Skip to main content

'Not Praising, Burying': Cambridge Workshop

The acquisition of figure-decorated Greek pottery by museums and its display alongside fine art raises certain issues about the ancient status of such ancient objects. Even Athenian pots attributed to "high status" artists can be shown (from ancient trademarks) to have had relatively low status. So when a museum pays $1 million for an Athenian krater, does it distort our perception of ancient "art"?

Issues such as this were explored in Artful Crafts, co-authored with Professor Michael Vickers, formerly of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

A workshop on the theme will be held at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge on Friday 2 November. Details are available from the McDonald Institute website.
A workshop/symposium, to be understood as an artwork, that brings together archaeology, art practice, art history, philosophy, classics and history to interrogate assumptions about status, art and culture through classical Greek pottery will take place at the Fitwilliam Museum. This talk will describe this type of art practice and its processes. A few of the workshop participants including artist and Arts and Humanities Research Council Fellow in the Creative and Performing Arts with the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Alana Jelinek, archaeologist David Gill, and Kettles Yard's Sarah Campbell will present their impressions.
The following week (Thursday 8 November, 5.30 - 7.00 pm) there will be a discussion:
Alana Jelinek and Prof David Gill plus other participants will discuss the workshop process and the potential for relationships between art and archaeology and the potential of this methodology for art practice.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

kyri said…
hi david,i think the main problem archaeologists have is having antiquities labled as "art" in the first place.we can use your words for any other number of art mediums.
so when a museum pays $100,million for a van gogh
[who like some athenian painters was of "relatively low status and couldnt give his paintings away when he was alive] does it distort our perception of "art" of course it doesnt.
my mother commissioned a preist to paint an icon for our local greek orthodox church last year,she presented the icon to the church as a gift,it doesnt have any intrinsic value now and would probably fetch £100 at auction,it is the spiritual value that is important to her,as it was for the people that painted the byzantine icons of 1000 years ago that in some cases are now priceless,at the time they were painted they were anything but.
personally i believe the greek figured pots are exactly the same as these icons,they were painted to order by the deceased or the family of the deceased and placed in the tomb for spiritual reasons and its obvious that they were not high status objects but they were very high status when it come to the religeos beliefs of the people that were buried with them.
for me some of these everyday objects of the ancients are great works of art,whether they are sold for $1k or one million,why does a price tag ,that is created by economic markets of supply and demand distort our view.how many euphronios kraters are there,not many,so this is reflected in the price people are willing to pay now.whatever the value was 2000 years ago is totally irrelevant,is it not.
when i see a bed made by tracy emin sell as "art" for hundreds of thousands i cant get my head round it but when i see a volute krater with maybe 20 figures painted on it and it sells for 100k i can understand exactly why the buyer is paying the money.just like beuty is in the eye of the beholder,so is art,in whichever forms it comes in,including antiquties.
kyri.
kyri said…
hi david,i wrote the last comment after a 13hr shift.i wanted to say that i believe these pots were commissioned by the familys,not done by them.there must have been ready made examples but the really special ones are totally unique and these are the ones i believe were commissioned.we have plenty examples of votive steles commissoned,to everyones individual needs,why not pots.
why is it so hard for michael vickers and yourself to believe that some painters may have been famous and sought after above others.the ancients were not much different from ourselves,we have many people who desire a certain brand or work by a certain artist,i dont subscribe to the idea that everything in clay was a poor mans version of an example in silver or gold,just the shear size of some of these pots,volute kraters especially makes that idea to simplistic.
kyri.

Popular posts from this blog

The Getty Kouros: "The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance"

In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40), one of the delegates, a "distinguished" American museum curator, was quoted ("Greek sculpture; the age-old question", The Economist June 20, 1992):
The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance.
The recent discussions about the return of antiquities from North American museums to Italy and Greece may seem far removed from the acquisition of what appears to be a forged archaic Greek sculpture in the 1980s. However, there are some surprising overlaps.

The statue arrived at the Getty on September 18, 1983 in seven pieces. True (1993: 11) subsequently asked two questions:
Where was it found? As it was said to have been in a Swiss private collection for fifty years, why had it never been reassembled, though it was virtually complete?
A similar statue surfacing in the 1930s
A decision was taken to acquire the kouros in 1985. The official Getty line at the time (and reported in Russell…

Symes and a Roman medical set

Pierre Bergé & Associés of Paris are offering a rare Roman bronze medical set (16 May 2018, lot 236). Its recorded history is: "Ancienne collection Hishiguro, Tokyo, 1992". The catalogue entry helpfully informs us that the set probably came from a burial ("Cette trousse de chirurgien a probablement été découverte dans une sépulture ...").

The set appears to be the one that has been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogannis from an image in the Schinousa archive thus linking it to Robin Symes.

Given that the catalogue entry suggests that this piece came from a funerary context and that the history of the piece can only be traced back to 1992 (and not to 1970), questions are being raised about the set's origins.

What due diligence was conducted on the medical set prior to offering it for sale? Did Symes sell the set to Hishiguro? How did Symes obtain the set? Who sold it to him?

I understand that the appropriate authorities in France are being informed about the …

The Minoan Larnax and the Michael C. Carlos Museum

I was recently asked to comment on the acquisition of recently surfaced antiquities in Greece as part of an interview. One of the examples I gave was the Minoan larnax that was acquired by the Michael C. Carlos Museum. Although this piece has been discussed in the Greek press, the museum has not yet responded to the apparent identification in the Becchina archive.

Is the time now right for the Michael C. Carlos Museum or the wider authorities at Emory University to negotiate the return of this impressive piece so that it can be placed on display in a museum in Greece?