Art historian Karen Mack wrote an interesting comment on my blog of a couple of weeks ago comparing 'provenience and provenance'. She takes exception to my saying that art historians aren't really interested in the provenience of an artifact (that is to say, where an artifact was recovered from) as opposed to the provenance of an artifact (that is to say, who has owned an artifact). She points out that art historians need the provenience data from an artifact almost as much an archaeologist, to be able to interpret the complete meaning of an art object.
Karen says: "The provenience of religious sculpture and paintings in Japan is crucial for reconstructiing the history of temples and shrines destroyed during the persecution of Buddhism in the 17th century. Also, when the provenience of such works is lost it is often impossible to identify the local deities depicted in these works."
I like this argument; and I'm very pleased to be proven wrong. In my little mind, the debate is also about where the intrinsic value of an artifact lies; and that reminds me of an argument I had with a fellow student a very long time ago, over an art history display at the local museum:
Karen says: "The provenience of religious sculpture and paintings in Japan is crucial for reconstructiing the history of temples and shrines destroyed during the persecution of Buddhism in the 17th century. Also, when the provenience of such works is lost it is often impossible to identify the local deities depicted in these works."
I like this argument; and I'm very pleased to be proven wrong. In my little mind, the debate is also about where the intrinsic value of an artifact lies; and that reminds me of an argument I had with a fellow student a very long time ago, over an art history display at the local museum:
Comments