Primitive art in the Western world: Collecting and preserving art, or looting and money making? - General Tiki

B bigbrotiki Tiki Socialite Tiki Island, above the Silverlake Joined: Mar 25, 2002 Posts: 11621	B bigbrotiki Posted posted on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:13 PM But the Greek and Roman art is now requested to be returned for its cultural value, not the original religious one.(You did say something to that effect). The relics of dead religions become cultural (and sentimental) symbols of a culture...at least until the religions are revived again! And I agree, the new generations should have the opportunity to learn about their own history. It seems to be a centuries old story that often OTHER nations appreciate some foreign people's art more than the people themselves who see it everyday. Only after it is gone, years and years after the fact, does it dawn on people that maybe it was part of their identity. As if someone else has to like what you see as common, before you can recognize its value yourself. It seems to be a maturing process: A culture from time to time has to shed itself from its tradition to reinvent itself. Another culture, that has a greater distance to the tradition, sees it for its inherent value and takes it over. Then, after "growing up", the original culture looks back at itself with a better understanding and wants it back. And about point two: I guess "world art" was not the right term, reaching to high. Or can a whole art form have a collective genius that influences the whole world and thus becomes part of it? [ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2009-03-28 23:33 ]

But the Greek and Roman art is now requested to be returned for its cultural value, not the original religious one.(You did say something to that effect). The relics of dead religions become cultural (and sentimental) symbols of a culture...at least until the religions are revived again! And I agree, the new generations should have the opportunity to learn about their own history.

It seems to be a centuries old story that often OTHER nations appreciate some foreign people's art more than the people themselves who see it everyday. Only after it is gone, years and years after the fact, does it dawn on people that maybe it was part of their identity. As if someone else has to like what you see as common, before you can recognize its value yourself.

It seems to be a maturing process: A culture from time to time has to shed itself from its tradition to reinvent itself. Another culture, that has a greater distance to the tradition, sees it for its inherent value and takes it over. Then, after "growing up", the original culture looks back at itself with a better understanding and wants it back.

And about point two: I guess "world art" was not the right term, reaching to high. Or can a whole art form have a collective genius that influences the whole world and thus becomes part of it?

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki 2009-03-28 23:33 ]

Post #443320 by bigbrotiki on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 11:13 PM