Art Critic
Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has now become an art critic. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/06/artist-ai-weiwei-and-damage-caused-by.html
Apparently, Mr. Barford wants Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei (who has already been imprisoned by Chinese authorities for his pro-democracy activities) "arrested" for his use of common ancient artifacts for purposes of modern art.
There may be a long artistic tradition of transforming the old into the new, but Barford will have no part of it.
In any case, isn't Ai Weiwei's transformation of the old artifacts in some ways better than letting such common artifacts gradually turn to dust in some forgotten storage facility? Unfortunately, that is the fate of many artifacts in the supposed care of the archaeological community.
Addendum: This is how a website called, "the Artist and His Model" describes Ai Weiwei's art:
Many of Ai Weiwei�s works from the past decade, for example, are made of local materials and of antique Chinese objects: tables and chairs from the Ming and Qing Dynasties, wood, doors and windows from demolished temples and traditional houses, freshwater pearls, tea, marble, stone, bamboo etc. � �ready-mades� trans�lated into a conceptual, post-minimalist idiom.
Alternatively, for his colored vase series, he takes Neolithic vases (5000 � 3000 B.C.) and paints them careless with bright industrial colors. Then he places them in an Allan McCollum style.
The vases are authentic antique vases which could just as easily have stood in a collection in a historical museum in China. Yet it is not contempt for China�s history and tradition that lies behind this harsh treatment of the fine old antiques � on the contrary. His use of the vases should rather be seen as a Dadaistic gesture, as black humour and as a political comment on the organized destruction of cultural and historical values that took place, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when every�thing old was to be replaced by the new. This stopped after the death of Mao, but the destruction and erosion of Chinese culture continues to this day � now under cover of economic progress.
Ai Weiwei points to the loss of culture by transforming the historical objects into something new � into moving and highly sensual contemporary artworks which thanks to their aesthetic beauty recirculate the meaning and history of these valuable cultural artefacts.
See http://theartistandhismodel.com/2011/02/ai-wei-wei/
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/06/artist-ai-weiwei-and-damage-caused-by.html
Apparently, Mr. Barford wants Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei (who has already been imprisoned by Chinese authorities for his pro-democracy activities) "arrested" for his use of common ancient artifacts for purposes of modern art.
There may be a long artistic tradition of transforming the old into the new, but Barford will have no part of it.
In any case, isn't Ai Weiwei's transformation of the old artifacts in some ways better than letting such common artifacts gradually turn to dust in some forgotten storage facility? Unfortunately, that is the fate of many artifacts in the supposed care of the archaeological community.
Addendum: This is how a website called, "the Artist and His Model" describes Ai Weiwei's art:
Many of Ai Weiwei�s works from the past decade, for example, are made of local materials and of antique Chinese objects: tables and chairs from the Ming and Qing Dynasties, wood, doors and windows from demolished temples and traditional houses, freshwater pearls, tea, marble, stone, bamboo etc. � �ready-mades� trans�lated into a conceptual, post-minimalist idiom.
Alternatively, for his colored vase series, he takes Neolithic vases (5000 � 3000 B.C.) and paints them careless with bright industrial colors. Then he places them in an Allan McCollum style.
The vases are authentic antique vases which could just as easily have stood in a collection in a historical museum in China. Yet it is not contempt for China�s history and tradition that lies behind this harsh treatment of the fine old antiques � on the contrary. His use of the vases should rather be seen as a Dadaistic gesture, as black humour and as a political comment on the organized destruction of cultural and historical values that took place, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when every�thing old was to be replaced by the new. This stopped after the death of Mao, but the destruction and erosion of Chinese culture continues to this day � now under cover of economic progress.
Ai Weiwei points to the loss of culture by transforming the historical objects into something new � into moving and highly sensual contemporary artworks which thanks to their aesthetic beauty recirculate the meaning and history of these valuable cultural artefacts.
See http://theartistandhismodel.com/2011/02/ai-wei-wei/
Smithsonian Magazine Now Under Attack
Archaeo-bloggers Gill and Barford now have Smithsonian Magazine in their sights for publishing pictures of undocumented Mayan artifacts. See
http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/06/publishing-recently-surfaced-mayan-pots.html
and http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/06/looted-pots-in-smithsonian-magazine.html
This is yet more overkill. The AIA's policy against publication of undocumented artifacts was originally meant to ensure that papers were properly documented from a scientific perspective. But Smithsonian Magazine is meant for a general audience. And, as a subscriber, I'm happy Smithsonian does not limit its illustrations only to artifacts from documented archaeological excavations.
http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/06/publishing-recently-surfaced-mayan-pots.html
and http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/06/looted-pots-in-smithsonian-magazine.html
This is yet more overkill. The AIA's policy against publication of undocumented artifacts was originally meant to ensure that papers were properly documented from a scientific perspective. But Smithsonian Magazine is meant for a general audience. And, as a subscriber, I'm happy Smithsonian does not limit its illustrations only to artifacts from documented archaeological excavations.
Freudian Slip?
This entry from the "What's New" section of the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs website was recently brought to my attention.
It states,
Advisory Committee to Convene to Consider the MOU with Bolivia
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will convene on June 27-28, 2011, to consider the proposal of Assistant Secretary Ann Stock to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding with Bolivia, which entered into force in December 2001. The Federal Register Notice about the meeting contains details on how to submit written comments for the Committee, and how to reserve a seat at the open session of the meeting on June 27, 2011. Please read the information carefully, as the procedures have changed. (emphasis added)
http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Silly me. I thought Bolivia was asking for an extension of the current agreement, and Ann Stock, the decision maker, was not supposed to prejudge the issue.
One would hope that this was just a poorly drafted news item, but since agreements are typically renewed without much thought, perhaps the item may be more accurately characterized as a bureaucratic Freudian slip.
It states,
Advisory Committee to Convene to Consider the MOU with Bolivia
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will convene on June 27-28, 2011, to consider the proposal of Assistant Secretary Ann Stock to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding with Bolivia, which entered into force in December 2001. The Federal Register Notice about the meeting contains details on how to submit written comments for the Committee, and how to reserve a seat at the open session of the meeting on June 27, 2011. Please read the information carefully, as the procedures have changed. (emphasis added)
http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Silly me. I thought Bolivia was asking for an extension of the current agreement, and Ann Stock, the decision maker, was not supposed to prejudge the issue.
One would hope that this was just a poorly drafted news item, but since agreements are typically renewed without much thought, perhaps the item may be more accurately characterized as a bureaucratic Freudian slip.
Poor Stewardship in Egypt and Afghanistan
As self-righteous archaeologists demand ever more extensive restrictions on collectors, in countries like Egypt and Afghanistan major cultural heritage sites and artifacts are crumbling due to gross negligence, misallocation of resources and general neglect.
For the latest from Afghanistan, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03Marlowe.html?_r=1
For the latest in Egypt, see http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=18435&title=Insecurity%20adds%20to%20Egypt%20antiquities�%20vulnerability
One really wonders if all the emphasis on import restrictions is just a useful diversion from what really ails cultural heritage preservation in such countries.
For the latest from Afghanistan, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03Marlowe.html?_r=1
For the latest in Egypt, see http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=18435&title=Insecurity%20adds%20to%20Egypt%20antiquities�%20vulnerability
One really wonders if all the emphasis on import restrictions is just a useful diversion from what really ails cultural heritage preservation in such countries.
CPAC Meetings on Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali
The State Department has announced CPAC review of the MOU's with Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-02/html/2011-13693.htm
According to the notice,
During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.
This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....
Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.
According to the notice,
During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.
This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....
Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)