Re: [-empyre-] Re: showing 3d art from Melentie Pandilovski

On 18.06.03 16:38, "roya.jakoby" <> wrote:

> The tradition of museum's and gallery culture as we know it today is founded
> in the exhibition of objects which were taken away from the various imperial
> colonies. Most of these objects had originally spiritual (cultural) meaning
> -  I like to call this cultural meaning aura, because it is far more
> meaningful than 'value' in this particular context. The objects usually lost
> their 'aura' when they were exhibited outside the culture that originally
> produced it (they lost their meaning when taken out of their cultural
> context), the only thing that was left of it was some abstract notion of
> value for the exhibiters and those who viewed it. Museums try to restore the
> original aura of objects constantly, they do this by various means, one of
> the methods is to add subjective and monetary value to the objects (and the
> artists, though that's a saga in itself).
I don't think there was anything in my analysis that is contrary to what you
say here. This still fits with the argument that the aura is projected by
the viewer onto the object and that it is a culturally determined (and thus
contingent) system of value. It doesn't matter what the origins of that
value is, whether religious, ideological or aesthetic. It is also possible,
even common, for objects existing within one culture and then shifted to
another to still have an aura, but an aura determined according to different
values. Thus we see the object change its value and meaning.

I was not seeking to make any moral judgement about this process or any
specific examples. Just point out that aura is a relative thing, culturally
determined, and not a function of the object.



Simon Biggs

Research Professor
Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, UK

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.