Post #443282 by Trader Tom on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 10:00 PM

Quote:

Bigbrotiki wrote:

To me it raises two questions:
1.) When does an object seize to be a religious one, and when does it become art?
2.) When does an art object become so universally relevant that it becomes "world art", and is no longer a certain people's domain.

These are tough questions, but I'll add my own musings.

The religious question first...

Just because an object is no longer used for a specific ceremony that it was created for does not mean that it has been divested of religious significance. For instance, there are marvelous communion sets made of precious metal that are not used for communion, but that nonetheless inspire religious awe when viewed. There are marvelous reliquaries that hold the remnants of saints and are no longer the focus of yearly mass pilgrimages, but they still inspire religious feelings in those individuals that visit them. Just because a religion has died out does not mean that an object loses its significance, either. Egypt and Greece have fought and are still fighting to have objects returned even though the ancient gods of Greece and Egypt are now just regarded as myth. Conservation and preservation are well and good, but many art pieces have a national significance and it seems tremendously unfair to rob people of the opportunity to see their national treasures so that only well-heeled westerners can appreciate them. Especially, when, with some cooperation, it might be possible to conserve or preserve items closer to their original locations. At the least, it would seem fairer if these items were loaned out in traveling collections so that past colonial intrusions/looting expeditions aren't stopping people from learning about their native history.

The universal relevance question now...

It seems to me that most of the art that is considered universally relevant is art that has been reproduced over and over until it sinks into our collective unconscious. Or pieces have had such an influence on history that by extension they have influenced all our individual lives. I'm sure there are lots of significant pieces that are of immense importance to a specific group or geography, but I think it's their INFLUENCE which is the key factor. I remember my freshman art professor lecturing about the distinction between "genius" and "intelligence"...and how someone may have a high IQ and be a member of MENSA, but that doesn't qualify them as a genius. A genius has lasting influence over their generation. I think this holds true for art. There may be art that is accomplished, beautiful, or significant, but to be universally relevant I think we have to see that its influence has been universally sweeping. Or, that it has the potential to be that influential if given the proper showcasing for future generations. If the INFLUENCE is undeniable for all the world, then that art has to be preserved and cared for in a manner that makes it available to everyone. Otherwise, why not leave it in the hands of the people that care about it the most?

Anyway, I'm sure books could be written about this, but those are just my thoughts off the top of my head.