaissance is of such great interest to us today as a standard
bearer for art, the invention and proliferation of capitalism can be
understood better by seeing what effect it had on changing the art scene.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> Thur,
> Britannica has a useful outline of art history. With respect to the Dark
> Ages (I know, not PC - but since PC is no longer politically acceptable, we
> can return to normal English...), the following is cut & posted from the
> opening paragraph on the topic:
I like irony, Chris, and this is a good one. Georges Bataille spent a
lot of energy writing on the topic of medieval allegory being so
embedded in language that it escaped the revisions of the Early Modern
Era. "Dark Ages" is a great example of an allegorical figure. What
does it mean? That creepy terrain which exists between the shining
light of Rome and the shining light of the Renaissance? Wow, how
profound. So then, since allegory is so incredibly powerful on how we
think, everything done in the Dark Ages is, well, dark, inferior, less
than something else. That a lot of baggage to carry around. But I
digress; the irony is that we utter the term from our occupation of the
light ages. Ha ha ha. We use a medieval allegory to make the claim
that we are "superior" to the medieval.
But that's not a pc thing, is it? I mean "pc" is language revision set
around the idea of not offending others. Who are we worried about
offending here? Heingist and Horsa? Theodorus? Beowulf? Constantine? Who?
BTW, Carlos Fuentes wrote a terrific critique of "Don Quixote" that's
well worth a read, imo. His argument was that Cervantes was writing
about the advent of modernism, and those windmills that the Don was
battling were the old medieval forms that had made it through the change.
Chris
> Chris wrote:
>> I like irony, Chris, and this is a good one. Georges Bataille spent a
> lot of energy writing on the topic of medieval allegory being so
> embedded in language that it escaped the revisions of the Early Modern
> Era. "Dark Ages" is a great example of an allegorical figure. What
> does it mean? That creepy terrain which exists between the shining
> light of Rome and the shining light of the Renaissance? Wow, how
> profound. So then, since allegory is so incredibly powerful on how we
> think, everything done in the Dark Ages is, well, dark, inferior, less
> than something else. That a lot of baggage to carry around. But I
> digress; the irony is that we utter the term from our occupation of the
> light ages. Ha ha ha. We use a medieval allegory to make the claim
> that we are "superior" to the medieval.
>
But why would anyone think that, unless they wanted to create something they
could feel guilty about - or make other peole think they should feel guilty
about? The Dark Ages got that name simply because we knew (at the time that
the phrase was coined) very little about the period compared to the periods
on either side of it (at least that was the impression I was brought up
with). Why would someone associate "dark" with bad or evil or ignorant? I
don't....I do associate it with unknown terrain or a lack of knowledge about
something - (eg "I'm in the dark about xyz") while associating it with evil
is simply camp (eg, "the dark side" a la Darth Vader...)
> But that's not a pc thing, is it? I mean "pc" is language revision set
> around the idea of not offending others. Who are we worried about
> offending here? Heingist and Horsa? Theodorus? Beowulf? Constantine?
Who?
>
No, I think PC is more about making people feel guilty, so one can then go
about correcting them, or at least showing oneself up as a correct model.
It's a small scale version of the sort of corruption of language that Orwell
was fond of investigating.
> BTW, Carlos Fuentes wrote a terrific critique of "Don Quixote" that's
> well worth a read, imo. His argument was that Cervantes was writing
> about the advent of modernism, and those windmills that the Don was
> battling were the old medieval forms that had made it through the change.
>
Yeah, I've heard that about Cervantes, & I'd love to read Fuentes about it.
I think Bloom said something along the same lines, but I don't
remember...Guess it's time to head to the library. Thanks.
Cheers;
Chris
Clyde S. Dale
>But now I'm trying to remember if the Norwegian Stave Churches were part
>of the Greek Orthodox influence?
I thought the influence was Celtic?
Now I did it - and have to go look up
who the Celts were influenced by. Groan!
Clyde S. Dale
>> The term "dark ages" is not something I coined.
>The Middle Ages (please, not "Dark Ages"...)
