I support these comments - I feel by doing away completely with `modern' we
could actually be `loading' the term even further. It is not necessarily
related to the immediate past - e.g. in architecture the term `Modern
Movement' relating to the 1930's - it was so named then, in the sense of
`current', but is still a useful term which has recognisably labelled that
style in art-historical terms.
Perhaps the priority should be looking at periods which are recognised to
have elapsed, i.e. the post-medieval period. Early Modern would be a useful
term to have, especially if linked to the Industrial Revolution - and would
provide a natural precursor to the current `Modern' which is still evolving
in industrial terms (ish).
Serena Cant
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Campling
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: POST MEDIEVAL and MODERN
Dear Ed,
This is why I suggested the term "Early Modern" to begin to
break the post-medieval period into meaningful chunks. If the term
"Modernist" can apply to cultural items/schools of thought which are now
finished, surely "Modern" as a pure term could apply to a period in history
which is not current or recent. The medieval period lasted 7-900 years,
with early, high and late sub-divisions. I think there are a couple of
hundred years yet before the current period requires a new term. The
scholars living in 1485 didn't think of their period as "medieval", and I
don't think we should be so presumptious to give our times a name before
it's over.
As a field archaeologist trained in the 70's, I was taught
to treat all deposits with respect to the potential value of their contained
information, not their period. I think you have a bone to pick with the
archaeologists of the 80's !
Cheers, Neil
>>> [log in to unmask] 10/05/2000 17:10:13 >>>
I'd like to support C.Maloneys comments about POST MEDIEVAL
and MODERN. As a
field archaeologist trained in the 1980's, Post Medieval was
essentially the
bit that you machined off to get at the archaeology, and
'Modern' would only
be recorded in the sense that "I thought this might be
interesting at first
- but it turned out to be modern" e.g an interesting looking
crop mark that
turned out to be 'only' a second world war searchlight
battery.
Clearly these are not supportable opinions in this day and
age, and we need
to have a debate about the value of keeping these terms, or
at least whether
they should be non-preferred terms for something more
useful. MODERN is
especially poor as a term as it implies 'recent'. It is
therefore always
moving as time passes, and therefore not suitable for use in
records
intended to have any duration. It is also a very loaded
term, used in
different ways by different sectors (e.g. it has been
interesting to hear
how the curators at the new Tate Modern have rethought the
traditional
chronological order for their galleries, as 'modern art' is
now over 100
years old, and to hang the pictures in chronological order
would produce a
single exhibition that would be too long for most visitors
to tolerate!)
One approach for MODERN, would be to simply abandon the term
and use 20TH
CENTURY or one of its narrow terms instead. Any thoughts?
Edmund Lee
FISHEN Coordinator
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|