Art History versus Archaeology

"You idiot!" "You moron!"

As you can tell, it was an intellectual debate; and like all discussions where the participants secretly agree with each other, it was well-reasoned and polite. We were arguing in our favorite museum, Maxine and I, the art museum on the university campus where we both worked as clerk typists. Maxine was an art student; I was just starting in archaeology. That week, the museum announced the opening of a new display of pots from around the world, donated by the estate of a world-traveling collector. It was irresistible to us two groupies of historical art, and we took a long lunch to go take a peek.

I still remember the displays; room after room of fabulous pots, of all sizes and all shapes. Many, if not most, of the pots were ancient, pre-Columbian, classic Greek, Mediterranean, Asian, African. She went one direction, I went another; we met in the Mediterranean room.

"Tsk," said I, "the only provenience given on any of these pots is the country of origin."

"Who cares?" said she. "Don't the pots speak to you?"

"Who cares?" I repeated. "I care. Knowing where a pot comes from gives you information about the potter, his or her village and lifestyle, the things that are really interesting about it."

"What are you, nuts? Doesn't the pot itself speak for the artist? All you really need to know about the potter is right here in the pot. All his hopes and dreams are represented here."

"Hopes and dreams? Give me a break! How did he--I mean SHE--earn a living, how did this pot fit into society, what was it used for, that's not represented here!"

"Look, you heathen, you don't understand art at all. Here you are looking at some of the most wonderful ceramic vessels in the world and all you can think of is what the artist had for dinner!"

"And," I said, stung, "the reason these pot have no provenience information is because they were looted or at least bought from looters! This display supports looting!"

"What this display supports is reverence for things of all cultures! Somebody who's never had exposure to Jomon culture can come in here and marvel at the intricate designs, and wander out a better person for it!"

We may have been raising our voices slightly; the curator's assistant seemed to think so when he showed us the exit.

Our discussion continued on the tiled patio in front, where things probably got slightly warmer, although perhaps it's best not to say.

"The worst state of affairs is when science begins to concern itself with art," shouted Paul Klee.

"Art for art's sake is the philosophy of the well-fed!" retorted Cao Yu.

Nadine Gordimer said "Art is on the side of the oppressed. For if art is freedom of the spirit, how can it exist within the oppressors?"

But Rebecca West rejoined, "Most works of art, like most wines, ought to be consumed in the district of their fabrication."

The problem has no easy resolution, for what we know about other cultures and their pasts is because the elite of western society poked their noses into places they had no business being. It's a plain fact: we can't hear other cultural voices unless we translate them first. But who says members of one culture have a right to understand another culture? And who can argue that we all aren't morally obligated to try?

Previous

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Next