When I wrote the "dark ages" I was recalling something I
read once, so I went and sought out that authority and
here is what I found, in H.W. Janson's text book on
the subject; THE HISTORY OF ART:
The Dark Ages
The labels we use for historical periods tend to be like the
nicknames of people: once established they are almost
impossible to change, even though they may no longer be
suitable. Those who coined the term "Middle Ages" thought
of the entire thousand years from the fifth to the fifteenth
century as an "age of darkness" - an empty interval between
classical Antiquity and its rebirth, the Renaissance in Italy.
Since then our view of the Middle Ages has changed completely...
...the idea of darkness has become confined more and more to
the early part of the Middle Ages. A hundred years ago the
"Dark Ages" were generally thought to extend as far as the
twelfth cnetury; they have been shrinking steadily ever since,
so that today the term covers no more than the 200-year interval
between the death of Justinian and the reign of Charlemayne.
And Janson would pare down the Dark Ages even further.
My own personal impression is that the refinement
of cathedral construction and ornamentation necessitated a like
refinement in the art of the interior, culminating in such
masterpieces as those by Michelangelo, Bernini, and the
various ceiling and fresco painters of those times.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <3FCB7BD5...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
Were the Vikings Celts? I thought only the Irish and some of the
British were Celtic. At least their religions are different (Mother
Godess Dana vs Odin/Wotan).
Of course if we're talking Stave Churches then we're already past the
Germanic Gods (the Vikings were easy to convert, they believed the
more Gods you worshipped, the better :-)
But they did travel a lot so I wouldn't be surprised if they were
influenced by the Greeks.
Erik A. Mattila
Well yes - Harald Hardrade himself hung out in Constantinople for 14
years around ad 1030 or so, and married Jarislov the Wise's daughter in
a Orthodox ceremony in Kiev. But I asked the question because I
wondered if iconoclasm was behind the Stave Church carving style, and
now I think it's not. The two iconoclast periods were 730 and 815, a
bit early for the Stave Churches.
>
>
Lauri Levanto
main routes
-the Atlantic to Mediterranian
- Baltic Sea-Volga river to orient
-Ireland-Island-Greenland-New Foundland.
The religious influence of Orthodox must have been minimal.
The churches were catholic, I have seen any mentions about
orthodox vikings within their proper area. Only few converts
who had settled in colonies in Russia.
The Celtic influence is interesting. I wonder which way it was.
Up to 1044 British Islands were settled by vikings.
Dublin was a Viking town.
What do we know about celtic art say before 800 aC.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
who think dark ages still prevail everywhere
where Mr. Pre_sident has not launched the flare of rockets?
-lauri
Thur
I am assuming this is 800 AD?
Quite a bit.
No canvases though :-)
I should add that the very concept of "Celt" causes much
argument. Who were they, where did they live, and did
they share anything that would give a reason to group them
together under such a name.
Looking at their "art" can in some ways say that they shared
a certain taste and certain skills, mostly in metals and some
stonework.
e.g
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/newsroom/archive2001/celtic.html
http://www.officiel-musees.fr/en/celtique/artcelt.html
http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/uj/ujk.html
Thur
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3FCC6844...@netti.fi...
Lippy Zaner
>
>Isn't there a shool of historians
>who think dark ages still prevail everywhere
>where Mr. Pre_sident has not launched the flare of rockets?
That's better broached in a political forum,
which I hate to see this one turn into!
Miriam
of Norway. Norway at this time was some sort of tribal society which
lots of "landlords", controlling different parts of the country. A man
called Olav tried to christen Norway and unite the country. In this
battle christian supporters of Olav fought against a group lead by
local "landlords" in Trøndelag. These landlords were not too happy
about Olav's christianity prosject and Olav's army lost the battle.
Olav himself was killed in the battle.
After Olav's death the Danish king gained control over the country.
Then the landslords changed their mind and they united under a
Norwegian king and accepted christianity, at least formally.
According to myths, a year after the battle the body of Olav was moved
from his grave. His hair and nails had continued to grow after his
death and he was later on made a Saint.
The faith of Olav is the motive for one of the best preserved clerical
oilpaintings from the time. It's called Olavspanelet - made in 1320.
Some years ago Norway gave a copy of one of the churches as a present
to Island.
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2002/april/1015953599.84
Then they also made a copy of this Olavspanel.
http://www.niku.no/olavsfro/6_result/6_result.htm
Unfortunately, this pages is not in english. It's a pity because the
one above give a very good description of preserving old paintings.
