Comparing and contrasting:
20.1 Lipundja. Djalambu. 1964
20.5 Rukupo, Meeting House, New Zealand 1842-43.
What I want to say about what is similar, which isn’t going to be much, is that these two are objects of both function and worship. I like how art started with being a part of the culture and it’s objects of common need.
Of course, the difference is one housed the living, and one housed the dead. The styles of art is different, yet it seems fitting to compare these two entries in chapter 20. I like the drawings on the coffin and the story of nature it signifies. Also cool is the fact that students like me get to see crosshatching ancient style…
Also of interest to me was 20.14 Machu Picchu, Peru, Inca. 15th - 16th century.
And 20.19 Cliff Palace, Mesa Verde, Colo. C 1200 C.E.
I think both places of housing are amazing considering the lack of tools and the precarious terrain. I think the Cliff Palace is where I would want to live, and I think it to be more asthetically pleasing to the eye. Machu though has the boulder thing going for it, and that the meaning of living and the artistical sculpting is as appealing as the functionality they contribute (i.e. a staircase). I love the art connected to living spaces, and it reveals how important art is to people of old, and why it is as important for people of today. Why then is youth education doing away with art classes? The history and the hands on should be taught and practiced.
No comments:
Post a Comment