With early forms of visual expression such as these we have little way of understanding their meaning or use. Much of our knowledge and understanding must depend upon formal analysis. Such analysis relies upon visual observation and questions such as the following:
What are the materials used?
How might the work have been made?
Is it in its original location? If so, could the site have some bearing upon its possible meaning or use?
If it is not in its original location can we determine where it would have been found?
Is the scale large or small? How might this have some bearing upon our experience of the work and our interpretation of its meaning?
What are the formal qualities of the work itself?
Does it resemble something we find in nature or is it abstract? If it does resemble a recognizable form, how true is it to the form it describes? Are there any abstract qualities?
Although seemingly rudimentary, questions of this sort often open up a range of further, complex issues which cannot always be resolved. As we proceed with our formal analysis we also have to check our assumptions to ensure that we don't impose our own values or beliefs upon our interpretation of the work. For example, the so-called Woman from Willendorf was, for many years, generally identified as the 'Venus of Willendorf'. The assumption behind this title was that the figure represents a goddess of fertility (based upon parallels between the physical features of the sculpture and later works known to be connected with ideas of 'goddess' and 'fertility'). Yet, today, we recognize that this assumption is problematic, especially when the name of a Roman goddess (Venus) is imposed upon the work (thereby associating it with the attributes of a deity drawn from an unrelated culture).
No comments:
Post a Comment