But for those not able to read the text, there are pictures of the
original version of the painting and the copy on the page. They think
the painting originally had the colors of the copy.
Not to give anybody illutions. Norwegian policians are nearly
disastrous when it comes to granting money to the preservation of this
cultural heritage - even if some of them probably got a free trip to
Island to open this church given as a present. They are always present
before glittering attention from cameras portraying the great
Norwegian cultural heritage, but it's probably the cameras, not the
heritage, that attract them. Churhces from 1200 literally have to fall
apart before these politicians here understand that they have a
responsibility to preserve them - and even then they sometimes miss
the point.
Miriam
Some of these ships are amazing in their beauty.
Chris
Thanks for the links to the paintings and the reproductions, they're
gorgeous.
As for politicians, they are the same everywhere. We elect politicians to do
for us what we won't do for ourselves (either because we are too lazy, or
too intelligent, or simply find the task distasteful) - so we shouldn't be
too surprised at what we get :)
Cheers
Chris
"Miriam" <pos...@chello.no> wrote in message
news:c37739c3.03120...@posting.google.com...
[...]
Erik A. Mattila
Lauri Levanto wrote:
> No doubt vikings were influenced by what they saw along the three
> main routes
> -the Atlantic to Mediterranian
> - Baltic Sea-Volga river to orient
> -Ireland-Island-Greenland-New Foundland.
>
> The religious influence of Orthodox must have been minimal.
> The churches were catholic, I have seen any mentions about
> orthodox vikings within their proper area. Only few converts
> who had settled in colonies in Russia.
>
> The Celtic influence is interesting. I wonder which way it was.
> Up to 1044 British Islands were settled by vikings.
> Dublin was a Viking town.
>
> What do we know about celtic art say before 800 aC.
The little bit of google research I did after I asked the question
revealed that the missionaries sent to christianize scandinavia were
from Ireland. That could explain any possible "celticness" in the look
of early christian art in Scandinavia. The problem is, as I see it, is
that art at this time all throughout Northern Europe and beyond
incorporated similarities on a very general basis: the meander, horror
vacui, vegetal/animal subjects and so on. One thing that looks to me
like a distinguishing characteristic of Stave Church carving, however,
is symmetry. The Norwegian carvings look pretty "dynamic" as opposed to
the more "static" Celtic symmetry. Of course you would have to look at
many examples to say this with any authority. I'm leaning towards the
"native genius" explanation, to tell you the truth. It's obviously
there was an "international style" at the time of the Stave Churches,
and the transmission vectors were missionarism, trade, and travel. But
there seems to be a very unique quality to the carvings, which looks
like its drawn from local traditions. Irwin Panofsky has an interesting
theory of "disjunctions" which is sort of like "chaos theory" and it
basically claims that very big and important art style trends can be
usurped quickly by the intervention of a singular artist, patronage, or
other factors. Imhotep's alleged influence on Egyptian art and
architecture is an example.
Example:
http://www.rdrop.com/~tblackb/summer_vacation/scandinavia/stavechurchdoor.html
I found a few floor plans and architectural details also, and that, in
my opinion, says more about influence. I was curious about the
evolution of the Roman Basilica, which of course is evident in both
Roman and Eastern Catholicism. This design, which was originally civic,
has really shaped church litany and liturgy and therefore the
architectural shape itself, and how space is enclosed, is "symbiotic"
with Church choreography. The floor plans show, as one would expect,
the familiar cloisters, ailes, nave, porticos, apses and so on.
Fascinating, because the materials used don't need this design
structurally. It's like "life mimics art." Art historians have
demonstrated how many pottery designs were transposed from an earlier
media, baskets.
Anyway, I'm advocating a unique scandinavian contribution to church art.
I agree with you that it is both beautiful and awe-inspiring.
As for old celtic art...when you read the history of the celts it looks
like a lot of diverse people are placed under that label. The Takla
Makan mummies in China are claimed to have been Celts. Anybody who wove
tartan designs, I guess. I think Ukranian archaeology is digging up a
lot of info on ancient Celts, or "Proto-celts." And Russian archaeology
in the Steppes. I think it's a book that remains to be written. But
anyway, pre-800 Celtic art would include almost everything from the
Black Sea to Spain, depending how skeptical you are as to a Celtic
superculture. (In California, the Treaty Commissioner, Redick McKee,
got tired of all the tribes and bands and families of the San Joaquin
valley, and just classified everyone as "Yokut.")
