Thomas Dowson writes:
>For instance, if i said archaeology was still masculist in character,
>would anyone really think that I was saying there were no feminist
>archaeologies, or gender archaeologies or queer archaeologies. No.
Don't be so certain of that. Without at least mentioning that there were
other competing schools of thought, it is not unlikely that someone might
come to that conclusion.
and (snip)
>
>There appears to be an assumption that I have only read Clarke and
>Gombrich. I find the implication that only art historians can really
>know what is going on in art history to be somewhat disturbing.
If that's the assumption, it is because your own statements created that
impression. One does not have to be in a particular discipline to know what
is going on, but to throw out a couple of names without reference to other
schools of thought does re-enforce that idea. Also, I must confess that
when I have heard anthropologically trained archaeologists discuss
iconography they sound like art historians trained 30 years ago.
Louise
Louise A. Hitchcock, Ph.D.
Research Associate,
Institute of Archaeology, UCLA
and
Near Eastern Studies Center, UCLA
----------------------------------------
Lecturer,
Dept. of Anthropology,
California State University, Dominguez Hills
and Dept. of Art History, UCLA
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|