Why I no longer arts artifacts into artefactual fits and starts : religion/art/ritual/drama/routine
Why I no longer arts artifacts into artefactual fits and starts : religion/art/ritual/drama/routine
Aaron Wright's ‘Why I No Longer Call It “Art” ’#rockart #ritualactivity #pyrrho #outcomes
Update version at whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com
Aaron Wright’s ‘Why I No Longer Call It “Art” ’ (Archaeology Southwest, 2023-03-09) makes me leap over the planned but not yet written No. 1 post on the… —gap (& world & should) and jump into a sub-section. If only because Aaron does not at this stage, 11 Mar 2023, appear to have any comments. And I’ll probably go leave a comment or two after getting this post together.
First I outline my position before I read it, and then see how we get along. This is an experiment.
I’ve been strongly influenced by the perspective that what we call art or religion or belief systems or ritual or drama, the arts separate from practical practices, are late divisions enabled by more diverse economies and earlier they were all practices, that on a continuum of specialness and practicality was an added extra of latter-day modernity, or antique realpolitik. For this influence I cannot give particular references (partly why I am so excited to discover this, for me, on-topic post). The classic example being public rituals of the tragedy/sacrifice in city-states that are eventually turned into plays by the likes of Αἰσχύλος.
For me even ritual is a bit much, but the reference for this would be my recent neo-pyrrhonist readings. I regard the slashing together of categories religion/art/drama/ritual/arts as a neo-pyrrhonism re-suspension of habitual routines of thought (attachment/duhka/inbalance/beliefs with and without faith-in-faith). (I’d label this ritual activity as a post-neo-pyrrhonist practice.)
In archaeology the usual in-jokey trope for answering outsiders’ questions about some odd artefact “what is it used for?” is the knowing nod of ‘ritual’.
Well,” they nod dryly, “it would be used in some ritual practices.” Nod, nod.
This says everything because it says nothing. The joke is on us.
We no longer have the frame to ask how they build their world with practices that leave these artefacts buried in the dirt of ages.
By the way, all this means, when asking where art or religion come from, or if there is a gene for artiness or religiousness, are erroneous in frame.
Nod, nod.
I will argue (one of the reasons for this blog) that many of our frames —buried in the usages of the day— are outcomes, and that we mistake the things in the frame for caused-and-effect designed/made/created/built categories when we dig them up out of the dirt of daily routine/usage, and bring them into notice as things that now require an explanation which finds a first cause, or, at least, we presume that their current form has an origin or structural birth, when they are the end or even the middle of a process, and not it’s start. In-the-beginnings are an artefact of story-telling.
Many things are outcomes and not virgin births.
I thought this intro would be about 50 words.
Now to read it.
What did I learn?
About the conversation in North America, and how similar it is here in Australia.
What can I use?
It’s a fantastic personal exploration of the questions of frames and frameworks with reference to art, archaeology. etc.
What was I reminded about? What did I reminisce?
My own limited time with ‘first nations’ here in Australia. (I use that term aware it’s not popular everywhere here.)
Compare contrast
See the introduction above.
Reaction?
Not all the frames are lost. Listen.
Update version at whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com