He's not writing about art per se, or about how an artist in isolation from
all other art learns to make art, he's writing about the story of art as a
continuous effort. A limited perspective, and not the only one possible,
but we should take him at his word.
The question is not so much why there's a discontinuity in the record
(which given the fragility of the materials isn't so surprising) but how
much it's likely to be filled in by ongoing archaelogical efforts.
Mark
At 12:14 PM 1/11/2005, you wrote:
>This seems to me a strange idea of Gombrich's, that only links directly, and
>presumably deliberately, handed down from master to pupil actually count.
>Surely in any art a practitioner is 'permitted' to learn by studying earlier
>work off his or her own bat? If I study and learn from the Beowulf poet, or
>Chaucer, for example, is anyone going to say that that doesn't count because
>he hasn't himself said directly to me: 'Look, try it like this'? Or come to
>that any contemporary poet who hasn't actually taught me or at the very
>least written a how-to book.
>
>Now I suspect that at least part of Gombrich's point is that people didn't
>know about the cave paintings or the art of the North American Indians (did
>they know about the Egyptians?), so that there's no way the apostolic
>succession as it were could remain unbroken; but I don't see why that should
>invalidate that tributary's rejoining the main stream later, to mix
>metaphors. Actually, reproductions of the cave paintings seem to me
>astonishingly 'modern' in style, with a grasp of perspective which I'd have
>thought wasn't present in the art of the Nile valley. I'd be more likely to
>want to ask what had fractured the line of succession between the cave
>paintings and the Egyptians of 5000 years ago.
>
>Somebody is going to take me up on this and argue against me I'm quite sure,
>which will be interesting!
>
>best joanna
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Douglas Barbour" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:56 PM
>Subject: Re: ancient technique
>
>
>I like better the ideas promulgated (by whom? Pound? etc) that the idea
>of 'progress' in the arts misses the point; those cave paintings are as
>stunning as ay later works from various times. They stand together & we
>stand together in awe before them.
>
>Doug
>On 11-Jan-05, at 1:32 AM, Mark Weiss wrote:
>
> > Gombrich seems to be stating a truism. The story, not of art, but of
> > art as
> > a continuous effort, depends on unbroken evidence of continuity to be
> > a story.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > At 06:23 PM 1/10/2005, you wrote:
> >> "The great art historian Ernst Gombrich was prompted to observe that:
> >>
> >> . the story of art as a continuous effort does not begin in the caves
> >> of
> >> southern France or among the North American Indians. there is no
> >> direct
> >> tradition which links these strange beginnings with our own days. But
> >> there
> >> is a direct tradition, handed down from master to pupil . . . which
> >> links
> >> the art of our own days with the art of the Nile valley some 5000
> >> years ago.
> >> "
> >>
> >> (E.H. Gombrich, _The Story of Art_, 16th edition, London: Phaidon
> >> Press,
> >> 1995, quoted in Paul Calter, _Squaring the Circle: Geometry in Art &
> >> Architecture_, California: Key College Publishing, forthcoming (2003);
> >> online at
> >> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit1/INTRO.html)
> >>
> >> I don't agree with Gombrich -- absence of an evidence trail doesn't
> >> mean the
> >> trail was never there.
> >>
> >> :P
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
> >> > poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> >> > Behalf Of Anny Ballardini
> >> > Sent: 10 January 2005 22:30
> >> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >> > Subject: Re: ancient technique
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully I didn't scare anybody, or was not too abstruse.
> >> > The writer gives for granted that _painting_ is an ancient
> >> > technique (tecnica antica, this is what he says), and is
> >> > talking of two performances that took place at a gallery at
> >> > the opening and closing of the exhibit. I was quite surprised
> >> > that painting could be considered _ancient_, and was asking
> >> > the List if you agree or disagree.
> >> >
> >> > Painting takes time, a longest time, and a lot of practice to
> >> > get to passable works. But this does not mean that painting
> >> > is not used any more, even if at galleries it is much easier
> >> > to find : installations, performances as in this case,
> >> > videos, photographs, collages, and what else. You often have
> >> > to go to a Museum to find some wonderful paintings.
> >> >
> >> > So it is true, that painting is an ancient technique. I just
> >> > didn't realize it until now.
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> >
> >> > ___or even an ancient technique like painting___
> >> >
> >> > I am translating, and here I am writing the above words.
> >> > Which evidently struck me. Who dis/agrees with this?
> >> > The topic pivots on performance, or contemporary arts in general.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Anny Ballardini
> >> > http://annyballardini.blogspot.com
> >> > http://www.fieralingue.it/modules.php?name=poetshome
> >> > The aim of the poet is to awaken emotions in the soul, not to
> >> > gather admirers.
> >> > Stalker, Andrei Tarkovsky
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Douglas Barbour
>Department of English
>University of Alberta
>Edmonton Alberta T6G 2E5 Canada
>(780) 436 3320
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
>
>The poet is ecstatic, having dreamt of this visit for weeks.
>He takes Erato's face, dribbling and wild, between his hands
>
>and kisses her gently as if she were a runaway teenager.
>
> Diana Hartog
|