Monday, October 10, 2011
Blog #6
Personally I feel that when studying prehistoric art, it is much more valuable to learn the meaning behind the art and try to glean a perspective of not only the thought process behind the work, but also a sense of who the people were and the way they lived. This being said I would place myself in the second school, I feel that a lot more can be learned about these prehistoric people if they are looked at from the right perspective. The downside to the second school however is that even when trying to find a vivid living past in these works of art there is no way to establish any findings as fact, because there is no way to prove what we think happened actually happened. Where as school number one is all based on fact, finding the time an art work is done, but not why it was done, and if I could choose, I would want to know why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the second school is sympathetic to our inability to decipher fact from what is available to us- at least, it had better be. Not only are all the variables still not enough to deduct history to a T, but our modern outlook places limits (that can be broken, or attempts to break them can be made, if properly approached) on our ability to truly grasp the essence of their art, their culture and their lives. What we can use all these resources to illuminate is the effect their societies have had upon ours.
ReplyDelete