Erik
Lauri Levanto
Art history reflects sometimes more the history of art history than art.
Architecture has a place in art history. Naval architecture has not.
To understand Scandinavian wooden architecture
one must keep in mind that same people were building houses,
'sculpting' farm tools and building boats.
For me the art in this is woodworking, not architecture.
I have no dictionary at hands, but isn't a carpenter still
called toemmerer (barrelmaker) in Danish?
Miriam
definitely think the Viking ships are artwork - outstanding
sculptures. Sail ships too are art. But then - there are probably also
those loving the beauty of a supertanker. Academically, it might be
difficult to define the limits, I don't know.
There is a book called Norsk malerkunst - published on Gyldendal 1993
- it's a two-volumes summery from the beginning to present days. It's
not a book meant for a pure academic audience, but if you don't know
it, it might be worth while having a look. In between presenting
paintings, they say something about who they think made the clerical
paintings in the Middle Ages. They also have something on, for
instance, the origin of rosemaling.
You might have visited this page, or know about the research from
other sources, but here is a link to a page about the construction of
stavechurches.
http://www.notam02.no/~alexarje/stavechurch/artikler_eng.html
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message news:<3FCDA0D7...@netti.fi>...
Lippy Zaner
says...
>
>Sometimes it's nice not to be closed in by academic disciplines. I
>definitely think the Viking ships are artwork - outstanding
>sculptures. Sail ships too are art.
I'm not a sailor, and haven't spent much
time near the ocean, but I love the sight
of a schooner or sloop under full sail,
spinnaker fully ballooned, etc. And anyone
who has ever done any sailing knows the
thrill it can induce, unlike powering about
in a speedboat.
And for the ultimate
sail experience, try sailboarding! I have
spent HOURS enjoying that high-speed sailing
sport. Only a catamaran can generate more
speed under sail than a sailboard, but you
feel as if you're flying on the latter.
It's the next best thing to hang gliding, IMO.
Miriam
forgotten to send it. Whatever. Many years ago - when they started the
national circus here - I tried to paint my opinions. The painting is
very bad. I might be a better painter now. If I tried again, perhaps
the result will be better. But I tend to believe it's mostly a dead
end to try to convey a pure political message in art - as far as I'm
calling my fiddling, art. I might of course change my opinion about
it, but that's where I am now.
The thing is that Norway used to have a strong grass-root democracy.
The power distance between the primeminister and the average citizen
in Norway used to be much shorter than what you will find in
Central-Europe or the USA. Gradually these politicians here have built
a tower around themselves where they alterate between adhering to what
they call their international positions and granting themselves wage
increases. One of them named it - Norway as a humanitarian superpower.
In some areas Norwegian politicians have gained influence
internationally. I believe the international fight against HIV/AIDS
would have started earlier without this humanitarian superpower
project of Norway. It's a long story. Less efficient connected to
AIDS/HIV means several million dead people, childen loosing their
parents and african economies collapsing. There is nobody here asking
questions about it - and I know for sure that those questions should
have been asked. Maybe the Norwegians get what they the deserve - but
the Africans dying from AIDS are not.
The links I'm referring to here are to important national symbols of
Norway. As such - it's somewhat strange that the same politicians
don't bother to preserve this very valuable cultural heritage. They
have more than enough money to build a new expensive opera in Oslo,
for instance. There is an enormous amount of money floating in this
system. In fact, there is enough money for both things, at least with
some priorities away from further wage increases to politicians.
I don't know why Norwegian politicians think that a new opera in Oslo
is a more potent symbol for a humanitarian superpower than stave
churches from 1200. Might be they already are dreaming about the
opening when they are to buy new, expensive dresses and arrive, with
journalists taking photos. Perhaps there will be some international
guest too - that they can shake hands with. While journalists take
more photos.
So - for those knowing something about Norway - referring to Norwegian
national symbols doesn't indicate that I am happy about the backstage
here, even if I'm not after a discussion about that backstage. I just
want to distance myself completely from Norwegian politicians, just to
be on the safe side of dignity preservation.